I just wrote a massive response and then t'internet deleted it.
Once again I damn you to hell, Technology. Anyway, my main thoughts
on the Owlettes were:

1) It doesn't outrage me massively simply because this kind of stuff
is all over the place at the moment, and it isn't as degrading or
blatently misogynistic as lads mags or porn. BUT

2) It can be used as an example of current society's view of women
as sex objects. We are judged and valued on our appearance and our
ability to sexually appeal to and please men and this often
overrides our other qualities and abilities (witness the focus on
female MPs' appearance, Cherie Booth's hair, Nut's campaign against
the Lawn Tennis Association's decision to ban skimpy female tennis
outfits from Wimbledon - who cares how well they play, we just want
to see some T and A). Here, women are being portrayed as sex
objects and used as sex objects to raise money and support for a
male sports team. Why do the female supporters have to be judged on
their sexiness? Why does the fundraising calender have to be based
on sexiness, rather than sport - why not do a calender of the female
Sheffield Wednesday team in action? No attempt is made to promote
women as active, talented sportswomen - once again they are just sex
objects and the best way they can raise money and support the male
players is by posing 'sexily' for them.

3) But sex sells and it's all for a good cause! (as I'm sure the
creator
will cry) Well I am SICK of women's bodies being equated with sex.
As long as our bodies - us - = sex, many men will still think it is
OK to sexually harrass and abuse us, and each and every venture, or
advertising campaign, or magazine, or film that enhances women's sex
object status helps reinforce the idea that women = sex = fair game
(notice the legs open poses, the arse out poses - 'penetrate me').
Is this a concept that Sheffield Wednesday want to be associated
with?

4) But the women CHOSE to do it. Yes, they did, and I don't blame
them. When everything around us tells us that the best thing we can
be is sexually attractive, we will of course take every opportunity
to show that we are, and conform to the standard definition of
sexually attractive, which generally mean submissively displaying
ourselves for men (see legs open, arses out poses again). This
deson't mean that sexual objectification of women isn't harmful to
women and society in general.

Finally, the growth in sexual objctification of women can be seen as
a backlash against the righst women gained in the twentieth
century. If we can no longer (officially) be kept subservient/ as
second class citizens by paying us less, preventing us from voting,
restricting our access to certain jobs, then we can be kept in our
place by placing all the focus on our bodies and our sexual
attractiveness, by holding up airbrushed sexbot images for us to
aspire to and focuing on our ability to conform to these images to
the exclusion of all other things - hence the focus on sexy female
supporters rather than active, sporty, talented female football
players.

In short (ha!) the Owlettes concept does nothing positive for women
or football and, in a truly equal society, would be viewed as
backwards, sexist and wholly unnecessary.

Apologies for the length, we all know how I have a tendency to
gabble on! Hope there is some useful stuff there amongst the waffle.

Laura