NationStates Jolt Archive

Spain's government-run Women's Institute has labelled a 2008 calendar for low-cost airline Ryanair featuring bikini-wearing air hostesses as sexist and said it would be sending letters of complaint to Irish and EU authorities.

The institute, which defends women's rights, said that while the fact that the proceeds from calendar sales would go to charity was positive, the photographs "represent the stewardesses as sexual objects" and "reinforce discriminatory stereotypes."

"It is significant that that only women are used, in a sector in which there is a considerable percentage of men," the institute, which is part of the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry, said in a statement.

The calendars show the hostesses - one for each month - posing in bikinis on or outside airplanes. They are sold on Ryanair flights and on the Internet with proceeds going to the Irish disabled children's charity Angels Quest.

"We're not talking about morals or nudity here, it's simply how women are portrayed," institute spokeswoman Maria Jesus Ortiz said. "If there had been men in the calendar, I'm sure there would have been no controversy."

The Spanish union of consumers FACUA raised the issue Tuesday.

Ortiz said the institute would send a letter of complaint to the Irish Embassy in Spain and to the European Union's gender equality group. Ortiz added that the institute was seeking legal advice on what further action it might be able to take.

Ryanair had defended the calendar, saying the hostesses had posed voluntarily and that it was for a good cause.


(link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/complaints-over-ryanair-bikini-calendar/2007/12/13/1197135599444.html))

Just thought I'd toss that one out and see what reactions there are. :)

(link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/complaints-over-ryanair-bikini-calendar/2007/12/13/1197135599444.html))

Just thought I'd toss that one out and see what reactions there are. :)

Sold out! (https://www.ryanaircalendar.com/) The crowd has spoken.

The day that women are forced at gunpoint to do these things is the day it's degrading to women.

God, jolt is killing me!! I already switched to forums3.jolt because forums.jolt didn't load at all and even 3 is taking like 5 minutes. Gah!

Sorry. <<

Anyway, to the OP: Seriously, Ariddia, what kind of reactions do you expect? Some will say it's sexist, some will say it isn't. Seeing how most here are young males who just like to look at chicks in bikinis, no harm done, right?, and a good part of the crowd is "wtf, PC is going too far!!11!" the second option will get the majority of votes. See? Easy. :p

Either way, it's sexist. Duh.
It's like those calendars you used to see (and still do, but not as much anymore) in autoshops and on shopfloors, scantily clad or naked girls selling cars and power tools. I'm pretty sure that the US has calendars like that for guns, too.

Now unless I'm missing some vital connection between half-naked girl and car/power tool that does not have anything to do with the fact that guys like to stare at and jerk off to women objectived (there, she said it, omg!11!) like that, their only raison d'être is sexism, pure and simple.

Personally, I want to bash my head into the wall over the fact that it's stewardesses doing this. Stewardesses! Whom you'd think would be sick of everybody treating them as sexkittens just because they happen to be a waitress who works on planes instead of on the ground. Who still have to pass appearance standards of thin, young, and pretty before even being considered for the job (at least here, I think it's different in the US).

The day that women are forced at gunpoint to do these things is the day it's degrading to women.
Of course! Because sexism always involves being forced at gunpoint.

Totally saw that deleted post, Mr. "Hurrah!". :D

Personally, I want to bash my head into the wall over the fact that it's stewardesses doing this. Stewardesses! Whom you'd think would be sick of everybody treating them as sexkittens just because they happen to be a waitress who works on planes instead of on the ground. Who still have to pass appearance standards of thin, young, and pretty before even being considered for the job (at least here, I think it's different in the US).

Ahem... flight attendant.

Yeah, jolt's a bit laggy.

...I'm pretty sure that the US has calendars like that for guns, too...


It's called the "Stacked & Packed" Calendar :D

There is nothing wrong, and where can I buy it? :P

Ahem... flight attendant.
Zomg, I suck! Subverting my own argument! (Actually... more like illustrating it. Nice. :D). I was totally sitting here all "wait, that's not the PC word, is it? But I can't think of another one. Hmmm. Maybe I'm confusing this with another job that has a PC version now..." *stupid* <<

Oh, and jolt is better now. For now...

It's called the "Stacked & Packed" Calendar :D
I'm so surprised.

Anyway, to the OP: Seriously, Ariddia, what kind of reactions do you expect?

That's what I'm waiting to see. :p

Now unless I'm missing some vital connection between half-naked girl and car/power tool that does not have anything to do with the fact that guys like to stare at and jerk off to women objectived (there, she said it, omg!11!) like that, their only raison d'être is sexism, pure and simple.

Of course. It's simply grabbing men's attention and trying to make sure they remember the product (cars, RyanAir...) and find it "attractive". It's playing on their inability to think "Hey, wait a minute... Am I buying this just because there's a girl in a bikini in the advert? What's the connection?".

Does it popularise objectifying perceptions on women? Yes. On the other hand, what do they hope to achieve by writing complaint letters? All they're doing is giving the calendar more publicity. (Which, in this case, isn't such a bad thing, since it's for charity.)

Now... I think I've lost track of whatever point I was trying to make. :p Something along the lines of it not really being a big enough issue to kick up a fuss about, no doubt.

Totally saw that deleted post, Mr. "Hurrah!". :D

Shhh... :p

http://www.todayfm.com/Article.asp?id=518289

Come on its for a charity.Like the one above.I mean will these people grow up.

PS. One of my mates posed for the calender above.

That's what I'm waiting to see. :p



Of course. It's simply grabbing men's attention and trying to make sure they remember the product (cars, RyanAir...) and find it "attractive". It's playing on their inability to think "Hey, wait a minute... Am I buying this just because there's a girl in a bikini in the advert? What's the connection?".

Does it popularise objectifying perceptions on women? Yes. On the other hand, what do they hope to achieve by writing complaint letters? All they're doing is giving the calendar more publicity. (Which, in this case, isn't such a bad thing, since it's for charity.)

Now... I think I've lost track of whatever point I was trying to make. :p Something along the lines of it not really being a big enough issue to kick up a fuss about, no doubt.

For one, if nobody had ever kicked up a fuss about something "insignificant" like that, we'd still be stuck in the 50s, gender equality wise.
And do you really want to be saying "Sure it's sexist, but they really shouldn't have gone and said so out loud"?

For another, that's not even how you voted. There isn't even an option for that. You voted for "there's nothing wrong with the calendar". So maybe all that rationalizing is just that?

I :fluffle: spanish government.

Of course! Because sexism always involves being forced at gunpoint.

Of course indeed! Because one calendar with attractive women in bikinis automatically means that all women are completely under orders of men, forced to slave away barefoot and pregnant and unable to leave or make any of their own decisions.

In modernized countries, no one forces women to do this. Anyone who does is a sexist individual and a control freak. For that matter, forcing people to do something and removing all choice is not sexist - it's a simple case of exercising excessive power.

Did that happen here? I'm inclined to say no. If women really wanted to, they could put a stop to it. They could change the culture of femininity, stop putting these things out, and all but force men to play by their rules.

Oh, right, not all women would do that, because women are free to make their own decisions. These women decided to pose for a bikini calendar. Any self-described feminist who makes a big deal over a woman exercising her own free will to pose for a bikini calendar just because they don't like the choice she's making is no better than a sexist pig who forces her into the kitchen. There, I said it.

For one, if nobody had ever kicked up a fuss about something "insignificant" like that, we'd still be stuck in the 50s, gender equality wise.
And do you really want to be saying "Sure it's sexist, but they really shouldn't have gone and said so out loud"?

No. And you should know me well enough not even to suggest such a thing.

Comparing this to gender discrimination in the 50s is also a fairly weak analogy.

It very much depends what the protest letters are trying to achieve. If they're trying to ban a calendar being sold for charity just because it has pictures of women in bikinis in it, then that's quite frankly absurd. On the other hand, they (the protests) may do some good by contributing to a debate on the objectification of women.

I doubt it, though. By protesting against the sale of a calendar intended for charity, they risk shooting themselves in the foot (by giving people the impression that they care more about their own issue than about providing aid to disabled children).


For another, that's not even how you voted. There isn't even an option for that. You voted for "there's nothing wrong with the calendar". So maybe all that rationalizing is just that?

I don't think it's fundamentally wrong. I can understand people finding it objectionable, and I wouldn't buy such a calendar (because a) I'm not interested in hanging up pictures of scantily clad women who are complete strangers to me on my walls, and b) because I'm personally not particularly fond of the idea of presenting women in a way that may popularise negative perceptions). But would I argue in favour of such things being banned? Definitely not.

I'm a feminist by any definition. But I don't think you want to be arguing that women should be pressured into not doing what they want with their own body. Of course I don't know the exact conditions in which this calendar was made. But I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that the women who took part were not being coerced. Maybe they wanted to help the cause of charity. Maybe they thought it would be fun. Hell, maybe they wanted to show themselves off. Maybe they even saw this as a type of women's lib: a great big "up yours" to moral conservatives. Perhaps a bit of all that thrown in together.

Does it have unfortunate consequences to some extent? Yes. Conversely, you could argue that, in this particular case at least, it's a show of women saying they're not bound by puritanical moral codes.

Whatever way you look at it, I think any sensible person's reaction should be a little more nuanced than pure indignation.

If these women did it knowingly and willingly consented to this, I fail to see what the problem is. Is it degrading for the women involved if they did it by choice? If they did it knowing it was for charity?

On the other hand, they (the protests) may do some good by contributing to a debate on the objectification of women.

Hands up all those that see woman as objects?

Of course indeed! Because one calendar with attractive women in bikinis automatically means that all women are completely under orders of men, forced to slave away barefoot and pregnant and unable to leave or make any of their own decisions.

In modernized countries, no one forces women to do this. Anyone who does is a sexist individual and a control freak. For that matter, forcing people to do something and removing all choice is not sexist - it's a simple case of exercising excessive power.

Did that happen here? I'm inclined to say no. If women really wanted to, they could put a stop to it. They could change the culture of femininity, stop putting these things out, and all but force men to play by their rules.

Oh, right, not all women would do that, because women are free to make their own decisions. These women decided to pose for a bikini calendar. Any self-described feminist who makes a big deal over a woman exercising her own free will to pose for a bikini calendar just because they don't like the choice she's making is no better than a sexist pig who forces her into the kitchen. There, I said it.

This post has my endorsement.

Hands up all those that see woman as objects?

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you denying that there are some men who see women as little better than things? I've met some. Unfortunately, they do exist.

If these women did it knowingly and willingly consented to this, I fail to see what the problem is. Is it degrading for the women involved if they did it by choice? If they did it knowing it was for charity?
The problem is only in the minds of a few sad individuals who think they know better than everyone else and think that everyone should live by their PC ideals. Unfortunately they seem to be quite influential in the Spanish government, or at least their "Women's Institute" arm. It strikes me as making a big fuss over nothing. I think governments should deal with slightly more important things than calendars with women in bikinis. Groups like that Women's Institute should lose government funding if they moan about such irrelevant rubbish.

Anyway, it's for a good cause.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you denying that there are some men who see women as little better than things? I've met some. Unfortunately, they do exist.

Why would I deny such a thing? I'm trying to get a quick indication of the percentage though.

Why would I deny such a thing? I'm trying to get a quick indication of the percentage though.

Ah. Well, carry on, then. Take no notice of me. :p

No. And you should know me well enough not even to suggest such a thing.

Comparing this to gender discrimination in the 50s is also a fairly weak analogy.
She's not comparing the calender itself but rather the practice of 'being quiet.' Which is to say that the calender and '50s conditions are equal, but rather the approach to dealing with them (not saying anything) are similar.

It very much depends what the protest letters are trying to achieve. If they're trying to ban a calendar being sold for charity just because it has pictures of women in bikinis in it, then that's quite frankly absurd. On the other hand, they (the protests) may do some good by contributing to a debate on the objectification of women.

I doubt it, though. By protesting against the sale of a calendar intended for charity, they risk shooting themselves in the foot (by giving people the impression that they care more about their own issue than about providing aid to disabled children).
It's the discourse, of course. They even said that if there had been men in the calender or a mens calender it would be a different thing. In fact there are 'men of' and 'women of' calenders every year. But in a field where the wounds are still fresh, lawsuits in the US about appearance standards of stewardesses (and I mean stewardesses in this case, not flight attendants) are still fresh. It is a fetishsized profession and a bikini calender without a male part to it furthers that fetishization. An organization on sexism has a duty to call it out, and they did it as carefully as possible. They support that it's for charity and merely pointed out that it was a little one sided.

When you look at the relatively mild response by them I think you might find the over-reaction coming from the other direction. This of course depends on what they and their lawyers do next.



Of course indeed! Because one calendar with attractive women in bikinis automatically means that all women are completely under orders of men, forced to slave away barefoot and pregnant and unable to leave or make any of their own decisions.

In modernized countries, no one forces women to do this. Anyone who does is a sexist individual and a control freak. For that matter, forcing people to do something and removing all choice is not sexist - it's a simple case of exercising excessive power.

Did that happen here? I'm inclined to say no. If women really wanted to, they could put a stop to it. They could change the culture of femininity, stop putting these things out, and all but force men to play by their rules.

Oh, right, not all women would do that, because women are free to make their own decisions. These women decided to pose for a bikini calendar. Any self-described feminist who makes a big deal over a woman exercising her own free will to pose for a bikini calendar just because they don't like the choice she's making is no better than a sexist pig who forces her into the kitchen. There, I said it.

This is as limited in scope as trying to use rap lyrics to justify using the 'n' word. Women no more meet on Tuesdays to set an agenda then men do, and as such 'because a woman did it' would no more be a reason for other women to accept it than it would be 'because a man did it.' There is no hive mind, and gasp and surprise! women disagree on all kinds of things.

To jump to 'they weren't being forced' is to fundamentally misunderstand the argument. No one is even implying that these women were forced into bikinis and forced to pose. To suggest so is willful ignorance. But one woman's choice in a case like this affects all women, and women who disagree are thus making their opinions on the subject known. The women who posed don't mind if you look at them as objects. Others descent. That is the discussion. To insist that all women agree to not be objects or no argument can be made is small minded.

Sorry for this intrusion of reality but basically sex sells.

Sorry for this intrusion of reality but basically sex sells.

What do you think this adds?

I don't think it's demeaning. But they really should have had a second calendar featuring men, then they could have made double the money for charity and avoided any controversy.

This is as limited in scope as trying to use rap lyrics to justify using the 'n' word.

I don't see that a choice of vocabulary needs any moral justification. Or whatever justification you seem to want to need here.

But one woman's choice in a case like this affects all women

My fat, hairy white ass it does. Here you were saying women don't have a hive mind - now you basically say that they do, because apparently what one woman does reflects - somehow - on every single woman. Probably that collective neural link, eh?

This of course depends on what they and their lawyers do next.

[...]

To jump to 'they weren't being forced' is to fundamentally misunderstand the argument. No one is even implying that these women were forced into bikinis and forced to pose. To suggest so is willful ignorance. But one woman's choice in a case like this affects all women, and women who disagree are thus making their opinions on the subject known. The women who posed don't mind if you look at them as objects. Others descent. That is the discussion.

Agreed.

Sorry for this intrusion of reality but basically sex sells.

Yes, we've kind of established that and moved on, thank you.

I don't think it's demeaning. But they really should have had a second calendar featuring men, then they could have made double the money for charity and avoided any controversy.

That's... a remarkably good idea, actually. I don't think anyone could have objected to that. Well, except conservatives.

I don't see that a choice of vocabulary needs any moral justification. Or whatever justification you seem to want to need here.



My fat, hairy white ass it does. Here you were saying women don't have a hive mind - now you basically say that they do, because apparently what one woman does reflects - somehow - on every single woman. Probably that collective neural link, eh?

You are aware of this thing called 'media,' yes? Of representation?

You clearly didn't understand before you posted. That statement in no way implies a hive mind, but rather issues of representation. Please read it again.

Here you were saying women don't have a hive mind - now you basically say that they do, because apparently what one woman does reflects - somehow - on every single woman. Probably that collective neural link, eh?

That's not at all what he was trying to say.

He was pointing out that the actions of some women will influence the perceptions that some men have on all women.

The women are getting paid to look at a camera in what people would usually wear on a beach...

GETTING PAID TO WAEAR BEACHWEAR?!

whats wrong with that?

http://www.todayfm.com/Article.asp?id=518289

Come on its for a charity.Like the one above.I mean will these people grow up.

PS. One of my mates posed for the calender above.
Hawt.

Which one is your mate?

Yes, because scantily clad air hostesses is going to lead to huge problems.

The problem lies in the current culture of the PC Nazi more than anything else. Earlier in the year, we had a calender featuring scantily-clad nurses (made by actual nurses) which was selling for charity have almost the exact same stupid complaints about it.

Unless they were forced to do this, there's nothing wrong with it, and the people who disagree with that can simple choose not to buy the calender. There we go.

http://www.todayfm.com/Article.asp?id=518289

Come on its for a charity.Like the one above.I mean will these people grow up.

PS. One of my mates posed for the calender above.

Heh.

I'd be curious to know how many people object to that calendar.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you denying that there are some men who see women as little better than things? I've met some. Unfortunately, they do exist.
Yes, well in countries like Saudi Arabia, where such calenders are forbidden, women have to go around not showing an inch of bare flesh every day.

I don't see how that's any better.

Yes, we've kind of established that and moved on, thank you.



Good but not sure you have really moved on though.

/meh

Personally, I think anyone who is getting all worked up about this (or the guy calender that Srebmuns linked to needs to take a couple of deep breaths and just chill out.

If you don't like it, don't buy it

Yes, well in countries like Saudi Arabia, where such calenders are forbidden, women have to go around not showing an inch of bare flesh every day.

I don't see how that's any better.

That was my point. Well, part of my point. :p

You are aware of this thing called 'media,' yes?

Oh gee you think?

Of representation?

But from that angle, might as well just censor everything. Because we wouldn't want media - that fair and just institution designed to provide an accurate representation of people - to do anything that might be construed as inaccurate or mis-representative!

You clearly didn't understand before you posted. That statement in no way implies a hive mind, but rather issues of representation.

You say potato, I say potahto. Evidently, every woman on earth ("all women," you said - or am I just too bloody ignorant to comprehend that too?) is affected by this fucking advertisement. Apparently it's just about the most important airline advertisement in the history of the world.

Please read it again.

I did. I stand by what I said.

I did. I stand by what I said.

Well, then, we are at cross purposes. You are responding to an argument I have not made.

Yeah.... it's sexist. On the other hand, as long as the models chose to do it of their own free will, I see nothing wrong with it. Calendars or no calendars, sexism is going to exist as long as there are different sexes, just like racism will exist as long as there are different races, and so on.

"We're not talking about morals or nudity here, it's simply how women are portrayed," institute spokeswoman Maria Jesus Ortiz said. "If there had been men in the calendar, I'm sure there would have been no controversy

Then why is there controversy over women?

Generally speaking, most people either want to see scantily clad men OR women. The list of people who would enjoy both is a rather small demographic to target. :p

Oh, right, not all women would do that, because women are free to make their own decisions. These women decided to pose for a bikini calendar. Any self-described feminist who makes a big deal over a woman exercising her own free will to pose for a bikini calendar just because they don't like the choice she's making is no better than a sexist pig who forces her into the kitchen. There, I said it.I think the idea is more that the makers of the calendar chose to 'objectify' women, not that the women chose to be 'objectified'.

I don't think it's demeaning. But they really should have had a second calendar featuring men, then they could have made double the money for charity and avoided any controversy.Second.

Well, then, we are at cross purposes. You are responding to an argument I have not made.

Oh, shut up, prude.

The only poll option for me is "other," because I think the only reasonable response is to note that this calendar is quite obviously sexist, but that it is dwarfed in its offensiveness by several million other examples of sexism, so I can hardly work up any "incoherent fury" over it. (Nor, from the sound of it, did the people protesting it. They seem to be pretty sane and reasonable about the whole business.)

I approve of the fact that it's for charity, but, honestly, female flight attendants are still quite commonly seen as nothing more than sex objects, and this sort of thing really doesn't help with that. If Ryanair had done a corresponding male calendar, I think it would have helped a lot - but they didn't. They chose actively to perpetuate the view that a stewardess's job is to be flying eye candy, and I think that was a poor decision on their part.

I don't see how it's sexist. Nothing about the calendar is demeaning or degrading, nor does it make discriminatory comments about any gender.

I don't think it's demeaning. But they really should have had a second calendar featuring men, then they could have made double the money for charity and avoided any controversy.

Controversy is good for business. The calendar wouldn't have had this much publicity without the controversy.

Then why is there controversy over women?

Generally speaking, most people either want to see scantily clad men OR women. The list of people who would enjoy both is a rather small demographic to target. :p

As always, you make sense. :p

(link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/complaints-over-ryanair-bikini-calendar/2007/12/13/1197135599444.html))

Just thought I'd toss that one out and see what reactions there are. :)

What's really wrong here is the fact that there is such a thing as the "European Union's gender equality group" (how about a more appropriate name, like "Ministry of Love"?), let alone that such a group would stick its nose into a free-speech issue.

Freedom of expression, whether in calendars or elsewhere, is of the highest importance. Elimination of "sexist" expression, on the other hand, is of no importance whatsoever.

Badly done, Spain. Grow up.

I totally want to fly ryanair now.

(link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/complaints-over-ryanair-bikini-calendar/2007/12/13/1197135599444.html))

Just thought I'd toss that one out and see what reactions there are. :)

I think it is at least a little sexist. They should have made a calender of men as well, along with a mixed calender.

(link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/complaints-over-ryanair-bikini-calendar/2007/12/13/1197135599444.html))

Just thought I'd toss that one out and see what reactions there are. :)

The only thing sexist in the calender is that women have to wear tops. Other than that, I have no problem with it. Not that I would buy it, though.

I do not complain when I see "Stud" calenders; I just roll my eyes.

What about old people?

Like in Calendar Girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_Girls) (don't worry it's a wiki link).