Ban Cheerleaders from Professional Sporting Events?

[Crystal Shards]

As always, I posted this on my site and figured you guys might want to add in as well:

I found this to be random enough to where people might want to respond.

I found this on the same site I got the stuff about the assassination of dictators. I thought it'd be interesting to hear some opinions on it:

Context

Professional cheerleaders can be found across a range of sports including American football, basketball, rugby league and wrestling. They are particularly popular in the USA but can also be found in other countries. For example, many teams in the Australian National Rugby League are accompanied at matches by their own cheerleading squads. These squads are mainly made up of women, and are paid considerably less than the men who make up the teams that they support. This debate is not about banning cheerleading as an extra-curricular activity in schools or at college. Nor is it about banning amateur cheerleading competitions (those organized for cheerleading teams who are not paid). It should focus on the role of professional cheerleaders who exist specifically to support men’s sport teams, rather than to represent a school or college more generally.

Arguments

Pros

• Professional cheerleaders cause men to think of women as objects. They exist on the sideline, wearing short skirts and looking pretty, whilst the male sports players are the heroes. This affects the way that men view women more generally. It makes them think that women are less important than men. Even where professional cheerleading squads contain men, this view of women is reinforced: male cheerleaders lift women and throw them around as if they are objects and only there for decoration.
  
• The fact that cheerleaders want to do the activity is less important than the impact that it has on the way that people think about women in general. If I do something that seriously harms somebody else, that person should be able to stop me from doing it if the harm to me considerably outweighs the benefit to them. The fact that I want to be a cheerleader is outweighed by the harm caused to other women. Not only do men view women as inferior as a result of watching them on the sidelines, but women also begin to believe that they are inferior. They see cheerleaders supporting men and being paid a lot less than the male sports stars, and they begin to think that it is normal for women to be less important.
  
• Professional cheerleaders are bad role models for women, and especially for teenagers who take part in cheerleading. They tend to wear shorter skirts and show more of their skin than college and high school cheerleaders. In addition, their routines tend to be more obviously sexual, and less focused on gymnastic stunts. This encourages young girls who do cheerleading as an extra-curricular activity at school to act in this way too. Banning professional cheerleaders would remove this bad influence.
  
• The presence of cheerleaders standing on the side lines in men’s sports detracts from the success that women achieve as sports players in their own right. Women are very talented at sport, as demonstrated by Venus and Serena Williams in tennis, Paula Radcliff in athletics or Nastia Liukin in gymnastics. However, when people see cheerleaders they are more likely to view women’s role in sport as one confined to looking pretty on the sidelines. Women's sport already receives a lot less coverage than men’s sport, and it is important to promote the success that women achieve. Professional cheerleaders detract from this.
  
• Professional cheerleaders discourage lots of women, religious people and families from attending professional sports games. Many people do not want to watch women dancing on the pitch wearing skimpy clothes, so do not attend. Similarly, they do not bring their children because they think that it is inappropriate. Professional sports games are a great way to bring people together to form a community. It also encourages children to take part in sport themselves, improving their health. Professional cheerleaders are harmful because they discourage such attendance.
  
• Professional cheerleaders cause lots of harm in terms of views of women, but add little to sport. It is clear that cheerleaders are not necessary to bring about audience participation. Fans at soccer matches in the UK are very animated without the presence of cheerleaders. The same is true at important tennis matches. Getting rid of professional cheerleaders would allow fans to focus properly on the game itself.
  

Cons

• Women should be able to choose what activities to take part in, regardless of the reaction of men. If they enjoy cheerleading, and want to be paid to do the activity, it is unfair to stop them because of what other people might think about them. People should be able to choose what to do with their lives.
  
• It is not clear that watching cheerleaders makes men and women think less of women. There are hundreds of factors which might contribute to women being viewed as less important, such as the fact that there are many fewer female politicians or managing directors than male politicians and managing directors. Banning professional cheerleaders won’t stop these attitudes from existing. In addition, images of women wearing few clothes and looking thin and pretty are present all over newspapers, magazines, TV and advertising. These images probably have a much greater impact on the way that people view women than cheerleading does.
  
• It is not true that high school and college cheerleaders necessarily look up to professional cheerleaders. Often, cheerleading squads within schools focus on competitions and on representing their school, without wearing these sorts of outfits. These squads try really hard to improve the acrobatic elements of their routines in order to be better than other squads. They develop confidence and self-esteem through being part of a team. The influence of professional cheerleaders is minimal.
  
• There is no reason why professional cheerleaders cannot be respected for the athletic talent that cheerleading requires. If we want women’s sport to be more respected, it might be necessary to spend more money promoting games or force the media to cover a larger number of female sporting events, rather than focusing on men. However, professional cheerleaders do not stop any of these sports from being treated seriously.
  
• Very few people choose not to go to sports matches because of cheerleaders. If they did, sports teams would have no reason to pay cheerleaders because they would lose money through being unable to sell enough tickets. In reality, lots of people like watching cheerleaders. They contribute to the excitement.
  
• Professional cheerleaders do encourage audience participation. In games like American football, where there are lots of breaks, cheerleaders keep the crowd interested. They also encourage crowds to cheer more loudly during play. This creates a more exciting atmosphere and motivates the players to play better, making the game more enjoyable for everyone.
  

Well... what do you think?

[quanta]

I don't actually watch sports, but... the idea of banning cheerleading because some people think it affect how people think about women seems off to me. Kind of pro thought-police or something. I'll probably elaborate more later if possible.

[Phoenix Wright]

Other than our teenagers looking up to cheerleaders, I don't find the pros argument to be very strong, as it states the same thing in different ways.

Cheerleaders aren't important to the game at all, that's the reason I feel they should be booted. All they truly are is eye candy for the players on the bench and the men in the crowd.

[Freohr Datia]

As for the fact that it'll make younger teenagers follow the more sexual stuff it's too late to change that they'll remember what they did and continue it. It might die out though so guess I gotta consider that too.

I don't like the girls that become cheerleaders in my school they're all stuck-up jerks

[Defeatist Elitist]

I think banning things because they "cause X to think of Y as Z" is rather silly, unless it has been proven without a doubt to be true and irreversibly damaging. All of the Pro arguments tend to be based around that idea, so really, I must say I can't agree it should be banned.

[CrashGordon94]

Banning might be going a bit far, if it's such a problem, they can tone it down and de-sexualise it and see how that turns out.

Always try lighter, less serious solutions before you do anything drastic.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Nowhere on there does it point out that at professional sporting events, cheerleaders more often than not make money without hurting people.

That ultimately makes all other points silly and contrived.

Maybe I'm wrong though. While we're banning Cheerleading to empower women, let's ban the Marching Band because of how that labels nerds and geeks. Lets ban sports for making objects out of Jocks. Let's ban fun because it pushes out the anti-social.

[Crystal Shards]

Nowhere on there does it point out that at professional sporting events, cheerleaders more often than not make money without hurting people.

That ultimately makes all other points silly and contrived.

Maybe I'm wrong though. While we're banning Cheerleading to empower women, let's ban the Marching Band because of how that labels nerds and geeks. Lets ban sports for making objects out of Jocks. Let's ban fun because it pushes out the anti-social.

Er, most sports players don't hurt others. It's generally not intentional in sports like football, rugby, basketball and soccer, and in sports like tennis, motocross, track and field, curling, softball, baseball, gymnastics, figure skating, cricket, bowling, cycling, golf, etc., you rarely even get the chance to hurt anyone. It's not even really possible in some of the sports I've mentioned unless you attack someone off the court/field/track/diamond/floor/ice. Even in boxing, the general idea isn't to kill or anything. So just because cheerleaders don't hurt people isn't really a valid defense of keeping it.

This isn't to say I'm for banning it. I'm not. I just wanted to point out the problem with your logic.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Zanarkin]

As for the fact that it'll make younger teenagers follow the more sexual stuff it's too late to change that they'll remember what they did and continue it. It might die out though so guess I gotta consider that too.

I don't like the girls that become cheerleaders in my school they're all stuck-up jerks

A teenager doesn't need cheerleaders to follow the more sexual stuff, they have internet.

As for banning cheerleaders, i don't see why we should do it. If we go by the logic of someone impacting someone then most sports would have been banned.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Er, most sports players don't hurt others. It's generally not intentional in sports like football, rugby, basketball and soccer, and in sports like tennis, motocross, track and field, curling, softball, baseball, gymnastics, figure skating, cricket, bowling, cycling, golf, etc., you rarely even get the chance to hurt anyone. It's not even really possible in some of the sports I've mentioned unless you attack someone off the court/field/track/diamond/floor/ice. Even in boxing, the general idea isn't to kill or anything. So just because cheerleaders don't hurt people isn't really a valid defense of keeping it.

This isn't to say I'm for banning it. I'm not. I just wanted to point out the problem with your logic.

Not sure where you get the idea that I'd care if someone playing a sport got hurt. I was saying that there is a difference between Cheerleading and drug dealing, bank robbing, and professional assassin.

Edited March 8, 2010 by bunny: Now with Pancakes

[General Spoon]

Not sure where you get the idea that I'd care if someone playing a sport got hurt. I was saying that there is a difference between Cheerleading and drug dealing, bank robbing, and professional assassin.

Maybe to you there is a difference.

Not saying that there isn't a difference in this to mean. I'm just throwing the food for thought out there.

[Crysta]

I don't find them to be demeaning to women any more than the thousand of other things women do themselves to garner that sort of attention, so I wouldn't support banning them on that reasoning alone. It's not like they're being forced to do it.

[Crystal Shards]

Not sure where you get the idea that I'd care if someone playing a sport got hurt. I was saying that there is a difference between Cheerleading and drug dealing, bank robbing, and professional assassin.

Uh...

Nowhere on there does it point out that at professional sporting events, cheerleaders more often than not make money without hurting people.

[Narga_Rocks]

Uh...

His sentence is ambiguous. While you could infer he's saying "unlike the people on the field, cheerleaders aren't getting paid to hurt people", "cheerleaders more often than not make money without hurting people" could also mean what he says later when he explains it: This makes them better than drug dealers, etc.

Oh, and since this isn't FFtF or Introductions, I should point out that your post was effectively a one word post.

[Crystal Shards]

His sentence is ambiguous. While you could infer he's saying "unlike the people on the field, cheerleaders aren't getting paid to hurt people", "cheerleaders more often than not make money without hurting people" could also mean what he says later when he explains it: This makes them better than drug dealers, etc.

Oh, and since this isn't FFtF or Introductions, I should point out that your post was effectively a one word post.

I get that his sentence was ambiguous. I also didn't really need to tack on anything to my post past what I did because adding anything else would have been unnecessary. He wanted a clarification, so I gave him one. I never said HIS clarification was incorrect, I only pointed out what gave me the impression that he meant something else initially.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[-Cynthia-]

I don't find them to be demeaning to women any more than the thousand of other things women do themselves to garner that sort of attention, so I wouldn't support banning them on that reasoning alone. It's not like they're being forced to do it.

I agree with this. Some women make very little sense in regards to issues like this. They do things like et breast imp,ants then complain about being objectiified, which makes very little sense to me.

Edited March 10, 2010 by -Cynthia-

[Nestling]

Cheerleaders are pretty damn effective. When the other team has a crapload of erections they're caring more about their penis sticking out on television rather than playing.

[Esau of Isaac]

To even suggest that the existence of cheerleaders causes a real and attention-worthy amount of damage to the credibility of women by attempting to objectify them is beyond retarded. Especially after being followed with such logic as "they're bad role models because they show more skin and do sexy things".

In fact, pretty much every single point of reasoning on the pro side, perhaps barring the very last, is based on such a ridiculously asinine concentration on a meaningless and non-existent threat that it makes the entire debate into a joke. I would go so far as to say that just about any debate over objectification of a person's properties (especially women in general) being an inherently bad thing makes me mentally cringe. It's like watching a review for a favorite childhood movie and witness it get picked apart as the author mines for vague instances they can interpret as racism or sexism.

[Original Alear]

Hmm. I actually wouldn't care that much if cheerleaders were banned, however I think the "pro" case is vastly overstated. It also has a tendency to sound quite socially conservative even when attempting to claim it is pro-women, leaving a bad taste in my mouth. To some extent, I hope to expose potential hypocrisies in the pro side, but I do admit that when all is said and done, it actually is possible that cheerleading does do a lot of harm in terms of pigeonholing women. I don't think it does, but I haven't been to many sporting events, and don't really know how guys (or girls) view cheerleaders as representative of women.

Professional cheerleaders cause men to think of women as objects. They exist on the sideline, wearing short skirts and looking pretty, whilst the male sports players are the heroes. This affects the way that men view women more generally. It makes them think that women are less important than men. Even where professional cheerleading squads contain men, this view of women is reinforced: male cheerleaders lift women and throw them around as if they are objects and only there for decoration.

I think this is a fair point. However, we must recognize that it works both ways. I think it is much more a reinforcement of any sexist ideas than it is a source of those ideas. I do not think that banning activities that objectify women is going to reduce sexism.

To me, there are also some double standards going on in the pro side. On the one hand, cheerleaders should not be viewed as inferior to football players. It is BAD for us to feel like the football players have a more important role, even though they do (and it's not so much that it is because they are men, as because they are playing in a football game rather than cheering for a football game). On the other hand, they are bad role models and girls should not want to be cheerleaders. I agree that at least the stereotype for why girls want to be cheerleaders is to get fame, attention, etc lavished on them and it may be bad to want to be a cheerleader for this reason (though a cynical side of me says lots of people do what they do to get attention, and at least when you're a cheerleader you actually get it). However, I do not agree that it is bad to want to be a cheerleader.

Professional cheerleaders discourage lots of women, religious people and families from attending professional sports games. Many people do not want to watch women dancing on the pitch wearing skimpy clothes, so do not attend. Similarly, they do not bring their children because they think that it is inappropriate. Professional sports games are a great way to bring people together to form a community. It also encourages children to take part in sport themselves, improving their health. Professional cheerleaders are harmful because they discourage such attendance.

Most members of religious communities who have fairly strict dress codes are already part of a community. It is a shame that these people are insulated from the rest of society, but essentially this point seems to be arguing that commercial events should reshape themselves in order to be PC and be unobjectionable to everyone.

Secondly, this point says that children should watch professional sports because it encourages them to play sports. This seems to mean that children will play sports because they see that good players will get lots of attention, money and fame. Essentially, it is bad for a woman to want to be a cheerleader for these things, but it is good for men to want all these things and to try and obtain them by becoming sports players. Again, there is a double standard going on about why people should want to be what they want to be, with reasons being chosen in order to justify a viewpoint instead of viewpoints being chosen for any set of logical reasons (doing the former tends to generate contradictory reasons over an extended argument. I recognize that most people probably do this, including myself. However, I think I am better at avoiding it than whoever generated these reasons). Additionally, unless the urge to be a professional sports player turns into a love for play of the sport in and of itself, watching pro sports will not encourage people to play sports past their high school and college years.

In short, i do not think that commercial sporting events are so socially benefial that this argument has any validity, especially since the members of such strict religious communities are making a decision themselves.

I think that if it will help them get profits, commercial events should cater to religions which have strict dress codes and see clothes which suggest sexuality. If it will not help them get profits, they should not. I suspect that catering to religions with such strict codes of conduct would NOT benefit the NFL and other sports organizations.

Professional cheerleaders cause lots of harm in terms of views of women, but add little to sport. It is clear that cheerleaders are not necessary to bring about audience participation. Fans at soccer matches in the UK are very animated without the presence of cheerleaders. The same is true at important tennis matches. Getting rid of professional cheerleaders would allow fans to focus properly on the game itself.

This makes a potentially improper assumption itself in saying that a sporting spectacle has to be solely about the sport. It is such a crime if someone goes to a football game without caring about the football? Instead of "allowing fans to focus properly" (I love that word properly, it's so filled with arrogance) attempts to focus certain sporting events entirely on the sport may decrease the number of fans.

Edited March 12, 2010 by SeverIan

[Doom103]

Once you go to a sports game and you see the cheerleaders/dancers then you will think this topic is ridiculous

First they all look damn happy doing it, second just look at them ...

[Original Alear]

There's also a tradition in classical painting of women being primarily concerned with how others perceive them. In paintings of "Leda and the Swan" (told by William Butler Yeats as a rather horrific rape) there are both paintings that show it as a rape and those that show leda as perversely attracted to the swan. (this is in part due to an earlier view of womankind in Europe where, rather than being the "fairer sex", they were seen as more sexually corrupt and perverse.) I can't post the images because they contain nudity, but one could easily look on that

I'm not saying your post is wrong, but I think questions of identity, stereotypes etc tend to be a little more searching than "they look happy so it's fine".

I'm sure you will respond "well sevvy those are pictures as opposed to actual depictions of women being raped by zeus-swans" and I don't think you'd be incorrect to say that, however the opening post of this topic questioned whether 1: they actually enjoy it (i.e., like all performers) as opposed to making it seem like they enjoy it for attention - because guys like it when girls like it - or 2: simply because they enjoy it, that means they should be seen as role models for girls to aspire to.

There was also a tradition of depicting jovial slaves working happily on master's plantation. Nazis disguised concentration camps for the red cross to make it look like the jews were treated humanely, if separately. I KNOW you are going to (justly) say that women cheerleaders are not as bad as slavery or the holocaust. But my point is not that it is as bad as these things, but that a person who acts happy isn't necessarily happy. Certainly true today and possibly always true. Especially when us (the men) want to convince ourselves that the women like putting themselves on display for us.

I don't agree with either of those counters to your claim, but I think leaving them entirely unconsidered is kind of...not so srs.

I think one aspect of "srs" discussion today is taking a good hard look at a "oh here's some common sense let's leave it alone." At the same time, I do think this particular issue is one so absurdly blown out of proportion by the "con" side that I'm not apt to take it seriously at a glance either. (mostly because, like some feminist arguments, this one tries to assume all agency on the part of the women is mistaken or misguided).

EDIT: All in all...I guess what I'm saying is, you're right, and you might even know all the reasons I'm listed that support you being right, but being that terse about it is absolutely useless.

Edited April 6, 2010 by SeverIan

[Esau of Isaac]

While this isn't quite directed at you Severlan --I realize you are just saying it to show an earlier poster's logic hollow-- I feel it worth noting that it's entirely irrelevant whether many women are just putting a show on of seeming happy while they cheer; practically any profession requires a set of behavior, whether or not the person holds that emotion at the time. In the same sense that my pal is expected to reply to snide comments toward him with "Very well, sir, we will remove you from our call list" rather than "Well fuck you too buddy", cheerleaders are expected to be...cheery. It would be contrary to their job to not appear energetic.

[Original Alear]

While this isn't quite directed at you Severlan --I realize you are just saying it to show an earlier poster's logic hollow-- I feel it worth noting that it's entirely irrelevant whether many women are just putting a show on of seeming happy while they cheer; practically any profession requires a set of behavior, whether or not the person holds that emotion at the time. In the same sense that my pal is expected to reply to snide comments toward him with "Very well, sir, we will remove you from our call list" rather than "Well fuck you too buddy", cheerleaders are expected to be...cheery. It would be contrary to their job to not appear energetic.

Ya, I actually agree with that, and it's worth keeping in mind. Although I didn't really consciously recognize it at the time, I think I was getting at that in an earlier post when I noted that one of the "pro" points didn't seem to have any problems with kids wanting to play sports to be like athletes (even if they do so because they want fame and money, rather than love of the game itself), but were concerned with girls wanting to be cheerleaders to get attention, and assumably some money too.

[deleted35362]

LOL@ improper use of "pros" and "cons". It means the good points and bad points, not one side

of an argument and another.

Well, pretty much all I can say is that cheerleaders don't make women in general look bad, I

think. From what I've heard, they only have an effect on the group itself...cheerleaders.

People make fun of cheerleaders by the way they act and that's pretty much it. I certainly

wouldn't base my opinion towards an entire gender upon a group, but that's probably just

because I think women>men anyways.

[Original Alear]

LOL@ improper use of "pros" and "cons". It means the good points and bad points, not one side

of an argument and another.

Who exactly is this directed towards? Crystal used them as such and so did I, I didn't see Isaac using them, and I don't think I saw any such use in any of the other posts?