Cheerleaders

[727Goon]

Alright so as much as Penn and Teller are fucking racists, sexists, and general dumbasses, they did a good piece on cheerleading (sort of). My girlfriend used to cheer and I used to make fun of her like "Oh are you going to practice for cheerleading or a real sport" and shit but this video definitely was eye opening for me. One thing that was annoying was the demonization of the feminists, and honestly I don't know many feminists but I doubt most feminists think its sexist and shouldnt be a sport or whatever. Anyways something definitely needs to be done about this shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AvAiUFFCyo&feature=related

[Political_Chucky]

Honestly I never really considered cheer leading a sport for the fact there is no real competition unless its being at one of those events where judges declare who is best. Besides that though, I've always figured it was a pretty challenging and athletic, something way beyond what I can do anyways. You don't wanna mess with someone who can front kick that high :sleep:

[727Goon]

I mean in all honesty I never really did either, especially since I played football we'd always like joke with the cheerleaders cause they thought their practice was hard, but it's not really about that, the fact is they're gonna get fucked over and denied funding and saftey standards unless it's officially considered a sport.

[TC]

We're talking about an activity where attractive young women and girls, typically in very short skirts and midriff revealing tops, are put on display to engage with the crowd to cheer on and celebrate male athletes who compete with each other and are normally celebrated both collectively and individually as achieving something.

You bet its sexist. The fact that plenty of women don't mind participating in sexist institutions that they find personally rewarding for a variety of reasons doesn't make them not-sexist, it just means that they are not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy.

[727Goon]

What about male cheerleaders?

And fuck that nigga just cause you think its sexist dont mean that they should have bullshit saftey standards and get injured more than any other female athletes.

[Political_Chucky]

What about male cheerleaders?

And fuck that nigga just cause you think its sexist dont mean that they should have bullshit saftey standards and get injured more than any other female athletes.

Calm your horses dude. No need to fuck any "nigga."

I didn't see in the video though where it benefits from having this law change cheer leading to a sport? If it is declared a sport or not, how does stop injuries like this from happening? My guess, it doesn't. There are still ways to avoid injuries, by using proper techniques and being as safe as possible. That of course is not going to prevent ALL injuries, but just by declaring cheer leading a sport isn't really going to change anything besides where it is categorized.



We're talking about an activity where attractive young women and girls, typically in very short skirts and midriff revealing tops, are put on display to engage with the crowd to cheer on and celebrate male athletes who compete with each other and are normally celebrated both collectively and individually as achieving something.

You bet its sexist. The fact that plenty of women don't mind participating in sexist institutions that they find personally rewarding for a variety of reasons doesn't make them not-sexist, it just means that they are not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy.

I need some things straightened out for myself because I'm a bit confused. What makes this sexist? Maybe the fact that predominately women cheering men for a sport, but I don't think schools prohibit males from participating and in fact, even though I do see more discrimination towards males who become cheerleaders, sensible people look at male cheerleaders who participate as pretty tough. I know many women don't like to be projected as an object of the other sex, but not all women feel that way when putting on those skirts and lipstick. I don't see how you can really deem cheer leading as sexist as it doesn't undermine women socially, isn't specifically for women, and is a healthy, may I dare say, sport. I don't always see the most attractive women in cheerleading either in my opinion, I think that is a bit of a stereo-type that all cheerleaders are attractive. I think there its half my opinion, and the other half a bit of truth in that.

Now people who use cheer leading to exploit the women is another story and I have seen in some cases where the school has bought rather revealing outfits and the girls boycotting the suits.

[Ele'ill]

It's drawing an audience in with a sexually charged atmosphere through the use of female bodies. The male cheerleaders aren't dressed akin to strippers or if that is perhaps taking it too far in your opinion- they are not dressed the same at all.

As a side note I've heard of a lot of recent issues involving women's uniforms for athletics- not just cheerleading- and these disputes were raised by the female athletes.

[Le Libérer]

As the video points out at one time, cheerleading wasnt athletic at all in the beginning, but now a days it takes quite a bit of physical ability to achieve. The older woman who is claiming it isnt a sport because there is no competition is incorrect. Its very competitive to be chosen as the cheerleader. So has cheerleading become a sport? Based on this criteria? Theres competition, theres extreme physical exertion, and cheerleaders themselves define it as a sport.

[Princess Luna]

cheerleading is sexist unless
A: Male cheerleaders are forced to wear just as revealing cloths as Female cheerleaders
or
B: Female cheerleaders are allowed to dress in non-sexual uniforms like the men currently do.

[Jack]

This isn't really an issue at all.....cheerleading isn't a real sport, it's a hobby for girls in college and high school, they see the uniforms before they put them on, nobody is making them do it, there isn't some great pressure by the male community for every attractive woman to become a cheerleader. It's not an issue of sexism, male chauvanism is not forcing them to do anything, you're basically saying dressing slutty= male oppression.

[Blackscare]

I had such a terrible crush on a particular cheerleader in high school :blushing:

[Magón]

I like Penn and Teller, they're funny.

As for cheerleading, isn't it easier to grab someone's leg that isn't covered in pants, than with pants on? I think it would be pretty difficult if a cheerleading group tried doing all those flips and stunts in pants or even a longer dress.

[Political_Chucky]

It's drawing an audience in with a sexually charged atmosphere through the use of female bodies. The male cheerleaders aren't dressed akin to strippers or if that is perhaps taking it too far in your opinion- they are not dressed the same at all.

As a side note I've heard of a lot of recent issues involving women's uniforms for athletics- not just cheerleading- and these disputes were raised by the female athletes.

Sexually charged? Women flipping in the air and chanting letters is hardly sexually charged. Because they wear skirts? Would we deem volleyball sexist because the women are in bikinis and the men are in shorts and shirtless? I bet if you were to cover up most of the women from head to toe, then you would be hearing complaints from the women so that doesn't really seem necessary. Honestly, I don't hear many complaints besides the few women's uniforms, and like I said b4, that is entirely different and exploiting the women.

I don't believe that the clothing, when its in the proper scenario(and even not), isn't a problem for sexism. And as Jack has said, "It's not an issue of sexism, male chauvanism is not forcing them to do anything, you're basically saying dressing slutty= male oppression." I totally agree. Its like if any women are too revealing, then the institution must be sexist. Maybe it was in the past, but not anymore.

[Political_Chucky]

Also, lets not get away from the real issue. How does it being named a sport change or help injuries inflicted while cheerleading?

[Fabrizio]

It's drawing an audience in with a sexually charged atmosphere through the use of female bodies.

Genuine question - why is this sexist? Is it sexist if a stripper is a male and the audience are all women...?

[Ele'ill]

Sexually charged?

Women flipping in the air and chanting letters is hardly sexually charged. Because they wear skirts?

Oh right, as if cheerleaders are hugely fetishized for being good cheerleaders. :rolleyes:

Their purpose is to sell tickets with a sexually charged atmosphere- using their bodies or rather- having their bodies used.




Would we deem volleyball sexist

Perhaps in certain circumstances and in the same way as track and cross-country.


because the women are in bikinis and the men are in shorts and shirtless?

No, incorrect comparison. Volleyball on the beach in the hot sun would require different dress for male and females than when played inside a gymnasium. Both in college and high school the women wear very short tight pants where the men usually wear shirts and shorts (basic gym clothes). I'd like to point out that most of the athletic dress we're talking about would not be allowed to be worn as regular 'school clothes'.



I bet if you were to cover up most of the women from head to toe, then you would be hearing complaints from the women so that doesn't really seem necessary.

Yes because the people in this thread are obviously proposing snow-suits.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Connecticut-cheerleaders-want-uniforms-with-more?urn=highschool-274505









And as Jack has said, "It's not an issue of sexism, male chauvanism is not forcing them to do anything,

The argument would be that 'male chauvanism' is forcing the system of cheerleading (current practice and standards) to be acceptable to young women. It is a position of prestige. Think about that for a moment.

[Magón]

Couldn't it be, that the reason why the girls wear these short dresses isn't because of sexism, or male chauvinism, or anything like that, but because unlike pants, long dresses, and other clothing, they give the girls/women less restriction, and so are able to achieve the movement and stunts they're trying to do?

And couldn't it be, that the sexual fetish people attach to cheerleading(ers), is a product of an environment that most people in the world see as wrong and bad, (porn industry) and not necessarily the average football spectator coming to see the game.

[Ele'ill]

Genuine question - why is this sexist? Is it sexist if a stripper is a male and the audience are all women...?

What's the intended purpose of a male stripper and what's the intended purpose of a cheerleader.

Thanks.

[Le Libérer]

I dunno. I always thought these cheerleader types were created by their parents. They start out in baby beauty pageants. Then they progress to Cheerleaders, then to Playboy centerfolds!

[Political_Chucky]

Oh right, as if cheerleaders are hugely fetishized for being good cheerleaders. :rolleyes:

Their purpose is to sell tickets with a sexually charged atmosphere- using their bodies or rather- having their bodies used.



That is giving cheerleaders way too much credit as it is lol. I'm sorry if I am offending any cheerleaders(which I doubt there is any) but not one goes to watch the cheerleaders, they go to watch the main event. But either way, that depends on the way you say having their bodies used because that does sound sexually charged. The atmosphere is a competitive atmosphere of sports, primarily football, not sex. Maybe towards the professional level when everything is exploited to a certain degree, but right now I'm talking high school.



Perhaps in certain circumstances and in the same way as track and cross-country.
Please explain?



No, incorrect comparison. Volleyball on the beach in the hot sun would require different dress for male and females than when played inside a gymnasium. Both in college and high school the women wear very short tight pants where the men usually wear shirts and shorts (basic gym clothes). I'd like to point out that most of the athletic dress we're talking about would not be allowed to be worn as regular 'school clothes'.Well i'm not arguing the sexist implications of women or men playing in the gymnasium. If they are playing on a beach in the hot sun, then it does justify wearing bikini's and being shirtless right? When I was much more athletic in high school, I would much rather prefer less clothing then more, with the exception of football where I needed to wear more pads because heat is a big factor and when playing a sport clothing is a big annoyance.





Yes because the people in this thread are obviously proposing snow-suits.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Connecticut-cheerleaders-want-uniforms-with-more?urn=highschool-274505


Yeah, like I said those are definitely circumstances where the adults who run the cheer leading program are responsible for that and I've heard many different articles on the same thing. But that doesn't mean cheer leading is a sexist sport. It can start to get that way though having young girls wearing skimpy outfits as the article shows. But lets not exaggerate what I said, if the women are covered, does that really solve the problem?


Couldn't it be, that the reason why the girls wear these short dresses isn't because of sexism, or male chauvinism, or anything like that, but because unlike pants, long dresses, and other clothing, they give the girls/women less restriction, and so are able to achieve the movement and stunts they're trying to do?

And couldn't it be, that the sexual fetish people attach to cheerleading(ers), is a product of an environment that most people in the world see as wrong and bad, (porn industry) and not necessarily the average football spectator coming to see the game. Exactly.

And god damn it, someone answer my question lol

Also, lets not get away from the real issue. How does it being named a sport change or help injuries inflicted while cheerleading?I really don't think it does.

[La Comédie Noire]

So we're all agreed it is a sport, albeit a sexist one.

[Ele'ill]

And god damn it, someone answer my question lol


Judging from your reply I'm going to say that we don't disagree (I'm not all that interested in semantics at this point) What was your main question? (sorry that I somehow missed it)

[Political_Chucky]

Judging from your reply I'm going to say that we don't disagree (I'm not all that interested in semantics at this point) What was your main question? (sorry that I somehow missed it)


Also, lets not get away from the real issue. How does it being named a sport change or help injuries inflicted while cheerleading?

Just that. That is what the whole point of the thread was after all haha.

[Ele'ill]

Just that. That is what the whole point of the thread was after all haha.

I would say it has to do with funding. It would depend on what 'level' we're referring to. This is just a guess.

[727Goon]

If it becomes a sport they will have to adopt better saftey standards. The standards right now and most everything else in it are regulated by some giant conglomerate instead of a regular high school athletic sanctioning organization so the saftey and medical training they give the coaches is bullshit.

[727Goon]

It's drawing an audience in with a sexually charged atmosphere through the use of female bodies. The male cheerleaders aren't dressed akin to strippers or if that is perhaps taking it too far in your opinion- they are not dressed the same at all.

As a side note I've heard of a lot of recent issues involving women's uniforms for athletics- not just cheerleading- and these disputes were raised by the female athletes.

In high school they arent really dressed in revealing clothes at all, unless you're somebody's grandma or something. And I don't see what's sexist about revealing clothes anyways, even at higher levels where it's more sexually charged. Football players are sexualized as well, no ones complaining about that.

[psgchisolm]

That is giving cheerleaders way too much credit as it is lol. I'm sorry if I am offending any cheerleaders(which I doubt there is any) but not one goes to watch the cheerleaders, they go to watch the main event. But either way, that depends on the way you say having their bodies used because that does sound sexually charged. The atmosphere is a competitive atmosphere of sports, primarily football, not sex. Maybe towards the professional level when everything is exploited to a certain degree, but right now I'm talking high school.


Yeah, like I said those are definitely circumstances where the adults who run the cheer leading program are responsible for that and I've heard many different articles on the same thing. But that doesn't mean cheer leading is a sexist sport. It can start to get that way though having young girls wearing skimpy outfits as the article shows. But lets not exaggerate what I said, if the women are covered, does that really solve the problem?

I agree with chucky here. I can name a number of times people talk about the football game rather than the cheerleaders. In professional sports that's a different story. In high school you only heave about a few things. Football, Basketball, and homework. I never heard any conversations that I would deem sexist about any cheerleaders. Tbh I haven't heard ANY conversations about cheerleaders except one, by another girl. Seeing as how I have alot of female friends and I don't hear about any of the cheerleaders clothing from them. It's not sexist...at my school anyway. In the day cheerleaders have to wear pants over their legs. The only time they have them off is at football/basketball games. Not even at our ONE peprally. They wear them sometimes then if it's cold. So it doesn't have anything to do with the clothes. Seeing as how our cheerleaders don't have a large fanbase even within the school. There are girls at our school that would try and wear less than that if they could. If it wasn't for our school code they probably would. It depends girl to girl. Most girls don't think it's sexist so meh. Professionally that's different. The Dallas Cowboys are known for their beautiful cheerleaders. But even so they can't cheer their team to a superbowl:laugh:

[Ele'ill]

In high school they arent really dressed in revealing clothes at all,

Yes they are- perhaps not quite to the extent of other higher level athletics but now we're discussing levels of extreme past the original one in question.


unless you're somebody's grandma or something. And I don't see what's sexist about revealing clothes anyways, even at higher levels where it's more sexually charged.

As mentioned earlier- It isn't just the 'revealing clothes' that's the issue.


Football players are sexualized as well, no ones complaining about that.

Because we're simply not talking about football players. There are a lot of topics we could be discussing but are not.

[PhoenixAsh]

Cheerleading sexist?

This needs to be explained.

Because so far we have covered the following arguments:

1). Cheerleaders in skimpy outfits are used to draw in crowds
2). Male cheerleaders do not wear the same clothes
3). Skimpy outfits
4). Women cheering on all male teams


What I didn't see is the argument that it is sexist because they cheer on the all male teams...and there are no mixed teams....or there are no cheerleaders at female teams.

Why isn't it considered sexist that teams are usually gender seperated?

[Tomhet]

Alright so as much as Penn and Teller are fucking racists, sexists, and general dumbasses, they did a good piece on cheerleading (sort of). My girlfriend used to cheer and I used to make fun of her like "Oh are you going to practice for cheerleading or a real sport" and shit but this video definitely was eye opening for me. One thing that was annoying was the demonization of the feminists, and honestly I don't know many feminists but I doubt most feminists think its sexist and shouldnt be a sport or whatever. Anyways something definitely needs to be done about this shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AvAiUFFCyo&feature=related
What did they say which was racist? I saw one episode once, didn't think much of it but it was pretty entertaining..

[727Goon]

Maybe racist is a stretch, but there was a whole thing where they whine about "diversity" and "political correctness" in college which is basically subtle white person speak for crying about their white privilege.

[727Goon]

Yes they are- perhaps not quite to the extent of other higher level athletics but now we're discussing levels of extreme past the original one in question.

No they're not. They're like a normal dress.


As mentioned earlier- It isn't just the 'revealing clothes' that's the issue.


You say they have their bodies used to sell tickets as well. Guess what, that's called fucking sports, I broke an arm playing football but I don't think that's because of racism.


Because we're simply not talking about football players. There are a lot of topics we could be discussing but are not.

No I'm making a comparison to other athletes. Athletes in general are sexualized. I dont see any problem with that, people tend to be attracted to good looking athletic people, go figure.

[Princess Luna]

Cheerleading sexist?

This needs to be explained.

Because so far we have covered the following arguments:

1). Cheerleaders in skimpy outfits are used to draw in crowds
2). Male cheerleaders do not wear the same clothes
3). Skimpy outfits
4). Women cheering on all male teams


What I didn't see is the argument that it is sexist because they cheer on the all male teams...and there are no mixed teams....or there are no cheerleaders at female teams.

Why isn't it considered sexist that teams are usually gender seperated?
i think its very sexist that teams in sports are gender segregated , also i don't remember any response to #2 , the fact that female cheerleaders are required to wear sexual outfits while the men wear pants and baggy shirts , if skimpy clothes are a "must" in cheerleading because of the movements then please explain the different outfits.

[727Goon]

Men generally wear baggier clothes than women anyways, I dont think thats sexist but I suppose some might, its not surprising uniforms reflect popular fashion though.

[¿Que?]

If it is defined as a sport, it further legitimizes gendered practices that could be deemed "sexist." Whether or not it is "sexist" is probably a matter of how you define it, however, it certainly is gendered, and usually, in a society where women and men are treated differently and unequally, gendered, to me, usually means sexist.

[Ele'ill]

No they're not. They're like a normal dress.

It only takes a quick google image search to find thousands of examples of how you are incorrect. That aside- normal skirt wearing environments don't involve revealing what's underneath- or the prospect of.




You say they have their bodies used to sell tickets as well. Guess what, that's called fucking sports, I broke an arm playing football but I don't think that's because of racism.

You aren't required to break your arms as an agreement into a prestigious position- you're required to stay healthy. This is the opposite of what we're discussing in regards to cheerleading- they are required at the minimum by the system in place to have their bodies used to sexualize the atmosphere of the sporting event.





No I'm making a comparison to other athletes. Athletes in general are sexualized. I dont see any problem with that, people tend to be attracted to good looking athletic people, go figure.

What you're doing is deflecting the attention away from the current discussion onto another topic that is arguably worthy of a separate thread.

[PhoenixAsh]

i think its very sexist that teams in sports are gender segregated

I would love to see mixed teams play footbal or rugby....you did think this through didn't you?



, also i don't remember any response to #2 , the fact that female cheerleaders are required to wear sexual outfits while the men wear pants and baggy shirts , if skimpy clothes are a "must" in cheerleading because of the movements then please explain the different outfits.

Because men do not perform the same acrobatics as women. Men in cheerleading basically profide the muscle support. And just for the hell of it

http://image22.webshots.com/22/1/38/80/216313880dQxGNa_fs.jpg


Men also rarely wear miniskirts. Is that sexist too?

[PhoenixAsh]

It only takes a quick google image search to find thousands of examples of how you are incorrect. That aside- normal skirt wearing environments don't involve revealing what's underneath- or the prospect of.


However...the same google search on any other sport involving women does exactly the same. Like tennis, Hockey, Soccer, Gymnastics.

Now re evaluate the argument and either retract the obviously baseless assertion or redesign it so it holds all sports involving women.

[727Goon]

It only takes a quick google image search to find thousands of examples of how you are incorrect. That aside- normal skirt wearing environments don't involve revealing what's underneath- or the prospect of.

http://www.westlifenews.com/2007/08-22/cheerleaders.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_V_EiS76ydhk/Ss-4D37WSjI/AAAAAAAAGXA/-UkJf8MQdEY/s800/Lakewood+JV+Football+vs+Poly-10.jpg

Were these pictures taken at a high school or a strip club? I mean they might as well be naked amirite.



You aren't required to break your arms as an agreement into a prestigious position- you're required to stay healthy. This is the opposite of what we're discussing in regards to cheerleading- they are required at the minimum by the system in place to have their bodies used to sexualize the atmosphere of the sporting event.


Oh I thought you meant like the risk of injury since thats what I was originally discussing. And how do cheerleaders at the high school level sexualize a sporting event? By wearing an outfit thats more conservative than what 90 percent of the other girls at the game are wearing? Or just by being female or what?


What you're doing is deflecting the attention away from the current discussion onto another topic that is arguably worthy of a separate thread.


No it's a legit comparison. How is the sexualization of cheerleaders different from the sexualization of male athletes?

[Magón]

i think its very sexist that teams in sports are gender segregated , also i don't remember any response to #2 , the fact that female cheerleaders are required to wear sexual outfits while the men wear pants and baggy shirts , if skimpy clothes are a "must" in cheerleading because of the movements then please explain the different outfits.

Like I explained earlier, the main reasoning (and I did ask my cheerleading friends after I wrote that to make sure), is because if they wore something like long pants, or a long skirt, their restriction to do stunts would be larger, and so it's one of the reasons why the wear the "skimpy" skirts.

And like I also said earlier, the sexual part that we attach to cheerleading(ers) is because of the porn industry who stylizes them as such.

[727Goon]

And like I also said earlier, the sexual part that we attach to cheerleading(ers) is because of the porn industry who stylizes them as such.

Or NFL cheerleaders haha.

[Tablo]

I don't see how cheerleading is necessarily sexist and IT IS A SPORT. They have competitions and everything. In many way it is similar to gymnastics only it is more limited to group oriented floor routines.

[PhoenixAsh]

Tennis: http://thetennistimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/jelena-jankovic1.jpg

Hockey: http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Hockey+Champions+Trophy+Australia+v+Germany+N1DZYh Ob6lTl.jpg

athelitics: http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn/feature_2/Beijing_Sister_Cities/Athen_2004/Featured_Pictures_in_2004/W020080111503909429965.jpg

Gymnastics: http://www.srilankagymnastics.com/gymnastics.jpg


Cheerleading: http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Japan+Cup+2008+Cheerleading+Championship+NavLxCrQr 5El.jpg


I do not see the difference...unless it is that cheerleaders actually wear the longest skirts

[Ele'ill]

So then you agree that you see the similarities- the difference being their role.

[727Goon]

Jesus are you like a neo puritan or some shit? What's wrong with revealing clothes in athletics? Its fucking athletics you wear whats comfortable.

[Ele'ill]

Jesus are you like a neo puritan or some shit? What's wrong with revealing clothes in athletics? Its fucking athletics you wear whats comfortable.

Have you read my posts in this thread?

[727Goon]

yeah i have why havent you responded to my other shit where I addressed all the stuff you said.

[Ele'ill]

yeah i have why havent you responded to my other shit where I addressed all the stuff you said.

I have replied to all of your points that were not repetitive-

[727Goon]

"how do cheerleaders at the high school level sexualize a sporting event? By wearing an outfit thats more conservative than what 90 percent of the other girls at the game are wearing? Or just by being female or what?"
"How is the sexualization of cheerleaders different from the sexualization of male athletes?"

[Ele'ill]

"how do cheerleaders at the high school level sexualize a sporting event?

Just so we're clear- I'm not attacking cheerleaders (in the event that you are one or know several). I'm criticising a system that presents worth and prestige as young women sexually charging a sporting event.

Relatively revealing clothing- flips in skirts etc.. There are continuous attempts to push the envelop in regards to their outfits. They are being used to sexually charge the sporting event. This is seen more and more as the level of athletics moves past the point where they are above the age of 18.



By wearing an outfit thats more conservative than what 90 percent of the other girls at the game are wearing?

There are schools that have been called out on having a dress code prohibiting certain length skirts but allowing them for cheerleading- even outside of field hockey and such.




"How is the sexualization of cheerleaders different from the sexualization of male athletes?"

It would depend on the specific sport/school/situation. The existence of a problem somewhere else doesn't justify the problem here.

[PhoenixAsh]

are you aware of the history of cheerleading?

[727Goon]

Just so we're clear- I'm not attacking cheerleaders (in the event that you are one or know several). I'm criticising a system that presents worth and prestige as young women sexually charging a sporting event.

I honestly dont think its all that sexual. I mean the only thing that really sexualizes it is that a lot of them are hot. I don't think most of the gymnastic shit they do or the cheers are sexual at all.


Relatively revealing clothing- flips in skirts etc.. There are continuous attempts to push the envelop in regards to their outfits. They are being used to sexually charge the sporting event. This is seen more and more as the level of athletics moves past the point where they are above the age of 18.

Yeah but the attempts to push the envelope usually come from the girls I'm guessing, because girls generally tend to want to dress in more skimp clothes than the administration wants them to.



There are schools that have been called out on having a dress code prohibiting certain length skirts but allowing them for cheerleading- even outside of field hockey and such.

I dont really know shit about cheerleading so I cant say, but I'd imagine it would be the other way around. I think an athletic department wouldnt want their cheerleaders dressed all revealing or whatever cause that wouldnt be a good look for the school.


It would depend on the specific sport/school/situation. The existence of a problem somewhere else doesn't justify the problem here.

I don't think it's a problem. When I played football I got more attention from girls than I probably otherwise would have, that was a positive for me haha.

[Ele'ill]

I honestly dont think its all that sexual. I mean the only thing that really sexualizes it is that a lot of them are hot. I don't think most of the gymnastic shit they do or the cheers are sexual at all.

I assume you're attracted to females and I know that everyone is different but women doing flips and such in a skirt is fairly sexual. This is being said within the context of the conversation and the other elements of cheerleading that have been mentioned. Perhaps it's not as frequently pronounced at a high school level as what's seen at a college or professional level.




Yeah but the attempts to push the envelope usually come from the girls I'm guessing, because girls generally tend to want to dress in more skimp clothes than the administration wants them to. I dont really know shit about cheerleading so I cant say, but I'd imagine it would be the other way around. I think an athletic department wouldnt want their cheerleaders dressed all revealing or whatever cause that wouldnt be a good look for the school.

I've posted an article stating otherwise. There is of course the very related issue that begs its own thread regarding men's and women's sexual influences- healthy and unhealthy- involving everything from media to broken homes. Why and how it's enforced etc..







I don't think it's a problem. When I played football I got more attention from girls than I probably otherwise would have, that was a positive for me haha.

I don't believe you were being used or paraded to sexually charge an audience. You were likely being viewed by women as successful.

[Ele'ill]

are you aware of the history of cheerleading?

Why don't you enlighten me- and explain how it's relevant to our current discussion.

[PhoenixAsh]

Why don't you enlighten me- and explain how it's relevant to our current discussion.


Because cheerleading started out as an all male affair...women not allowed....to cheer on the teams. Until the '20s that is when women started participating because men went to war.

It gained popularity with women because, amongst other things, it did allow them to show and express their sexuality in an otherwise restricted pruitan society that did not allow them to do so.

Cheerleading from that point on developed in to the first purely female sport in the US and its athletics are purely created around the female anatomy.

Now since women could not, before cheerleading, participate in most organised sport events cheerleading became very popular amongts women. At that time it offered a unique opportunity to participate. Being seen then as something of a step towards equal rights.

Today most cheerleaders are female (75%) ...on coloquate levels its 50/50. However the stunts are performed by the women and the men serve as stepping stones for the stunt. As such it is imo a truer type of feminine and feminist expression than most other sports.

Now we sexualise and fetishise cheerleaders. Mainly due to media attention. Personally they do not do much for me as a fetish...but hey...what ever rocks your boat.

Sexualisation of cheerleadings however is caused by several factors;
1). They are young
2). They are healthy (athletic)
3). They are available (visible)

These three categories are predominant factors in human sexuality....as it goes for both men and women...because we tend to be sexualy (note this) attracted to young, healthy and available people of the other sex. Its unfortunate...but in a capitalist society we tend to exploit these traits in both men and women because they sell.

and that is not the case with other sports. To say cheerleading is sexual exploitation is downright one sided. And tends to marginalize femininity as weak and exploitable. THis IMO is in fact sexism as well. It denies women to chose whatever the hell they want and behave however they want. And IMO if a woman wants to wear skimpy clothes (in this case because it is functional...and cheerleading teams who do not cheer on the sidelines and are run by all women do tend to chose these clothes as well) and prance around doing backflips and what nots then I am not going to tell them that they can not do so because some cpaitalist porn industry and media tend to focus on them being sex objects.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't see how anyone could argue that football players and cheer leaders are treated the same in regards to sex. Football players can be respected for strength, intelligence, and discipline without regard to their physical beauty. I mean some people melt over Tom Brady, but he isn't just a pretty face. Not to mention there are plenty of football players who are down right beastly,but are still respected for their skill as an athlete.

Not only are cheer leaders in an inferior role, stuck supporting male athletes, they're put on display almost solely for their physical attractiveness. Almost no one outside the cheer crew and their families discuss the mechanics of the sport.

[Ele'ill]

Because cheerleading started out as an all male affair...women not allowed....to cheer on the teams. Until the '20s that is when women started participating because men went to war.

It gained popularity with women because, amongst other things, it did allow them to show and express their sexuality in an otherwise restricted pruitan society that did not allow them to do so.

Cheerleading from that point on developed in to the first purely female sport in the US and its athletics are purely created around the female anatomy.

Now since women could not, before cheerleading, participate in most organised sport events cheerleading became very popular amongts women. At that time it offered a unique opportunity to participate. Being seen then as something of a step towards equal rights.

Today most cheerleaders are female (75%) ...on coloquate levels its 50/50. However the stunts are performed by the women and the men serve as stepping stones for the stunt. As such it is imo a truer type of feminine and feminist expression than most other sports.


Now we sexualise and fetishise cheerleaders. Mainly due to media attention. Personally they do not do much for me as a fetish...but hey...what ever rocks your boat.

So it went from patriarchal servitude to patriarchal servitude with more skin.


but in a capitalist society we tend to exploit these traits in both men and women because they sell.

So where's the liberation?


To say cheerleading is sexual exploitation is downright one sided.

Wait, what?



And tends to marginalize femininity as weak and exploitable.

Cheerleading does this- not critiques against it.





Windup

[PhoenixAsh]

Not only are cheer leaders in an inferior role, stuck supporting male athletes, they're put on display almost solely for their physical attractiveness. Almost no one outside the cheer crew and their families discuss the mechanics of the sport.

That last part is nonesense into the debate if its sexist or not. Nobody outside the korfball crew and their families discuss the mechanics of korfball. So this is not a sport? What is your point with that argument?

And the first part is downright not true seeing as cheerleading has obviously evolved from off the field to radical cheerleading (o yeah...feminst cheerleaders ;-) ) and off field competitions, rallies and events.

So yeah...no arguments here.

But you could say cheerleaders in an on field situation are "stuck in an inferior role" but that is BS. the whole purpose of cheerleading from its start as a male activity to what it is now (predominantly female bit with large male attendance) is cheering on the team. Ergo...that is the function they perform.

[PhoenixAsh]

So it went from patriarchal servitude to patriarchal servitude with more skin.

So where's the liberation?

Wait, what?

Cheerleading does this- not critiques against it.

Windup

You see it as servitude. Which is fine...you can have your view of the world. That view however trivialises the athletics performed to some sort of high-skilled strip act....focussing one sidedly on the fact that they wear skimpy outfits and perform the traditional role as cheering on the team which you somehow equate with sexual exploitation. That is a reversed patriachal viewpoint

[Ele'ill]

to radical cheerleading (o yeah...feminst cheerleaders ;-)

They're not serving the same agenda in the same setting- at all.

[PhoenixAsh]

They're not serving the same agenda in the same setting- at all.

No...but they do have the skimpy outfits.

And cheerleading is...well..CHEER leading...you know...cheering on the team.

It also has moved largely off the field and into events, specialised shows, competitions. In fact...more cheerleading isn now done off the field than on.

[Ele'ill]

You see it as servitude. Which is fine...you can have your view of the world. That view however trivialises the athletics performed to some sort of high-skilled strip act....focussing one sidedly on the fact that they wear skimpy outfits and perform the traditional role as cheering on the team which you somehow equate with sexual exploitation.

I've critiqued what you've said here already.



That is a reversed patriachal viewpoint

I don't know what this means.

[Ele'ill]

No...but they do have the skimpy outfits.

And cheerleading is...well..CHEER leading...you know...cheering on the team.

It also has moved largely off the field and into events, specialised shows, competitions. In fact...more cheerleading isn now done off the field than on.

The critique isn't against skimpy outfits or cheering for something- I thought this was clear after TC posted on page one. There are various types of cheerleading, i'm sure, but I thought we were discussing 'onfield' high school, college and professional level.

[NGNM85]

A thread on cheerleading. Well, now, this was bound to turn into a fiery debate.

[Ele'ill]

A thread on cheerleading. Well, now, this was bound to turn into a fiery debate.

What's funny is that there has been a surprising lack of forum cheer leading in this thread in regards to respective stances on the issue.

[PhoenixAsh]

The critique isn't against skimpy outfits or cheering for something- I thought this was clear after TC posted on page one. There are various types of cheerleading, i'm sure, but I thought we were discussing 'onfield' high school, college and professional level.



doing flips and such in a skirt is fairly sexual


elatively revealing clothing- flips in skirts etc.. There are continuous attempts to push the envelop in regards to their outfits. They are being used to sexually charge the sporting event.


Well...you have been saying it though. Its the basis for the whole sexist argument. You are saying over and over again that it is some sort of sexual exploitation of women. That hinges largely on the outfits.

[Ele'ill]

Well...you have been saying it though. Its the basis for the whole sexist argument. You are saying over and over again that it is some sort of sexual exploitation of women. That hinges largely on the outfits.

Yes, but to serve the agenda that it does- which is the main issue- which I've also said in many if not all of my posts. It was mainly used to highlight the 'sexually charged' argument and those disagreeing with it- the sexually charged portion, in conjunction with some other points, were used to highlight the main agenda which we've discussed quite a bit in the last several posts here.

I am sorry if you overlooked it.

[PhoenixAsh]

What's funny is that there has been a surprising lack of forum cheer leading in this thread in regards to respective stances on the issue.

well...we could always form a revleft radical cheerleading squat. :) with red and black pom poms

I for one would love to see everybody in a skirt trying to do backflips of the shoulders of Sam B...

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes, but to serve the agenda that it does- which is the main issue- which I've also said in many if not all of my posts.

I am sorry if you overlooked it.

THen if we seperate the cheerleading fomr the structure you would not find it sexist?

[Ele'ill]

THen if we seperate the cheerleading fomr the structure you would not find it sexist?

I would still. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your question though.

[PhoenixAsh]

I would still. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your question though.

you said cheerleading is sexist because it is being used in a way tha exploits female sexuality.

If you take cheerleading as an activity of the field it therefore would not be sexist.

Is taht the correct interpretation of what you are saying?

[Ele'ill]

you said cheerleading is sexist because it is being used in a way tha exploits female sexuality.

If you take cheerleading as an activity of the field it therefore would not be sexist.

Is taht the correct interpretation of what you are saying?

Yes, I misunderstood your question.

As in 'radical cheerleading' I believe it's a much different setting, audience, agenda, structure and message. I am sure there are a few examples similar to this. The issue is not simply 'cheering for' or 'skimpy clothes'.

[Blackscare]

What's funny is that there has been a surprising lack of forum cheer leading in this thread in regards to respective stances on the issue.

You go girl!

[La Comédie Noire]

That last part is nonsense into the debate if its sexist or not. Nobody outside the korfball crew and their families discuss the mechanics of korfball. So this is not a sport? What is your point with that argument?
My point is people don’t respect cheer leading as a sport and just like to watch the pretty girls. Cheerleading doesn’t give women prestige outside their physical attractiveness, unlike football or other female sports even.



And the first part is downright not true seeing as cheerleading has obviously evolved from off the field to radical cheerleading (o yeah...feminist cheerleaders ;-) ) and off field competitions, rallies and events.
I don’t see how it began has anything to do with its role today. Cheer leaders are not respected for their quality as an athlete; they’re treated as a pretty distraction. Your argument that they are celebrating their femininity by cheer leading is akin to the justification people use for women in the homemaker role.



But you could say cheerleaders in an on field situation are "stuck in an inferior role" but that is BS. the whole purpose of cheerleading from its start as a male activity to what it is now (predominantly female bit with large male attendance) is cheering on the team. Ergo...that is the function they perform.
The fact cheering on the team has become a predominantly female sport should say something to you. I’m also sure you realize male cheer leaders are treated far differently from female cheerleaders. Your other argument just tries to neutralize cheerleading as “just an activity,” while ignoring the social dynamics between men and women. It’s like saying the purpose of cooking food is cooking food. Ergo… that is the function they perform, without any discussion of the homemaker role.




You see it as servitude. Which is fine...you can have your view of the world. That view however trivializes the athletics performed to some sort of high-skilled strip act....focusing one sidedly on the fact that they wear skimpy outfits and perform the traditional role as cheering on the team which you somehow equate with sexual exploitation. That is a reversed patriarchal viewpoint
Honestly, if you’re going to be this disingenuous there’s no point in debating with you.

[Dimentio]

It is a sport, and it is a sport based on sexist cultural foundations.

[PhoenixAsh]

My point is people don’t respect cheer leading as a sport and just like to watch the pretty girls. Cheerleading doesn’t give women prestige outside their physical attractiveness, unlike football or other female sports even.

Oh...right. Because womens soccer has not always been sidelined and has not always met with general amusement and waved away as girls just wanna be like boys. Even today. And still be viewed by the general public as somehwat of an entertaining joke instead of serious athletic abilities and endeavours....which is being watched out of amusement instead of outright admiration for the performance.

Mostly men tofay watch femal gymnasts because they wear skimpy outfits....it is taken seriously because women tended to stick with it and porved men wrong time and time again.

No I do not find that an argument. And it is also not the whole truth in todays society.




I don’t see how it began has anything to do with its role today. Cheer leaders are not respected for their quality as an athlete; they’re treated as a pretty distraction. Your argument that they are celebrating their femininity by cheer leading is akin to the justification people use for women in the homemaker role.
Way to misunderstand the point. But hey...when you rally want to tell the women back in the 20-30 that teh freedom they experienced and said they experienced by being able to partake in cheerleading is justifying the role as women as house makers...then by all means. If however you really want to know what I wrote and why those women thuoght that it was an improvement and the event therefore naturally attracted and rapidly evolved in a womens dominated event/sport whatever you want to call it (IMO: sport). THAT was my point. A point which is now used against the very women taht enjoy it and want it to become a sport.



The fact cheering on the team has become a predominantly female sport should say something to you. I’m also sure you realize male cheer leaders are treated far differently from female cheerleaders.Yes I do realize that. Male cheerleaders are mostly been denounced as homosexuals and lesser men.

But if you would have read my post carefully you know WHY it has become a female dominated sport. Not because women where put there to be pretty.



Your other argument just tries to neutralize cheerleading as “just an activity,” while ignoring the social dynamics between men and women. It’s like saying the purpose of cooking food is cooking food. Ergo… that is the function they perform, without any discussion of the homemaker role.No I argued against the fact that cheerleading being denounced as being cheering on male athletes. Which is basically saying that grass is green because it is green. But nice way to reverse the argument. Cheerleading from its start as a male dominated endeavour was called cheerleading with a specific purpose: cheering. Only when women choose to do this it is being waved away as funnty little women who do not understand it sexist exploitation and are being silly (which is the gest of the arguments here) instead of something women choose to do because they want to...whilst there are whole ranges of other options open to women the first aand foremost activity when it comes to women who want to partake is still cheerleading.
Wow...

and in my home I cook because I can and my girlfriend can not cook to save her life....in fact it will probbaly end up killing her. And yes...the purpose of cooking is cooking. Calling cooking sexist because a woman chooses to do so and therefore somehow enforces the traditional role of hoomemaker is blatantly chauvinist.



Honestly, if you’re going to be this disingenuous there’s no point in debating with you.Its the simple truth. Your arguments that it is sexist are derived on two positions:

1). skimpy clothes worn by women who move their body in a somehow sexual way
2). Its women performing in a culture that uses them

Well the last one is simply true. However you use it in circle. Arguing on the one side that society uses women. resulting in the conclusion taht therefore Cheerleading is sexist. then when you point out the fact that this is not the case you reverse the logic and state that all activities of women performed in a sexist structure are therefore sexist. Which IMO is pretty disinginous and very patriarchal of you. Because it denies women the right to choose the activities they want to do because somehow they do not undersand sexism and because they live in a sexist society means they can not enjoy and actively pursue an activity. It is in fact you can say that you are arguing that women are dumb to not see they are exploited becaue otherwise they would obviously have to be reeducated to alter their choise.

Which brings me to point one. Women tend to want equality. Which amongst other things holds their freedom of sexual expression and the right to be a woman and sexual being without being diminished to be an object.
Some women want to behave in a sexual outgoing fashion, want to dress in skimpy outfits, want to seduce men or be seen as sexual entities. Not because they are women but because they can choose to do so because they are autonomous creatures often driven by the same desires and sexual urges as men.

Now I suggest you go offer cheerleaders a choice...hold a poll....and ask them what they want...before you actively start to advocate and defacto give legitimacy to the inane viewpoint that is forced on cheerleaders that they are indeed sexual objects because they wear skimpy outfits and peform athletics...instead of free autonomous women who choose what they want to do.

[Princess Luna]

I would love to see mixed teams play footbal or rugby....you did think this through didn't you?



Because men do not perform the same acrobatics as women. Men in cheerleading basically profide the muscle support. And just for the hell of it

http://image22.webshots.com/22/1/38/80/216313880dQxGNa_fs.jpg


Men also rarely wear miniskirts. Is that sexist too?
sorry that this response is a bit late , but at first i agreed with you about the sports teams and felt a little silly however after i thought it over a bit i came to the conclusion that in fact all sports could (and should) no longer be divided by gender. from birth the idea that the ideal women is "petite" and the ideal man is "buff"" is drilled into children and such you end up with a population were men are disproportionatily stronger then women however if you simply look at the Ms.Olympia contest it becomes obvious with the right training women can achieve the same level of fitness and strength as men and there is no rational reason why they should not be allowed to compete with men in all sports even sports such as rugby and football and even if you think what i just said was quackery and that women are biologicily weaker then men , then you still have to provide a reason why sports such as baseball and basketball are segregated by gender because both rely less on strength and more on speed and agility.

[Political_Chucky]

sorry that this response is a bit late , but at first i agreed with you about the sports teams and felt a little silly however after i thought it over a bit i came to the conclusion that in fact all sports could (and should) no longer be divided by gender. from birth the idea that the ideal women is "petite" and the ideal man is "buff"" is drilled into children and such you end up with a population were men are disproportionatily stronger then women however if you simply look at the Ms.Olympia contest it becomes obvious with the right training women can achieve the same level of fitness and strength as men and there is no rational reason why they should not be allowed to compete with men in all sports even sports such as rugby and football and even if you think what i just said was quackery and that women are biologicily weaker then men , then you still have to provide a reason why sports such as baseball and basketball are segregated by gender because both rely less on strength and more on speed and agility.

I do believe SOME women can compete with men, and because of that yeah, there should be undivided sports because of that. But when you say that petite and buff is drilled intos children's head, thats is entirely untrue. The way our bodies grow and how strong we are, are based on many factors, but the simple fact that men produce much more testostrone then women, therefore allowing men to become stronger much quicker is a very high advantage. But thats not to say women cannot keep up, but the majority won't.

[Quail]

sorry that this response is a bit late , but at first i agreed with you about the sports teams and felt a little silly however after i thought it over a bit i came to the conclusion that in fact all sports could (and should) no longer be divided by gender. from birth the idea that the ideal women is "petite" and the ideal man is "buff"" is drilled into children and such you end up with a population were men are disproportionatily stronger then women however if you simply look at the Ms.Olympia contest it becomes obvious with the right training women can achieve the same level of fitness and strength as men and there is no rational reason why they should not be allowed to compete with men in all sports even sports such as rugby and football and even if you think what i just said was quackery and that women are biologicily weaker then men , then you still have to provide a reason why sports such as baseball and basketball are segregated by gender because both rely less on strength and more on speed and agility.
I think that it depends on the sport as to whether mixed teams are appropriate. Biologically, men have a higher ratio of muscle to body fat, and women tend to be shorter. Also, women who have a lot of muscle mass and not a lot of body fat may lose their periods, which implies that having a body like Ms. Olympia might not be the healthiest body type. As an example, I used to do Judo, and if I fought a man of roughly the same weight in a competition, he would typically have more muscle mass than me, so it would be an unfair fight. (I had that kind of problem in training anyway, because there weren't many women who regularly went to the club I belonged to.) In such sports it would seem to make sense to segregate men and women. However, for some sports such as baseball, as you said, I don't really see a real reason for them to be segregated.

[Princess Luna]

I do believe SOME women can compete with men, and because of that yeah, there should be undivided sports because of that. But when you say that petite and buff is drilled intos children's head, thats is entirely untrue. The way our bodies grow and how strong we are, are based on many factors, but the simple fact that men produce much more testostrone then women, therefore allowing men to become stronger much quicker is a very high advantage. But thats not to say women cannot keep up, but the majority won't.
They won't keep up with men because society says that any quality in women that could be considered "unattractive" is bad and should avoided or hidden at all costs this includes such things as old age , weight , and being "butch" in short they are conditioned from birth to try and achieve a certain image of femininity.

[Political_Chucky]

They won't keep up with men because society says that any quality in women that could be considered "unattractive" is bad and should avoided or hidden at all costs this includes such things as old age , weight , and being "butch" in short they are conditioned from birth to try and achieve a certain image of femininity.

What does that have to do with sexism in sports, or anything related?

My point is pretty much exactly what Kayl said, but she said explained it much more clearly.

[PhoenixAsh]

sorry that this response is a bit late , but at first i agreed with you about the sports teams and felt a little silly however after i thought it over a bit i came to the conclusion that in fact all sports could (and should) no longer be divided by gender. from birth the idea that the ideal women is "petite" and the ideal man is "buff"" is drilled into children and such you end up with a population were men are disproportionatily stronger then women however if you simply look at the Ms.Olympia contest it becomes obvious with the right training women can achieve the same level of fitness and strength as men and there is no rational reason why they should not be allowed to compete with men in all sports even sports such as rugby and football and even if you think what i just said was quackery and that women are biologicily weaker then men , then you still have to provide a reason why sports such as baseball and basketball are segregated by gender because both rely less on strength and more on speed and agility.

I think it would be most beneficial to have mixed teams in many sports. However I also think that the avarage height and weight differences do not allow all sports to be mixed in a safe and comfortable fashion. Some sports are downright to reliant on physcial atributes in which men and women are indeed not the same. Opening these sports to be mixed in normal competition is going to end desastrous for women with regards for physical safety. That is not to say that there is no conceivable way to add these sports in mixed groups as a seperate competition. However you are going to either have to impose strict selection criteria which do favor men when it comes to the avarages.

Now...let me illustrate this by using powerlifting examples:

Benchpress record for women 553 pnds. Benchpress record for men is 1005 pnds both shirted. Both used steriods. If you go natural (no steroids) there are very little women who can outbenchpress an avarage men. this is not to say no woman can do it...as there are most certainly genetically gifted individuals who can. But on avarage they can't.

In other words. Women and men do not evolve in physical strength the same way. For a woman to avarage an avarage rugby player in phycical strength and weight is exceptional. Mixed teams are possible when you apply strict selection criteria but competitions on the extremes of both genders can never be mixed in a fair way for both genders.

So mixing all sports does have some really severe implications. Either being unfair and restricting to either sex or being harmful to one or the other.

IMO most sports can be safely mixed. But I would also want to see all women competitions and all men competitions. Simply to see who within each others biological and genetic development sets is superior. soe sports can't safely be mixed on high competition levels. And therefore will always be unfair and restrictive to either gender. That said...there is no reason within these limitations to not add a competition.

[PhoenixAsh]

They won't keep up with men because society says that any quality in women that could be considered "unattractive" is bad and should avoided or hidden at all costs this includes such things as old age , weight , and being "butch" in short they are conditioned from birth to try and achieve a certain image of femininity.

No...this can be the case. But its not the complete truth. In some sports women and men can not compete on the same level.

There are several very important biological difference in the anatomy and endocrine systems of men and women.


The difference in oestrogen and testosterone has been mentioned. This also accounts for the fact that women tend to have an avarage higher fat level. 15% to 22% on avarage...out of the top of my head.

THe avarage amount of muscle per kg of bodyweight also varies. Now this may seem trivial in the light of steriods. But steriods are not healthy. So for a woman to achieve the same amount of muscle per kg of bodyweight she either needs to take steriods or be genetically gifted.

Then there is the hip structure which is totally different. THis may seem trivial but it has some very relevant implications for the attachement location of tendons....and the force they can apply.

Now on the joint structure. Men are more limited in their ROM (range of motion) than women.

Women also tend to have wider fields of vision*** Favoring them in observational skills. While men tend to be more accurate. Again...avarages.

Men prefer on average a colder environment. Working better in 16C and women prefer to work better in a 20C environment. Tolerance for extremeties in the male and female avarages tend to favor the male in being able to disregard environmental differences. but tend to favor females in being able to peak performance in the somewhat more limited range. Related to this is the fact that on avarage men do not bruise as easy as women. This is because skin tends to be thicker and the way men store and distribute fat and bloodvessels is different.

There are also some very noticable diffrences in the wa our brains function and deal with information. Women on avarage have more right braincells (4x as many as men) and men have more left braincells. This allows for women to be very well suited in conversation, communication and simultanious problem solving....while men are on avarage better suited in performing binary tasks.

All these small differences do not make us less equal in social perspective...but they do make men and women very different.


***
interesting FYI:

A often heard argument is that men look away from the face in conversations to breasts and crotch area's. This is often regarded by women as sexist behaviour.

However studies have shown that both men and women when they converse focus on breast, crotch areas about the same amount of time.

It is a biological dictum as we tend to focus on each other as also being potential sexual partners. Now note...that I am not saying we want to have sex. But even if a man or a woman is not attractive to a subject this behaviour is observed.

Now...why do men get caught doing this if women do it equally? well...because the field of vision of men and women is different. When looking in the eyes (on avarage) a man can see from the eyes down to just above the breast...women can see from the eyes right until the crotch area. They often do not need to shift eyes to look.

How did they test and understand that women and men do this the same amount? They measured from the point of entry in the eye where women and men tended to focus when they looked.

I didn't believe the studies...so there is a simple trick. Ask a couple of girls to assist. Each change your belt. The other can not look. Look each other in the eye. Reveal the belt. And ask what the buckle looks like without shifting eyes. Most women can tell...most men can not.

[La Comédie Noire]

blatantly chauvinist.


patriarchal of you

And this conversation is over.

[9]

Now we sexualise and fetishise cheerleaders. Mainly due to media attention. Personally they do not do much for me as a fetish...but hey...what ever rocks your boat.So it went from patriarchal servitude to patriarchal servitude with more skin.


To be honest, is cheerleading really your idea of "patriarchal servitude"?
I mean, yeah, everything in our society - from athletics to fashion to television to whatever - is imbued with 'patriarchal' attitudes because all of these things exist within a 'patriarchal' society, where the oppression of women is still a living reality.

Personally, I was on the volleyball team in high school, and - like all the sports teams - we used to make big paper banners to put up in the cafeteria advertising for our games, and ours would always say "come support spandex" (referring to the tight shorts that were part of the volleyball uniform), which is the only reason anyone ever showed up at our games anyway. So the 'sexualized' aspect is hardly something unique to cheerleading (and in fact, its also an aspect of a lot of working class female jobs that aren't explicitly 'sexual' in nature, and aren't similarly 'sexualized' for men working in the same capacity).

But imo making a big deal about things like this is like making a big deal about the "patriarchal servitude" of bras, or make-up, or body hair standards (which there was a thread about on here a while back, sadly). Of all the forms of oppression that the majority of women experience on a day-to-day basis, things like this are so completely peripheral that focusing on them in this way seems to have no other effect than to trivialize actual oppression. I mean, if someone was looking to make a parody of the notion that women experience social oppression to begin with, the "patriarchal servitude" of cheerleading seems like the sort of thing they'd bring up.

[PhoenixAsh]

To be honest, is cheerleading really your idea of "patriarchal servitude"?
I mean, yeah, everything in our society - from athletics to fashion to television to whatever - is imbued with 'patriarchal' attitudes because all of these things exist within a 'patriarchal' society, where the oppression of women is still a living reality.

Personally, I was on the volleyball team in high school, and - like all the sports teams - we used to make big paper banners to put up in the cafeteria advertising for our games, and ours would always say "come support spandex" (referring to the tight shorts that were part of the volleyball uniform), which is the only reason anyone ever showed up at our games anyway. So the 'sexualized' aspect is hardly something unique to cheerleading (and in fact, its also an aspect of a lot of working class female jobs that aren't explicitly 'sexual' in nature, and aren't similarly 'sexualized' for men working in the same capacity).

But imo making a big deal about things like this is like making a big deal about the "patriarchal servitude" of bras, or make-up, or body hair standards (which there was a thread about on here a while back, sadly). Of all the forms of oppression that the majority of women experience on a day-to-day basis, things like this are so completely peripheral that focusing on them in this way seems to have no other effect than to trivialize actual oppression. I mean, if someone were aiming to make a mockery of the notion that women experience social oppression to begin with, the "patriarchal servitude" of cheerleading seems like the sort of thing they'd bring up.

You have managed to shame me by being able to articulate the, main, point I was trying to make so much more clearer. :blushing:

[gorillafuck]

But imo making a big deal about things like this is like making a big deal about the "patriarchal servitude" of bras, or make-up, or body hair standards (which there was a thread about on here a while back, sadly).Why do people think those things are 'patriarchal servitude"?:confused: Makeup makes a real lot of people look better and I'm pretty sure that bras are pretty necessary for most women....

[Aeval]

I'm not going to get into the argument about whether it's sexist as it doesn't really happen too much in the UK and all my preconceptions of cheerleading have come from awful teen movies which are probably inaccurate, but going back to the video and the thing about it needing to be a sport: I don't get it, even if you don't count it as a sport and you want to lump it in with performing art what's the big deal? Ballet isn't a "sport" but it's fucking difficult and the people teaching it have to be properly trained. Do no forms of dance have proper health and safety in the US? Cheerleading doesn't seem to me to be a sport in that it's not specifically about competing, it's first and foremost about performing. You can have dance competitions but dance still isn't a sport, it's performing art - that's not saying it's less impressive than sport or that the people doing it aren't as talented or physically fit, but yea, what about dancers in the US, do they not get treated the same as sports in terms of the safety of the participants?

Also, we had mixed sport at my school for rugby and hockey. I think at a higher level it'd be unfair, it you did it at like Olympic level I doubt there would be many women but at secondary school it was fine. The average male's ability wasn't that much higher than the girls, it meant the girls pushed themselves more, and there were a crazy amount of country champions among the girls in my year so even if we did boys against girls the girls had a good chance of winning. Obviously if it's a sport you do as an individual (running, weight lifting, whatever) then men will probs have a biological advantage, but with team sports it's pretty fun to mix it up a bit :)

[Widerstand]

I would very much say there are sexist aspects to cheerleading. I would however argue that they are an expression of general sexism within a society treating women as sexual objects, not something inherent or confined to cheerleading. The sexism lies in the form of cheerleading, not in the activity per se.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm not going to get into the argument about whether it's sexist as it doesn't really happen too much in the UK and all my preconceptions of cheerleading have come from awful teen movies which are probably inaccurate, but going back to the video and the thing about it needing to be a sport: I don't get it, even if you don't count it as a sport and you want to lump it in with performing art what's the big deal? Ballet isn't a "sport" but it's fucking difficult and the people teaching it have to be properly trained. Do no forms of dance have proper health and safety in the US? Cheerleading doesn't seem to me to be a sport in that it's not specifically about competing, it's first and foremost about performing. You can have dance competitions but dance still isn't a sport, it's performing art - that's not saying it's less impressive than sport or that the people doing it aren't as talented or physically fit, but yea, what about dancers in the US, do they not get treated the same as sports in terms of the safety of the participants?

Also, we had mixed sport at my school for rugby and hockey. I think at a higher level it'd be unfair, it you did it at like Olympic level I doubt there would be many women but at secondary school it was fine. The average male's ability wasn't that much higher than the girls, it meant the girls pushed themselves more, and there were a crazy amount of country champions among the girls in my year so even if we did boys against girls the girls had a good chance of winning. Obviously if it's a sport you do as an individual (running, weight lifting, whatever) then men will probs have a biological advantage, but with team sports it's pretty fun to mix it up a bit :)

That has all, not surprisingly, to do with money.

The debate has, as far as I understand it, something to do with college funding.

Apparantly schools dismantel other women team sports like volleybal to fund cheerleading squads. This has something to do with article IX (when federal funding is received)...which states that schools need to fund equally between men and women sports.

The argument is, pretty legitimately, that womens teams are dismantled while mens teams are pretty much left alone...whilst both men and women perform in cheerleading.

What the heart of the problem is is that the article IX code is being dodged left and right by colleges and universities. Mainly by using sexist apologies.

A nice example was a court case somehwere last year. Where the number of men had been udercounted as opposed to women who were overcounted to be able to redirect more funding towards male competitive sports.

As such the system forces women to compete for funding...while men are generally assured of funding.

What this means is that college will argue its a sport because its cheaper and they can reallocate money to male teams. But denying it as a sport will keep a social stigma on the athletic abilities and training and deny recognition as a seperate non-sexist competition....keeping it being branded as sexist.

So...its basically a sexist situation either way.

[Ele'ill]

The quote you posted is in reference to 'cheerleading's apparent root attempt to break free of patriarchy but instead fall deeper into it over time. This is an observation not a smug attack.


To be honest, is cheerleading really your idea of "patriarchal servitude"?

Is it an example of it? Yes. Is there a bigger picture? Yes.




I mean, yeah, everything in our society - from athletics to fashion to television to whatever - is imbued with 'patriarchal' attitudes because all of these things exist within a 'patriarchal' society, where the oppression of women is still a living reality.

I don't see how this applies as a rebuttal to the conversation at hand (which was about cheerleading as a specific example of institutionalized patriarchal servitude)




Personally, I was on the volleyball team in high school, and - like all the sports teams - we used to make big paper banners to put up in the cafeteria advertising for our games, and ours would always say "come support spandex" (referring to the tight shorts that were part of the volleyball uniform), which is the only reason anyone ever showed up at our games anyway. So the 'sexualized' aspect is hardly something unique to cheerleading (and in fact, its also an aspect of a lot of working class female jobs that aren't explicitly 'sexual' in nature, and aren't similarly 'sexualized' for men working in the same capacity).

So it's ok because there are other examples of it :confused:


But imo making a big deal about things like this is like making a big deal about the "patriarchal servitude" of bras, or make-up, or body hair standards (which there was a thread about on here a while back, sadly). Of all the forms of oppression that the majority of women experience on a day-to-day basis, things like this are so completely peripheral that focusing on them in this way seems to have no other effect than to trivialize actual oppression. I mean, if someone were aiming to make a mockery of the notion that women experience social oppression to begin with, the "patriarchal servitude" of cheerleading seems like the sort of thing they'd bring up.

I didn't create the thread- I was responding to those who were denying that patriarchal servitude extended into cheerleading. I can understand your position if the topic of conversation was some how far removed from what it actually was but it wasn't- this is what the discussion was about.

[Ele'ill]

I would very much say there are sexist aspects to cheerleading. I would however argue that they are an expression of general sexism within a society treating women as sexual objects, not something inherent or confined to cheerleading. The sexism lies in the form of cheerleading, not in the activity per se.

If I were to mention this in another one of my posts here in this thread part of the internet would die.

[NGNM85]

I see we're up to five pages, now, with no end in sight....

[9]

I don't see how this applies as a rebuttal to the conversation at hand
It was meant more as a general comment about the discussion itself rather than as a rebuttal.


(which was about cheerleading as a specific example of institutionalized patriarchal servitude)Of course if you live in a patriarchal society, you're going to see the subordinate position of women reflected in all sorts of things - including completely peripheral things. It doesn't mean cheerleading is an example of "institutionalized patriarchal servitude", though - I don't think it is at all (which isn't to say it doesn't inevitably reflect the attitudes of the society in which it has developed - obviously it does); and like I said, I think to talk about something so marginal in these terms (i.e. "institutionalized patriarchal servitude") really minimizes actual oppression.

So it's ok because there are other examples of it :confused:What does it even mean to ask if "its ok", tho? It was an observation, not a statement of approval.

[9]

Also, just a question to TC on this point:


We're talking about an activity where attractive young women and girls, typically in very short skirts and midriff revealing tops, are put on display to engage with the crowd to cheer on and celebrate male athletes who compete with each other and are normally celebrated both collectively and individually as achieving something.

You bet its sexist. The fact that plenty of women don't mind participating in sexist institutions that they find personally rewarding for a variety of reasons doesn't make them not-sexist, it just means that they are not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy.

would you also consider strippers, for example, to be sexist and/or "not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy" by virtue of working as strippers? :confused:

[synthesis]

The fact that plenty of women don't mind participating in sexist institutions that they find personally rewarding for a variety of reasons doesn't make them not-sexist, it just means that they are not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy.

No, it means they are participating in sexist institutions. That's all it means. The lack of context in sentiments like these reeks of bourgeois idealism to me.

[TC]

Also, just a question to TC on this point:



would you also consider strippers, for example, to be sexist and/or "not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy" by virtue of working as strippers? :confused:


No, it means they are participating in sexist institutions. That's all it means.


I realize that there was an ambiguity, but the "them" referred to the institutions (as sexist), not the cheerleaders (or strippers).

I don't think individual cheerleaders are sexist, I think cheer leading however is a sexist institution.

We can imagine non-sexist versions of cheer leading, just as we can imagine non-sexist versions of the family, but these are in their current forms, sexist institutions that support patriarchal values.

Cheer leading is a hierarchy producing, objectifying institution. Its message is that women cheer on the sidelines and display and shake their assets to amuse and engage male fans - meanwhile male athletes are celebrated as active, as competitors striving for excellence and victory who are identified-with rather than ogled at. Male gaze is thus cultivated and women's bodies as entertainment is normalized. Whether or not individual cheerleaders are sexist or experience sexism or find this demeaning or empowering does not change the social affect it has in altering the communities perception of the normal.

[Invader Zim]

There are - or should i say were - a few girls I knew who were in the cheerleading squad for my university back when I was an undergraduate. I once had a discussion with one of them regarding whether her sport was sexist or not. The long and the short of it is that I was told that if she wants to dance, regardless of who the main audience is, she can - and thank God we don't live in an age of Victorian puritans - and to then fuck off and mind my own buisness....

... And you know what; she was right.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

We're talking about an activity where attractive young women and girls, typically in very short skirts and midriff revealing tops, are put on display to engage with the crowd to cheer on and celebrate male athletes who compete with each other and are normally celebrated both collectively and individually as achieving something.

You bet its sexist. The fact that plenty of women don't mind participating in sexist institutions that they find personally rewarding for a variety of reasons doesn't make them not-sexist, it just means that they are not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy.
I agree generally, but would a cheerleader for say a women's sports team be sexist? Personally, I'd be happy to be a cheerleader for a female boxer.

[PhoenixAsh]

Cheer leading is a hierarchy producing, objectifying institution. Its message is that women cheer on the sidelines and display and shake their assets to amuse and engage male fans - meanwhile male athletes are celebrated as active, as competitors striving for excellence and victory who are identified-with rather than ogled at. Male gaze is thus cultivated and women's bodies as entertainment is normalized. Whether or not individual cheerleaders are sexist or experience sexism or find this demeaning or empowering does not change the social affect it has in altering the communities perception of the normal.


hmmm..."shaking assests" and "amuse male fans" seems a tad bit trivialising for women fans who also seem to enjoy to watch cheerleading.

It also makes me wonder if you have ever watched a ballet performance and what your thoughts are on that.

Or what you think of dances like the rumba, tango and passadoble (for example).

**

What worries me in general is that sexism controversies give value to behaviour. Personally I think women should be able to enjoy whatever activities they want to enjoy....either now or after the revolution.

[Ele'ill]

It was meant more as a general comment about the discussion itself rather than as a rebuttal.

I was mainly addressing those who were viewing it as a rebuttal although it did come across as one because of the manner in which you divided and responded to my post.


Of course if you live in a patriarchal society, you're going to see the subordinate position of women reflected in all sorts of things - including completely peripheral things. It doesn't mean cheerleading is an example of "institutionalized patriarchal servitude", though - I don't think it is at all (which isn't to say it doesn't inevitably reflect the attitudes of the society in which it has developed - obviously it does); and like I said, I think to talk about something so marginal in these terms (i.e. "institutionalized patriarchal servitude") really minimizes actual oppression.
What does it even mean to ask if "its ok", tho? It was an observation, not a statement of approval.

It is an example of institutionalized patriarchal servitude and is relevant because patriarchal society isn't patriarchal without elements of actual patriarchy. This aside- the conversation wasn't started by myself- I was addressing those in the thread who were suggesting that current cheerleading isn't an element of said patriarchal society.

[PhoenixAsh]

I was mainly addressing those who were viewing it as a rebuttal although it did come across as one because of the manner in which you divided and responded to my post.

It is an example of institutionalized patriarchal servitude and is relevant because patriarchal society isn't patriarchal without elements of actual patriarchy. This aside- the conversation wasn't started by myself- I was addressing those in the thread who were suggesting that current cheerleading isn't an element of said patriarchal society.


Everything is an element of the society its comming from. This goes for everything...even feminism. Its all formed and shaped by the society its comming from. As such it is a trueism.

However..."patriarchal servitude" is a hollow statement and label on behaviour...and denies the fact that women do things because they want to do them. Its is...as a term...in itself belitteling imo. The reason why i think it is belitteling is because it equally places a moral stamp on how women should behave and what they should or should not participate in as the patriarchical structuring of society. It may be the opposite side of the coin....but its equally limiting to self expression and autonomy.

Women should be able to do what they want to do....chose what they want to chose...and enjoy the activities they want to do without groups, governments or people placing a moral ettiquette on it.

[Ele'ill]

Everything is an element of the society its comming from. This goes for everything...even feminism. Its all formed and shaped by the society its comming from. As such it is a trueism.

However..."patriarchal servitude" is a hollow statement and label on behaviour...and denies the fact that women do things because they want to do them. Its is...as a term...in itself belitteling imo. The reason why i think it is belitteling is because it equally places a moral stamp on how women should behave and what they should or should not participate in as the patriarchical structuring of society. It may be the opposite side of the coin....but its equally limiting to self expression and autonomy.

Women should be able to do what they want to do....chose what they want to chose...and enjoy the activities they want to do without groups, governments or people placing a moral ettiquette on it.

We're talking past each other.

[PhoenixAsh]

We're talking past each other.

I get the same feeling... :)

[Ele'ill]

I get the same feeling... :)

I didn't mean that offensively or anything I just think at this point right now we're discussing two issues that are related. I'm not arguing that there isn't a bigger picture but critiquing the conversation halfway through the thread with the original poster suggesting that cheerleading right now isn't an 'example of patriarchy' (or patriarchal servitude as a structure- not an act or decision by the individuals involved)

Yes I understand 'patriarchal society' but we're discussing cheerleading as an example within it- and it is quite definitely institutionalized which is even further down the line in specifics.

[Political_Chucky]

We're talking past each other.

Thats kinda why I stopped participating. Hindsight was basically saying what I wanted to say, and then I also remembered we were arguing about cheerleading:rolleyes: haha.

[PhoenixAsh]

I didn't mean that offensively or anything I just think at this point right now we're discussing two issues that are related. I'm not arguing that there isn't a bigger picture but critiquing the conversation halfway through the thread with the original poster suggesting that cheerleading right now isn't an 'example of patriarchy' (or patriarchal servitude as a structure- not an act or decision by the individuals involved)

Yes I understand 'patriarchal society' but we're discussing cheerleading as an example within it- and it is quite definitely institutionalized which is even further down the line in specifics.

I know you didn't...hence the smilie ;)

I think we agree on a lot of points....but view the topic from a different perspective.

so rephrasing my position....


Cheerleading in the early years was male dominated. In the 20's it became a women dominated sport....and was, in accodance with the limitations of the time, seen as somewhat of a "liberation" for women who could now participate and behave outside of normal role models pushed on them. Which, the role and fact that this was their only option, is sexist.

The system, being what it is, then proceeded to incorperate this and exploit it to make money. As such it was objectivied, capitalised and sexualised in media and the public minds. Cheerleading was and is used to gain money and exploit women enjoying an activity to do so. Within that system the role of cheerleading became sexist. Trivialising the activity and performance to the sidelines to gain attention by exploiting women and keeping the performance as a sideshow instead of a simultanious expression of athleticism or skill to attract men as audience.

From the viewpoint of the women...its an activity many seem to enjoy and actively pursue. Some want to actively cheer teams...because they think it is fun and others want to pursue the activity because of its athletic possibilities. as an activity viewed in this light cheerleading is neutral...and merely an activity women want to do. Viewed as such it is not a sexist activity in its own right...it is being used that way and made into one by the system.


I think this pretty much incorporates our positions?

[brigadista]

cheerleaders are vile agents of satan...

[PhoenixAsh]

cheerleaders are vile agents of satan...


yes...but way more effective than Bob Doyle. ;)

[brigadista]

RIP Bob and he wore much better clothes

[synthesis]

I realize that there was an ambiguity, but the "them" referred to the institutions (as sexist), not the cheerleaders (or strippers).


Wait, what? No, it didn't. Don't mean to be a douche, but...


You bet its sexist. The fact that plenty of women don't mind participating in sexist institutions that they find personally rewarding for a variety of reasons doesn't make them not-sexist, it just means that they are not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy. (emphasis added)

That seems like it's pretty clearly referring to the cheerleaders/strippers/whatever, not the institutions that encourage them.

[TC]

Wait, what? No, it didn't. Don't mean to be a douche, but...



That seems like it's pretty clearly referring to the cheerleaders/strippers/whatever, not the institutions that encourage them.


They = the cheerleaders

Them = the institution of cheerleading.

Stop trolling now that I've explained it twice.

[Political_Chucky]

My thanks for synthesis is after tc's post. Sorry.:blushing:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

yes...but way more effective than Bob Doyle. ;)
I read that as Bob Dole. Jajaja!

[NGNM85]

Jesus Christ... I don't know what's worse, that this thread is still going or that no progress seems to have been made.

[Ele'ill]

Jesus Christ... I don't know what's worse, that this thread is still going or that no progress seems to have been made.

Or your lack of contribution. This can also be viewed as a compliment so I don't want to hear any complaining.

[synthesis]

They = the cheerleaders

Them = the institution of cheerleading.

Stop trolling now that I've explained it twice.

I love how "trolling" is the new catch-all phrase to describe "anything you disagree with." Again, I don't think you've addressed the underlying argument in my posts, but feel free to correct me if I've missed it.

[Ele'ill]

Again, I don't think you've addressed the underlying argument in my posts, but feel free to correct me if I've missed it.

What is the underlying argument in your posts

[TC]

I love how "trolling" is the new catch-all phrase to describe "anything you disagree with."
But its not, its running around trying to find opportunities to smugly say "got ya!" - its trying, through painfully manipulative parsing and reinterpretation of what I wrote, to find an 'edge' to comment not on the substance of my argument but to try to make me look bad for expressing what you take to be a bad sentiment.

In short, its trying to bait me, over and over and over again, not to advance an argument, but for rhetorical gain.

I'm finished engaging with you until you can contribute constructively, so do not expect further replies.

[synthesis]

Look, you said this in response to my post:


I realize that there was an ambiguity, but the "them" referred to the institutions (as sexist), not the cheerleaders (or strippers).

And that wasn't what I was referring to. Originally, you said:


The fact that plenty of women don't mind participating in sexist institutions that they find personally rewarding for a variety of reasons doesn't make them not-sexist, it just means that they are not acting in solidarity against the patriarchy.

I replied:


No, it means they are participating in sexist institutions. That's all it means. The lack of context in sentiments like these reeks of bourgeois idealism to me.

What I had hoped would come across in this post is that when I read you saying that they aren't "acting in solidarity against the patriarchy" it strikes me as a narrow perspective on this topic, as well as somewhat judgmental. I'm sorry that you think I'm "trying to make you look bad," "bait you," and engage in a "painfully manipulative parsing of your posts" or whatever; I'm not sure what reason you think I'd have to try to make you look bad, but that's just not the case.

[PhoenixAsh]

I read that as Bob Dole. Jajaja!

Hahaha...also a good option, but I was refering to this spawn of satan: http://www.wealthbeyondreason.com/mystory.html

[Red_Devotchka]

"-A chearleader! Pure evil! What do you want?
-Oh it's me silly! Senior Satan! You didn't seem too disturbed the first time you saw me. I thought this would do the trick! "

- JTHM by Jhonen Vasquez quote

[∞]

I saw the video. Was that topless bit really necessary?