Ban Cheerleaders from Professional Sporting Events?

[Crystal Shards]

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

of an argument and another.

Um, or pro can mean for and con can mean against... LOL @ trying to be an smart ass and failing.

Anyway, we watched an interesting documentary last night called Dreamworlds 3. It was about the music video industry and how sexualized women are in it. Women are seen as overly sexual and enjoy having sex at any time. They get alcohol, water, and other things sprayed on them, they dress for fetishes (schoolgirl, cheerleader, dominatrix, teacher, nurse, etc.), they get dominated (and enjoy it), they get "put in place," their asses are used to swipe credit cards, etc. etc. etc. In the 2000s, there were two examples of this happening in real life, one during a Mardi Gras celebration I believe, where women were molested by men (who didn't know each other prior to the event, so it wasn't a planned thing)... and some kind of pride parade, I believe a Hispanic pride parade, where these women were grabbed at, their clothes torn off, groped, sprayed alcohol on, etc., just like in the music videos. People were shocked and outraged and all that, but it looked exactly like a lot of the music videos. The only real difference was that the women in real life were not enjoying the treatment they were getting. They weren't saying that sexuality is bad, or that sexual images are bad, but when there is one overwhelming way of showing sexuality, that is bad. It fragments women into two or three body parts and takes away their humanity, which can lead to real life attitudes of about the same thing.

As an aside, according to Inga Muscio's Cunt, "One out of eight movies in Hollywood contains a rape scene. In American cinema, rape scenes tend to be violently eroticized, and often have nothing to do with the main plot of the film."

My point here is not that music videos, movies, or cheerleading are bad, but I think they do add to a general social construct of how women are supposed to be (thin, sexualized, etc.). When women don't fit these norms, they're ostracized at least to some extent, and when they do, they're often mistreated. Whether we should ban either form of entertainment is a point I don't really want to argue, because I don't know that it will help to be honest, but it is something to keep in mind while figuring out what you think the best option is.

[Esau of Isaac]

Anyway, we watched an interesting documentary last night called Dreamworlds 3. It was about the music video industry and how sexualized women are in it. Women are seen as overly sexual and enjoy having sex at any time. They get alcohol, water, and other things sprayed on them, they dress for fetishes (schoolgirl, cheerleader, dominatrix, teacher, nurse, etc.), they get dominated (and enjoy it), they get "put in place," their asses are used to swipe credit cards, etc. etc. etc.

Of course they're sexualized in music videos. The purpose of music videos for most crowds is to be a total attention whore, not to spell out some short narrative, and the absolute best way to get attention is to appeal to everyone's sexual tastes. Aspects such as domination also serve as a means for the creator to beat his chest, as I will assume you are talking about mainstream hip-hop with individuals rapping about their sexual exploits anyways.

In the 2000s, there were two examples of this happening in real life, one during a Mardi Gras celebration I believe, where women were molested by men (who didn't know each other prior to the event, so it wasn't a planned thing)... and some kind of pride parade, I believe a Hispanic pride parade, where these women were grabbed at, their clothes torn off, groped, sprayed alcohol on, etc., just like in the music videos. People were shocked and outraged and all that, but it looked exactly like a lot of the music videos. The only real difference was that the women in real life were not enjoying the treatment they were getting.

This isn't a realization of social norms (at the least, not anything related to your above example), but the result of inebriated stupid guys at a carnival which centers for many around alcohol and tits.

They weren't saying that sexuality is bad, or that sexual images are bad, but when there is one overwhelming way of showing sexuality, that is bad. It fragments women into two or three body parts and takes away their humanity, which can lead to real life attitudes of about the same thing.

But there isn't one overwhelming way of showing sexuality. There are literally hundreds of means by which men and women display sexuality. The problem, however, is that the majority of individuals are attracted to specific areas of the female body, and that's inevitably going to fall in under ten body parts. No one's going to try to use feet to appeal to everyone's tastes. They're going to use tits, ass, hips, and face. They're the things that the largest number of people find sexy in a woman.

As an aside, according to Inga Muscio's Cunt, "One out of eight movies in Hollywood contains a rape scene. In American cinema, rape scenes tend to be violently eroticized, and often have nothing to do with the main plot of the film."

This would be because one of the primary things to look for on a horror-movie check-list is a pair of tits at some point in the film, and the easiest means to get such is through violence involving the bad guy. Though this depends on what is constituted rape in this case. I'd also ask for a citation from this guy, were he here, as his statistic sounds somewhat fishy.

My point here is not that music videos, movies, or cheerleading are bad, but I think they do add to a general social construct of how women are supposed to be (thin, sexualized, etc.). When women don't fit these norms, they're ostracized at least to some extent, and when they do, they're often mistreated. Whether we should ban either form of entertainment is a point I don't really want to argue, because I don't know that it will help to be honest, but it is something to keep in mind while figuring out what you think the best option is.

I can't completely agree with that. There is a veritable shitstorm in the media of "BE WHO YOU WANT TO BE GODDAMNIT". There's a social norm of women being thin and sexualized, but I don't find this negative in the slightest, anymore than men are expected by social norms to be confident, unflappable, and handsome. It's entirely impossible for norms not to exist. In another hundred years they'll be something else, but relevant to the society of that time. Some women are ostracized when they don't meet the norms currently in place, but then people are always going to be ostracized for some reason. People always group off into teams centered around a common ideal. They'll always exist so long as individuality in society exists. It's human nature.

[Crysta]

Of course they're sexualized in music videos. The purpose of music videos for most crowds is to be a total attention whore, not to spell out some short narrative, and the absolute best way to get attention is to appeal to everyone's sexual tastes.

I think it's not to be an attention whore as much as it is to display how awesome and manly the artist in the video is, which more often than not is a male. Sex is related to power, and the more scantily-clad women you have vapidly gyrating in your music video, the more powerful you appear to your fellow male peers. And women.

I guess you could argue that some female artists do the same, but I haven't heard many songs written by female artists telling men to back dat ass up. If there is, I haven't been paying that much attention, I guess. I just don't see much of an equivalence, and I don't intend on insisting there is one when there simply isn't.

tl;dr - it IS tailored more towards mens' sexual tastes.

This isn't a realization of social norms (at the least, not anything related to your above example), but the result of inebriated stupid guys at a carnival which centers for many around alcohol and tits.

Mardi Gras isn't supposed to be about booze and boobs. If it's turned into that, then it does say a lot about society.

This would be because one of the primary things to look for on a horror-movie check-list is a pair of tits at some point in the film...

Uh... what? I never go into a horror movie looking for this.

Though I would approve of having rock-hard abs show up. I'm not getting my hopes high, though.

It's human nature.

Human nature sucks and deserves to be questioned before so readily accepted, imo. The less acceptable misogyny is the better, regardless of how acceptable it currently is in certain contexts.

If I had to decide which was more offensive to me as a woman between cheerleading versus Nelly's Tip Drill and expecting tits in a horror movie, I'd choose the latter.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Crysta

[Esau of Isaac]

I think it's not to be an attention whore as much as it is to display how awesome and manly the artist in the video is, which more often than not is a male. Sex is related to power, and the more scantily-clad women you have vapidly gyrating in your music video, the more powerful you appear to your fellow male peers. And women.

I guess you could argue that some female artists do the same, but I haven't heard many songs written by female artists telling men to back dat ass up. If there is, I haven't been paying that much attention, I guess. I just don't see much of an equivalence, and I don't intend on insisting there is one when there simply isn't.

tl;dr - it IS tailored more towards mens' sexual tastes.

This would be because the gender roles regarding females don't encourage women bragging about their partner, whereas they do for men. The male artists that do so are plainly more popular than the women that may do the same, which further evidences the point.

Mardi Gras isn't supposed to be about booze and boobs. If it's turned into that, then it does say a lot about society.

It doesn't say much. Just that college kids like booze and sex.

Uh... what? I never go into a horror movie looking for this.

Horror movie nuts tend to. Tits and gore, not to mention great B-acting. Classic combination.

Human nature sucks and deserves to be questioned before so readily accepted, imo.

Readily accept what? You don't accept or deny human nature; that's why it's nature.

The less acceptable misogyny is the better, regardless of how acceptable it currently is in certain contexts.

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with misogyny. This is about sexualization of women, not contempt towards them.

If I had to decide which was more offensive to me as a woman between cheerleading versus Nelly's Tip Drill and expecting tits in a horror movie, I'd choose the latter.

Fantastic for you. There are other people that are offended over nothing seeking or meaning to harm them as well.

[deleted35362]

Um, or pro can mean for and con can mean against... LOL @ trying to be an smart ass and failing.

Man, I'm getting tired of being labeled as the asshole in this place. Pros and cons means advantages and

disadvantages.

[Esau of Isaac]

Man, I'm getting tired of being labeled as the asshole in this place. Pros and cons means advantages and

disadvantages.

You should probably apologize now. For being an asshole, I mean.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[deleted35362]

That's not what I found, and there's no way in 9 hells I'm gonna come close to apologizing

to this guy.

[Original Alear]

That's not what I found, and there's no way in 9 hells I'm gonna come close to apologizing

to this guy.

OK, first off you should know that Crystal (who I think you are talking about) is female. Although "guy" can probably be used as a gender-neutral nowadays, I personally don't think it works when referring to a single person (though IMO 'guys' does work when referring to groups of people perfectly fine).

Anyway. Apologies beside the point, let me explain why I think your statement,

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

of an argument and another.

is inherently contradictory.

Let us say we have a particular argument, in this case "cheerleaders should be banned from professional sports" (it isn't ever directly stated in the initial post that the argument being made is "yes" to the question phrased in the topic title, but it can be inferred by any first grader from the way that the reasons under "pro" support this argument). According to your own definition of pros and cons, the pros are the "good side" of this argument and the cons are the "bad points".

Even if pros and cons are the good and bad points of an argument, they almost by definition become the points of argument for each of the two sides. That is, one side will attempt to prove the "pros" and show the "cons" to be faulty while the other side will attempt the opposite.

It's not that I disagree that pros and cons tend to be good or bad points, but they also tend to be points upheld by one side of the argument or the other. Thus, the "pro" side is one which thinks the respective weight of the good options outweighs the respective weight of the bad options; the con side is...the exact opposite of what I just said.

All this being said, the idea of "good" or "bad" collapses in situations when whether something is a net positive or net negative for society is called into question, making your form of distinction between pros and cons far less useful than one which includes both "good and bad points" and "one side of an argument and the other".

In summation, you should not play as being Mr. Idea and Grammar police without considering the possibility of multiple meanings, and also the possibility of dissolving/ed meanings.

[Esau of Isaac]

That's not what I found, and there's no way in 9 hells I'm gonna come close to apologizing

to this guy.

Then you probably should've looked a bit harder.

Oh, and you don't need to apologize. I just meant if you're tired of being labeled as an asshole in "this place". It's kind of hard not to be labeled an asshole when you won't apologize for your mistakes, especially when they were fuckups of an attempt to mock another's abilities.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Crystal Shards]

Of course they're sexualized in music videos. The purpose of music videos for most crowds is to be a total attention whore, not to spell out some short narrative, and the absolute best way to get attention is to appeal to everyone's sexual tastes. Aspects such as domination also serve as a means for the creator to beat his chest, as I will assume you are talking about mainstream hip-hop with individuals rapping about their sexual exploits anyways.

The point of music videos is to tell a story, not to show off asses. That's what it's devolved into, yeah, but that's not the point. If all our song lyrics are about the sexualization and dehumanization of any group, there's a problem. And it's more than just hip-hop; just look at rock.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for censorship by any means. I feel everyone has a right to free speech. But I do think we need to reevaluate our needs and goals when there's really only one way to express yourself, especially if that one way is through talking about your sexual exploits. It creates a society in which mistreatment is not only possible but--at times--acceptable. It can also help create a "blame the victim" society.

This isn't a realization of social norms (at the least, not anything related to your above example), but the result of inebriated stupid guys at a carnival which centers for many around alcohol and tits.

That's not what Mardi Gras was about initially, and I don't think a Hispanic pride parade is exactly what you're describing either. Even given that Mardi Gras can be defined that way now, that doesn't excuse their behavior, and anywhere where that doesn't bring outrage to those who hear about it is in need of change.

But there isn't one overwhelming way of showing sexuality. There are literally hundreds of means by which men and women display sexuality. The problem, however, is that the majority of individuals are attracted to specific areas of the female body, and that's inevitably going to fall in under ten body parts. No one's going to try to use feet to appeal to everyone's tastes. They're going to use tits, ass, hips, and face. They're the things that the largest number of people find sexy in a woman.

Exactly, there isn't one overwhelming way of showing sexuality in real life. But in the media, there is (most of the time). Therein lies the problem.

I can't completely agree with that. There is a veritable shitstorm in the media of "BE WHO YOU WANT TO BE GODDAMNIT". There's a social norm of women being thin and sexualized, but I don't find this negative in the slightest, anymore than men are expected by social norms to be confident, unflappable, and handsome. It's entirely impossible for norms not to exist. In another hundred years they'll be something else, but relevant to the society of that time. Some women are ostracized when they don't meet the norms currently in place, but then people are always going to be ostracized for some reason. People always group off into teams centered around a common ideal. They'll always exist so long as individuality in society exists. It's human nature.

Just because that's how it is doesn't mean that's how it should be.

This would be because the gender roles regarding females don't encourage women bragging about their partner, whereas they do for men. The male artists that do so are plainly more popular than the women that may do the same, which further evidences the point.

Again, just because that's how it is doesn't mean that's how it should be. Why normalize seeing women as objects? What is the betterment of society that comes from that?

It doesn't say much. Just that college kids like booze and sex.

And, apparently, sexual harassment and rape.

Readily accept what? You don't accept or deny human nature; that's why it's nature.

I don't think violating people's bodies is an inherent part of human nature, and I also don't think that any society that just shrugs and says that it is "just human nature" to hurt other people is going to do very well in the long run.

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with misogyny. This is about sexualization of women, not contempt towards them.

True, they can be mutually exclusive. They often go hand in hand, however, so I don't think the topic is completely irrelevant.

Man, I'm getting tired of being labeled as the asshole in this place. Pros and cons means advantages and

disadvantages.

Then maybe, just maybe, you should stop being an asshole, especially after no less than three people have pointed out your blatant error.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[deleted35362]

Boney(me) felt like being a rebel. I apologize for being rude. I've just never heard the term being used

in that context. Accept the apology or not, I don't really care; It's been done.

[Esau of Isaac]

The point of music videos is to tell a story, not to show off asses. That's what it's devolved into, yeah, but that's not the point.

It is the point when you're using it as an example. Some artists use it to show off asses because they like women shaking their asses. The point of music videos is to utilize moving imagery to accompany a musical composition. That's all. Music videos do not innately deal with telling a story. They can, but just because you like music videos that have to do with a deep social commentary or what have you doesn't make Joey Joe Joe's video of Amanda gyrating about like she's being groped by the invisible man any less valid a form of expression.

If all our song lyrics are about the sexualization and dehumanization of any group, there's a problem. And it's more than just hip-hop; just look at rock.

I'm looking at both, and all of neither is all about sexualization and dehumanization of any group.

And for the record, I do not find sexualization of any group to be intrinsically bad.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for censorship by any means. I feel everyone has a right to free speech. But I do think we need to reevaluate our needs and goals when there's really only one way to express yourself, especially if that one way is through talking about your sexual exploits. It creates a society in which mistreatment is not only possible but--at times--acceptable. It can also help create a "blame the victim" society.

There isn't only the option to express oneself through sexual exploits. It's just a popular form of imagery in one given sub-genre.

That's not what Mardi Gras was about initially, and I don't think a Hispanic pride parade is exactly what you're describing either. Even given that Mardi Gras can be defined that way now, that doesn't excuse their behavior, and anywhere where that doesn't bring outrage to those who hear about it is in need of change.

Why? Why is a night of gratuitous tits and booze, rather than eating a lot of food, bad? Just because some people are treated badly doesn't mean that the simple idea of relaxing and enjoying oneself --which sex and drinking tend to be-- is outrageous. It means that illegal sexual acts are wrong. Which should be a plainly evident baseline rule regardless of whatever is happening.

Who gives a damn if it has anything to do with what it was originally intended to be? Why can't it just be a festive day of having fun?

Exactly, there isn't one overwhelming way of showing sexuality in real life. But in the media, there is (most of the time). Therein lies the problem.

What is the one overwhelming way of showing sex?

Just because that's how it is doesn't mean that's how it should be.

It's irrelevant how it should be if it can't be. I sure as hell would like it if I could fly with a snap of my fingers, but that doesn't mean worrying about it is going to do anything.

Again, just because that's how it is doesn't mean that's how it should be. Why normalize seeing women as objects? What is the betterment of society that comes from that?

There is no should be here. There doesn't need to be a betterment of society for something to be able to happen, or for anyone to be fine with it happening. What do you want here? Free speech? Betterment for women? Because those that think of women as objects aren't all mute, nor poorly-connected. Should they not be able to have their music videos as well?

This is all following that I even agree that there is a normalization of women being seen as objects just because there's a greater sexualization of them, which I find a complete and total crock of shit in the first place.

And, apparently, sexual harassment and rape.

Of course. Because people were sexually harassed and raped in your example, that means all of society is fine with sexual harassment and rape.

I can't even tell how your comment is comically relevant to this specific line of discussion, which was speaking about the change of its initial meaning. Even if you meant this as a dark joke, which it obviously is, it doesn't make sense to what is being talked about.

I don't think violating people's bodies is an inherent part of human nature, and I also don't think that any society that just shrugs and says that it is "just human nature" to hurt other people is going to do very well in the long run.

As much as I love to have words put in my mouth, I never stated that sexual harassment is an inherent part of human nature.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Rehab]

Not to necessarily say this discussion isn't in fact going in a slightly different direction based on a single piece of evidence (not that that's necessarily bad if it's worth looking at), and not to condescend by throwing out something taught in a one semester high school philosophy class, but

It's irrelevant how it should be if it can't be. I sure as hell would like it if I could fly with a snap of my fingers, but that doesn't mean worrying about it is going to do anything.

that's kind of a discussion fuckblock, isn't it? If Crystal can sustain her argument that her example does say something truly unjust about society's treatment of women, why shouldn't she? Would be more interesting at least to me. Questions of ought rock man

[Esau of Isaac]

that's kind of a discussion fuckblock, isn't it? If Crystal can sustain her argument that her example does say something truly unjust about society's treatment of women, why shouldn't she? Would be more interesting at least to me. Questions of ought rock man

I'm not saying she can't talk about the unjust portions of society, I'm pointing out that whether or not it is unjust is irrelevant. She might as well also point out that it's not fair that people have to feel sadness. Yeah, sure, I can get on that train, but it doesn't matter. Some people somewhere will always feel sad unless we become a fundamentally different machine than we are presently. Similarly, pointing out that the fact that some people somewhere will always be singled out as being unfair doesn't really rebut my statement. It just points out that some things in life are what they are.

[Rehab]

If it's unjust, I would have it improved. It's not my place at the moment to argue that depression, gender or sexual conflict, or singling out ____ for shit treatment are human nature and/or can't ever be completely removed from our lives (although if you could I'd love to hear it, my psych class is taught by somebody in arrested development and isn't interesting as it should be), but it seems unnecessarily pessimistic to say they can't be mitigated more than they are. Not to go MORE on a tangent but I haven't been introduced to a civilization that doesn't somehow restrain the most basic forms of human nature human nature with constructive intention (I mean look at the word)

[Esau of Isaac]

If it's unjust, I would have it improved. It's not my place at the moment to argue that depression, gender or sexual conflict, or singling out ____ for shit treatment are human nature and/or can't ever be completely removed from our lives (although if you could I'd love to hear it, my psych class is taught by somebody in arrested development and isn't interesting as it should be), but it seems unnecessarily pessimistic to say they can't be mitigated more than they are. Not to go MORE on a tangent but I haven't been introduced to a civilization that doesn't somehow restrain the most basic forms of human nature human nature with constructive intention (I mean look at the word)

Note I never stated that one cannot combat negative portions of human nature, but only that they can't be removed so long as we are human.

[Rehab]

Right. I responded because the post was implied to me that, "what should be, and how could that possibly be worked towards," would be a pointless direction to take. I didn't want to see a point I thought was interesting dropped by college-and-above posters (who would probably have something to say about it), just because it started in a more theoretical direction. Assuming Crystal returns to this thread and has something to add, of course.

(SD is a fun spectator sport)