Posted on 01/29/2019 5:12:06 AM PST by Kaslin
If I were to tell you that a growing group of killjoys wants to ban NFL cheerleading, would you guess that this group is on the political left or right?
Must be the right, right? They're the religious ones with all the sexual hang-ups.
Wrong.
They're on the left.
And what's their problem with cheerleading?
I'll let them speak for themselves.
In The Boston Globe, Margery Eagan, Globe columnist and co-host of NPR's "Boston Public Radio," wrote a column titled "It's time to say goodbye to the NFL cheerleaders." She described NFL cheerleading as "creepy and demeaning."
USA Today sports columnist Nancy Armour came to the same conclusion: "The underlying premise of NFL cheerleaders is degrading. ... NFL cheerleaders need to go."
Chicago Tribune sports reporter Shannon Ryan wrote, "The league has shown only that it regards cheerleaders as pieces of sideline eye candy." To make her point, she asked, "why aren't there scantily dressed male cheerleaders and dance teams?"
Only the well-educated could ask such a stupid question -- because only the highly educated deny that, with few exceptions, the only people who would like to see scantily dressed male cheerleaders are gay men.
In USA Today, Yale Divinity School Director of Communications Tom Krattenmaker added a theological voice to the anti-cheerleader chorus. "It's time," he intoned, "to call this out for what it is: demeaning to women and an anachronism that ought to be beneath the male fans to whom this titillating eye candy is served." This sentence, and his whole piece, is what goes for deep thought on the left today. He doesn't explain how being an NFL cheerleader is "demeaning." He simply declares it so. Did he bother to interview any cheerleaders? I did, and the consensus among cheerleaders is that it is one of their greatest life experiences.
Jacie Scott, a black woman who retired from being a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader in 2016, wrote in response to Nancy Armour: "I spent four years as a cheerleader in the NFL, and the experiences that each year brought helped shape me into the woman I am today. ... I saw countries I never imagined seeing. I made a positive impact in lives, young and old, and I did it all with 30-something incredible women. I wouldn't trade my time as a cheerleader for anything."
What is demeaning to cheerleaders is not cheerleading but people like Tom Krattenmaker, Shannon Ryan, Margery Eagan and Nancy Armour who have the conceit -- and meanness -- to label these women demeaned.
I interviewed a former Atlanta Falcons cheerleader, Nina Ahlin (now Noa Hami), on my radio show. When she entered my studio, I was struck by how attractive she was 20 years after retiring from cheerleading, and by her modest dress. Regarding her dress, she explained that soon after retiring as a cheerleader, she met an Orthodox Jewish man, fell in love, converted to Orthodox Judaism and married.
Apparently, her religious husband, a successful businessman, didn't find this woman's cheerleading background "demeaning." On the contrary, like the vast majority of men -- religious or secular -- he was delighted to be dating and ultimately marrying an NFL cheerleader. Good thing he didn't go to Yale Divinity School.
It was clear that even now, as an Orthodox Jew who dresses in the long skirts and long sleeves, she doesn't find cheerleading demeaning: She sent me a photo of herself from her cheerleader days.
As she wrote to me: "I can't imagine my life without having the experience I did as an NFL cheerleader. It was literally life changing for me. The friendships I made, the places we were able to go and the people we were able to meet can't be duplicated. ... The thought of that being taken away from young girls who dream of one day becoming a pro cheerleader scares me!"
Why do leftists have contempt for cheerleading and cheerleaders (who, after all, choose to be cheerleaders -- and for virtually no pay)?
A Vanity Fair piece on cheerleaders gave the game away: "The league profits from selling a retrograde notion of masculinity -- big, strong men, unafraid to take a hit, surrounded by enthusiastic, scantily clad women."
Or as a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article titled "Pro cheerleading 'should be abolished'" reported, former professional basketball player Mariah Burton Nelson said, "Cheerleading implies that women's proper role is to support men, smile at men and fulfill the sexual fantasies of males."
The left has contempt for masculinity and the male sexual nature that is part of it. The new emasculated man will not look at sexy women. And the new defeminized woman will not want to "support men," let alone appear sexy for them.
The left claims to be pro-choice. But it demands the abolition of NFL (and NBA) cheerleading without giving women a choice to be cheerleaders -- just as it never gave Miss America participants a choice when it abolished the Miss America swimsuit competition. Leftists believe they are morally superior people and, therefore, have the right to deprive anyone -- man or woman -- from choosing what the left disdains. The only woman's choice the left cares about is the choice to extinguish nascent human life.
Even if you have no interest in football or cheerleading, this should be your issue. We have to tell the left here, as in virtually every other area of life, and in the most forceful terms possible: Just leave us alone. Let us live our lives with our small joys. And grow up -- men like looking at women, and women like being looked at.
A world with NFL cheerleaders is far preferable to the world the left wants to create: a dystopia in which men and women are interchangeable.
Because Rush was right. Feminism is to give ugly liberal chicks access to the mainstream.
Forcing the players to wear the helmets and face masks etc allowed the sticks to come up.
The law of unintended consequences writ large here. Because the players had less to worry about wearing the protective gear, the game itself became more dangerous. Players no longer worried about the types of injuries the protective gear mitigated against, so the players got more careless about possible injuries caused by their actions.
And yes, it *WAS* the nannies that forced the issue. The same scolds that try to suppress every type of FUN out there.
‘I would say that was the sentiment of almost every Confederate soldier in the Civil War.’
of course; nothing promotes being left alone like seceding from the union...
You make a good point. The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders uniforms...considered quite hot-to-trot when they came out in the 70’s....are really pretty modest compared to what I see young women wearing at the mall.
There really was a timelessness about being able to see and recognize so many of them like Howe, Hull, Orr, Esposito, Sanderson, Clarke (the toothless Goldilocks), Lafleur, Duguay, Perreault (before he covered up), and many others. Even though the lids might have done that bit of good by preventing injuries, they detracted from that fan/player identification and as you say the players had less to worry about deliberate or careless behaviour.
Spoken like a true state-ist thug.
‘University of Florida. Peach Bowl.’
was that the game where the Michigan cheerleaders were disguised as football players...? 41-15, ouch...
‘Spoken like a true state-ist thug.’
good comeback; can’t refute it, so go ad hominem...
Because of gays in the democrat party. They are jealous.
More precisely, the purpose of feminism is to try to eliminate the advantages of attractive heterosexual women in the workplace and society in general.
If the legal environment turns every attractive woman in the workplace into a potential sexual harassment landmine, it creates an incentive to hire only women who would NOT garner any male attention.
In hockey, a helmet is primarily there to protect against skull fractures -- which are highly unlikely to occur as a result of a stick foul. They are more likely to occur as a result of a fall on the ice surface (hockey helmets were first given a serious look in the NHL in the aftermath of the infamous Eddie Shore-Ace Bailey incident in 1933 that involved this exact scenario), contact with the boards, or a puck to the head.
Players no longer worried about the types of injuries the protective gear mitigated against, so the players got more careless about possible injuries caused by their actions.
No offense, but I honestly wonder if you even know what you're talking about. Do you even know what players looked like back in the days before helmets were commonplace in the NHL? You're going to tell me that stick fouls were less common back then?
The mandatory helmet rule was introduced in the NHL in 1979 with the merger of the NHL and WHA. By that time something like 70% of the players were already wearing helmets -- a trend that had accelerated in the early 1970s when NHL teams began playing exhibition games against European teams where helmets were already mandatory.
Oh enough with the strawman about “burqas”.
Yes, those decent church-going people were always covering women’s faces centuries ago.
This is NOTHING like that.
What is so terrible about protecting women’s virtue and honestly, men’s virtue also? That’s the key - VIRTUE.
Why you can’t be satisfied with the cute nice skirts and FULLY COVERED bellies of the ‘50s I don’t know. Not to mention just nice athletic moves, not sexual moves.
No, it’s not a good point.
Apples and oranges, again.
Fool girls looking like sluts are doing it on their own recognizance, with not too many looking on.
Women such as the pro-ball CLs are told to dress and dance as such FOR PUBLIC VIEWING for the benefit (ostensibly) of the owners. They think it’ll titillate some indecent men that they’ll check out the games more; thousands are subjected to this in the stadium and millions on TV.
And before you say they’re correct, check out the Steelers. Never had any cheerleaders, but you can’t find a bunch of more insanely devoted nuts. About football and the team. They don’t need no steenkin’ CLs.
“Now go get a job waiting tables or maybe as a stripper if you still want to dance”
Oh yeah, I’m sure their mamas and papas will give them the alternative of lap-dancing instead of cheerleading.
I wrote cheers, but the other cheerleaders were so jealous they would not use one of my cheers.
I wrote, “Die, you gravy sucking pigs” and
“Try and make a touchdown, you scumbags”
-Steve Martin
Oh yeah, the same old strawmen: “prudes” and “burqas” (which you never mentioned before 9/11).
Miserable? I think not. No diseases, no wrecked relationships thinking about all the other wanton sex with the “life partner”, no bastard babies born to crappy circumstances with no father (only SIRES) or too-young unwed moms, etc. Yup, the “sexual revolution” really helped society.
Yeah, “prudes” are miserable.
We can disagree.
I remember when Boston with Bobby Orr won the Cup, so I do remember hockey without helmets, even in the minors.
Cheerleading is part of the traditional pageantry/show of the game. Kill respect for the flag, fix the games, monotonous replay, no TD celebrations and now no cheerleaders?
Obviously the Left wants to kill football.
>>Oh enough with the strawman about “burqas”.<<
Not a strawman. It is an EXAMPLE of what you are demanding.
You are saying for them to cover up. And YOU get to decide the level of cover up is acceptable.
Cheerleaders are no more uncovered today than they have been for 40 years.
I am sure you also burn the SI swimsuit issue.
Oh yeah — what about swimsuits? Bikinis? You have a problem with them as well?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.