Saturday, January 20, 2018

The Lingerie Football League Video Game Isn’t Just Degrading to Women

June 29, 2012 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

Well folks, I’m at a loss for words. I didn’t think that it could get any worse than the LFL, the Lingerie Football League. I was proven wrong this morning when WWE developer, Yuke’s announced a video game using the LFL license. We need to recognize this upcoming game for what it is: Degrading to female athletes and degrading to gamers.

Let’s face it, people don’t but Leisure Suit Larry for the rich gameplay or the compelling story; in the same way, people don’t watch the Lingerie Football League for the football. The League, in which women wear only underwear and football pads, began in 2003 as a pay-per-view event airing annually on Super Bowl Sunday. In 2009, the LFL had its first 20-week season and has been growing since then. Businessweek estimates that it is one of the fatest growing sporting events in North America. Despite its success, the league does not provide health insurance for the players and, since 2011, does not pay them. Most of the athletes just want to play football and will do or wear anything to participate professionally in the sport they love. The LFL makes women into sex objects, does not compensate them for injuries sustained in a full contact sport, tells them that the only way for a sport to be interesting is to play in their underwear, and now, after all of that, hopes that lingerie football will be considered a legitimate sport by releasing a video game.

The upcoming game degrades its target audience almost as much as the LFL degrades its athletes. First and foremost, I can only imagine what the multitude of female gamers will think of this title; I imagine that they will feel isolated and embarrassed. In addition, associating the LFL with video games supports the stereotype of gamers as being sex-crazed adolescents or socially awkward losers. This game will simply tarnish the public perception of people who play video games; we do not need to give our critics another reason to look down on us. So many people have fought to bring video games to a wider audience and, thereby, eliminate the stereotypes brought on by games like Leisure Suit Larry and Custer’s Revenge. We are better than this.

I can see no good that will come from the LFL video game. It supports an organization that insultes its players, it supports a long-held stereotype associated with gamers, it isolates female gamers, it sets back video game culture and prevents it from being accepted by the public at large, it tells female athletes that the only way to make a sport interesting is for them to take their clothes off. Gamers, I ask you, please do not stand for this. Do not support the Lingerie Football League Video Game.

(LFL 360 via gamesradar)

Relevant to your interests

Unconventional school which lets children call teachers by first …

June 28, 2012 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

Eleanor Harding

16:16 EST, 27 June 2012


06:33 EST, 28 June 2012

Its free and easy ethos was once seen as the way forward in secondary education.

But nearly 40 years after Stantonbury Campus opened, parents now seem to be less than enthused about its ‘liberal’ approach to teaching.

The comprehensive school, which has no uniform and lets pupils call teachers by their first names, is facing a boycott from families who would prefer to send their children to traditional schools.

School with a difference: Stantonbury Campus school, in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, has relaxed rules

School with a difference: Stantonbury Campus school, in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, has relaxed rules

And in an effort to win them back,
governors have decided  to scrap the relaxed clothing policy and
introduce a uniform from September.

The decision comes amid nationwide concern about the lack of discipline in today’s schools.

Once a successful school, Stantonbury
was given a notice to improve from Ofsted last year amid concerns about
underachievement and behaviour.

Principle Chris Williams said parents are concerned the school has no uniform

Principle Chris Williams said parents are concerned the school has no uniform

In a statement issued by governors,
principal Chris Williams admitted parents were now sending their
children elsewhere because of the lack of uniform.

He said: ‘Most primary and secondary
children wear uniform for school and take pride in this – personal
presentation is a part of education.

‘Heads of our partner primary schools
tell us that parents are often concerned that the Campus does not have a
uniform and that some choose to send their children to other secondary
schools because of this.’

The school, in Milton Keynes,
Buckinghamshire, was dubbed a pioneer of the educational revolution when
it opened its doors in 1974 with ‘relaxed’ rules.

But governors admit this is no longer
what parents want following 500 responses to a consultation about
whether to introduce a dress code for children aged 11 to 14.

The uniform will consist of a white
polo shirt and jumper, with new rules for older pupils banning short
skirts and offensive logos.

Pupils will also be banned from wearing anything that might be regarded as ‘party’ clothes.

The school, which has around 2,000 pupils, is split into four Halls which function independently as mini schools.

In 2006 it was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted but was downgraded to ‘inadequate’ last year.

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

I went to Stantonbury and found the relationship with teachers really positive thanks to the first name basis and was extremely happy to escape wearing a uniform.
What this article fails to consider is that Stantonbury Campus has always been a uniform-free school where pupils refer to teachers by their first name and has had very good results in the past. The lack of uniform would only account for poor results if the rule had been introduced at the same time as results began to get worse.
I think a much more realistic view of the situation is that the governmental pressure on schools to attain more and more unrealistic targets for all students has strangled the positive and successful approach to teaching Stantonbury Campus was once praised for and forced it to bend into the clearly-flawed mould the state imposes on education, which i’m sure has more to do with children receiving inadequate attention than poor teaching, which in my experience was great.

If you think all kids do their best in an oppressive environment, think again.
Discipline can be a cover for poor or irrelevant teaching.
Thr three R’s should be relevance, relevance and relevance. If its irrelevant the pupils time is wasted.

i dont see why not wearing a uniform would affect performance, it has more to do with the teachers and pupils themselves than what they are wearing or what they are called

Back in my day the teacher call you by your surname…how times have changed

Yep, this is the school that branded my son lazy. Who refused to believe he was dyslexic.He left this school nearly 10 years ago with no qualifications Far from it being friendly and on first name terms the staff were unapproachable and If you didnt want to follow their way of teaching you were left to one side and forgotten. My son was offcially diagnosed as dyslexic and at the age of 21 diagnosed as Aspergers. As he had received no help at Stantonbury his qualifications were zero. Thanks to MK College he managed to rebuld things and is now studying in London for a BA. One rumour in MK is that they want to flatten this school and build another superstore – it would certainly get my vote and a shout of good riddence. Apologies I have waited 10 years to say something about this establishment.

We just got a new 14 million pound Academy built. But when ofstead came we still only got a good rating, which is below both satifactory and excellent.
- Rachel, England, 28/06/2012 09:21
A good rating is above satisfactory and below outstanding/excellent.


We just got a new 14 million pound Academy built. But when ofstead came we still only got a good rating, which is below both satifactory and excellent.

My son went to a small school where everyone is called by their first name. Rules were tight and discipline was well enforced in a positive way. Everyone, including myself, has a healthy respect for that principal and the “first name” issue never affected performance or behaviour in the school. It depends on whether the teachers command respect or not – it really makes no difference what they’re called.

The word is spelled “princiPAL” .

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.