Not that I expect any better from the Herald, let’s be honest.
School in dilemma over prostitute teacher
I’m sorry, I think the headline you were looking for is
Teacher’s job threatened by moralising busybodies
And it doesn’t get better.
An Auckland primary school teacher moonlighting as a prostitute who also works in the sex industry will have to wait for a decision on her future employment by her school’s board of trustees.
The new teacher, a mother in her 30s with two children, has been working as a prostitute to supplement her income, the Herald on Sunday reported.
Moonlighting? I’m blogging this on a computer as we speak, so we definitely haven’t been transported back to the 1940s. Mother with two children? Relevant because … oh, right, it’s another stone to throw. The filthy jezebel, working as a prostitute when she has BABIES to care for, how dare she think of their welfare and being financially secure while taking part in legal, consensual sex work … I mean, THE SLUT!!!
The newspaper, which did not name the teacher or her school, said a parent told the teacher’s principal, who was balancing a possible negative reaction from parents with the woman’s right to work in a job which has been legal in New Zealand since 2003.
A parent … who just happened to find out that a teacher is working, off school grounds, outside of school hours, as a prostitute? Pull the other one, it’s got legs on. Funny, though, how the media are just slavering over Naughty Teacher Does Tricks, and not the obvious questions to be asked of the “source”.
“It’s a case of whether the outside employment is regarded as incompatible with the role of a teacher in terms of role-modelling and in terms of any policies that the board of trustees might have in place.”
Now, if there’s a contractual obligation on the teacher’s part not to seek secondary employment, or to seek approval for secondary employment, not a prob (assuming it’s imposed equally on all and isn’t just a stick for beating the prostitutes/life-drawing-class models/People I’m Uncomfortable With).
But “incompatible … in terms of role-modelling”? Pardon me, but it seems that no one had a single problem with this teacher’s standard of work or subjective “morality” until someone else brought it up. No one seems to even have known she had a second job, much less what it was, until someone else brought it up. And given it’s a primary school, it’s hardly a matter of “what if an 18-year-old pupil visits the local brothel and pays for an hour with the Stats teacher”.
Further down in the article, hilarious semantics games:
Prostitutes Collective national co-ordinator Catherine Healy said there were several teachers who had second jobs as prostitutes.
But it was the first time to [Frances Nelson’s] knowledge that a teacher had moonlighted as a prostitute.
I’m thinking one of these is a quote, and the other is the article’s author finding another excuse to slant this article with use of moralising language. Guess which is which and you may receive a small prize!*
And on the “oh, thanks for the update, jackass media” front:
Two years ago, an Auckland policewoman was disciplined after it was discovered she had an extra job as a sex-worker.
Police bosses said they would not have approved the job because it was seen as inappropriate and incompatible with policing. The woman kept her police job following an investigation.
Funny how FEMALE COP WORKS AS HOOKER IN SPARE TIME was splashed all over the front pages for a good few days when this first got reported … and yet it’s the first time I’ve seen any mention of the outcome of the investigation.
In conclusion: prostitution is legal in New Zealand. What a teacher does out of work is their own damn business. And The Herald sucks.
Hat tip: No Right Turn, who appears to have reached his daily intake of caffeine, if today’s post count is anything to go by.