The Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) is looking for "specialized" volunteers to be flower bearers, medal bearers and presenter escorts at the Flower and Victory Ceremonies in Whistler. These volunteers will "be part of a life-changing experience" during the Games. They'll be "on TV" and "up close with the athletes."
But - what does "specialized" mean? According to the website, it means "female." And, according to some applicants, not just any female will do. Apparently, VANOC is specifically looking for "fit" women, between the ages of 25 and 32. In other words, it appears that young men and older, "unfit" women, among others (including, perhaps, persons with disabilities), need not apply.
It's hard to decide what is more offensive: the apparent exclusion of applicants on the basis of age, gender and, perhaps, disability - or the discriminatory overtones of apparently wanting only young, fit (and, presumably, attractive) women in these particular roles.
Further evidence, it seems, that no one told VANOC that discrimination is prohibited in British Columbia.
Posts
5 comments:
It is the Olympics so the "fit" criterion does not seem out of line. And disabled persons can certainly be fit as anyone who has watched the Paralympics knows.
As to the age criterion - while it is rather dumb as the age of the athletes is broader than that, which makes one question the rationale for the criteria as a whole - is it people that will look sexy on TV. In that case condemnation is justified.
It appears that they've changed the written criteria, thanks to your post. Whether or not the unwritten criteria have changed . . .
Thanks for the heads up, David. But it looks like the "female" requirmenent is still on the site: http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/work-and-volunteer/volunteer-opportunities/games-time-volunteers/current-opportunities/-/77816/a5ttwp/index.html
As far as I know, the "fit" and age requirements were never written on the site. But I've been told that they were communicated by phone to some interested applicants.
Doesn't the fact that these are volunteer positions change things a bit? I'm not sure about the law, but it makes me a lot less worried about whether it's bad discrimination.
Everyone needs to make a living; not everyone needs to be a volunteer who gets to be on TV during the Olympics. And while people's feelings may be hurt about not being considered for these positions, it's not like the requirements don't have a rational connection to the position.
Take a look at a restaurant like Earl's. There's no doubt that some of its success comes from hiring hot waitresses. Should that business model be prohibited because it depends in part on young and attractive waitresses? What about modelling? Strip clubs?
I'd rather see hot chick flower bearers and medal presenters than old people or fat people or less mean ways of putting the people that the criteria are intended to exclude. And I think most people would agree with that sentiment (perhaps substituting hot dudes for hot chicks), as long as they're not self-conscious about appreciating youth and beauty, even in the background.
There's also the angle that the Olympics really are about youth and beauty if you go back to the greek ideal. Maybe the conflation of youth and beauty with goodness and athletics isn't exactly a politically correct view today, but it's a pretty natural one for a lot of humans that was elevated to philosophy by the Greeks.
AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,a片,AV女優,聊天室,情色,性愛
Post a Comment