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.
Well said.
Not a dream I’d encourage with my kids, now adults, but you are exactly right.
Well said.
Thank heavens that changed!
I quite agree. My point was that looking like a prostitute depends on the zeitgeist. Not all ‘morality’ is permanent.
“And gave us rampant bastard children, never mind diseases and broken marriages, and ruined lives everywhere.”
Bastard children have been around since the beginning of time. The difference now is taxpayers pay for them directly in taxes. So is abortion a better alternative?
Traditional America when? Which decade?
Before bikinis? Before shorts? When?
It’s not about the fashion. It’s about the acceptance of perversion and clothes/clothing styles have nothing to do with that. Stop focusing on the appearance and start focusing on the ideas that are being shoved down our throats through our schools, media.
I get it lol
So now its the liberal charge of craming morality down other people’s throats because we oppose something you favor.
their myopic sense of
Which is false unwarranted charge. The myopia is on the part of those who isolate immoral dress and dance from the transcendent (not transgender) moral foundation of the West, which was Scripture. When in reality, immoral dress and dance is part of a larger moral framework which liberals reject.
because by doing so they’re no better than the taliban or the liberals for that matter
Which is another logical fallacy, that of false equivalence, akin to liberals likening conservatives to Nazis since that can find some-thing that both do.
Abortions of convenience (other than medical, rape or incest) should be illegal, the board of directors of planned parenthood and the politicians who support them should be brought up on charges of genocide.
Too liberal. Even for rape, as tragic as it is, the infant should not be facing death any more than an uninvited infant placed into you car should, be thrown out, but carried to a safe destination - which much support, but the practitioners and promoters of abortion should be brought up on charges of genocide.
Children should be able to pray in school as they so choose. The Pledge of Allegiance should once again be recited along with having a moment of silence.
Check, though not forced, except that no teacher should be hired who does not support this, nor leave "under God" out.
Government should be out of everyone’s homes and businesses. Some politician or government bureaucrat should never have any right to tell a parent how to raise their kid or tell a business owner who they have to hire (affirmative action), or provide service for (baking a cake).
Not that simple in all that breadth. While owners should be able to do their own repairs, and less restrictive, there is warrant for public places to have safety and health inspections. And to require education, as the Puritans did, but home schooling should be an option,.
Also, while businesses should be able to refuse to provide service to anyone when its known purpose is for immoral objectionable causes (so a patriot can deny a flag to a flag burner) - stating so in their advertising. But this presupposes that there is a sure standard for morality. However, they should not be able to deny service to persons based on aspects as race or color or religion themselves. Unless you want conservatives be on the receiving end when in need of things in liberal areas.
Do away with “hate crimes” laws since these are rarely if ever equally applied.
Meaning if ever equally applied they could be valid? The action is to be penalized, with motive entering in when it is malevolent.
Do away with anti-discrimination laws for the above stated reason.
Meaning since these are rarely if ever equally applied. But without any anti-discrimination laws then conservative parents cannot claim discrimination (see under affirmative action).
Trying to be objective here. The answer is to replace liberal judges with conservative ones and penalize race baiting. Thus donning a black face 20 years ago should not be a cause to be excludes from a job.
Do away with affirmative action laws. Everyone should be hired for a job or selected to attend a school based on their character, education, or other skills instead of race or gender.
Agree. Affirmative action is racist, as it can result in the most qualified candidate being denied due to his skin color. But without any anti-discrimination laws such could happen anyway. Thus it is liberal judges that are the problem.
Eliminate motor-voter laws in federal elections, and enforce 100% ID check in such elections.
Agree.
As far as the federal government, 85% of it can be reduced in scope/reach or eliminated outright.
It should be drastically reduced, but certainly not 85% of the military and law. Yet paying down the national debt must be required, which you should have included. .
Military veterans with an honorable discharge regardless of time in service should be issued a rifle and magazines for said rifle upon discharge.
Yes, and with yearly weekend training till age 50, and with priority given them for government jobs that are now given to students who can have all their remaining student loan dept forgiven after 10 years and 120 on-time payments. Instead, increase military schools, shut off loans to schools which are manifestly more political indoctrination centers than centers of practical education, or at least to students who major in such.
End baseline budgeting, and roll the budget back 30 years.
The former does indeed oppose the latter, but i wish rolling budget back 30 years could be dome without Russia and China taking advantage.
Secure the border, and end all immigration for 25 years. No H1 or other visas for employment purposes allowed either. Anyone and everyone here in this country illegally will be given 30 days to pack up everything lock, stock, and barrel and return to their home countries and never return. If they do try to return, they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and must repay 100% of all social services they previously used.
You cannot end all immigration while women are on the Pill and the average birth rate is 1.6 kids (unless you want to face the problem Japan and certain others are and will), though part of that is due to about 25% of kids being aborted. Nor can you end H1 or other visas for employment if Americans are not willing to so the work they do which few are. And
Rather, reward marriage and large families of working parents, and besides the adoption of immigrants by citizens with legal responsibility, enable citizenship for those who are here and working, paying taxes, putting more into the system that they received, without criminal records. But require a stricter citizens test and oath, that the liberals object to, with history lessons preceding without the bias, and showing the dangers of socialism, and the seduction of the victim-entitlement mentality, and ther virtues of benefits via merit.
Repeal the XVII Amendment, and replace it with one that returns the selection of Senators to the individual state’s legislatures. Also imposes term limits on the house and senate, ban family members from running for the same seat once a term has expired. And a lifetime ban for outgoing congressmen/senators and their families from lobbying. They will also be prevented from seeking another seat in another chamber (house to senate or senate to house), district or state.
Sounds appealing.
There should also be tort reform.
Among other things.
That’s just for starters.
However, your list overall makes you a more fiscal conservative, with a moral basis, but which is all for nought without a priority of spiritual revival and basic Biblical morality. Under the above you still have the most Biblically ignorant and morally confused generation America has ever birthed, with a severe lack of conscious-forming, character building families and education. And with fornication and homosexual relations (and the diseases thereof) still running rampant, as do fatherless kids, plus the indoctrination of liberal schooling, and its victim-entitlement mentality, and PC training. There a good reason why the Puritans placed an emphasis on the Christian home and education. You do not build a strong country on liberal morality, which including the sexual revolution many conservatives have bought into.
Actually the One whose morality these libertines oppose is not less than the man Christ Jesus, God manifest in the flesh. When they meet Him - and all will - then they can tell Him how much a sexual prude His followers were for uphold Biblical modestly - which they would have 100 years ago - versus the ethos of the liberal sexual revolution of the devil.
What ever God ordained, the devil perverts. Which includes men being masculine and thus very much attracted to female beauty, which the devil perverts by fostering homosexuality.
And while God teaches men to know the heart is more important, and enter into a lifelong covenant of trust and commitment, which is when and were both become naked and vulnerable and become sexually one, the devil perverts this by making the physical of overriding importance, and by using bare-ing "bait" to catch the kind of "fish" such women end up with. And replaces marriage with an ongoing series of fornication, with its diseases, and fatherless kids. Or none at all via the Pill.
But the devil also attacks masculinity and thereby provides a way for the defenders of carnality to justify gazing at porn as being a masculine thing to do, and it is a masculine thing, but masculine is not always moral, and self-control is more masculine by not going down that carnal path.
Of course, some even imagine that self-control by not going all the way with the objects of their lust is more masculine then not lusting in the first place. And then they attack the moralists as being prideful. The road to Hell is full of rationalizations and justification from it. I have too often used them myself, and have far to go in Christ-likeness, but seeking to live up to the standard is one thing, and lowering the standards to your own is another. May I only do the former.
That’s why it was a link and not a picture you could NOT avoid.
It seems there are two main lines of thought in this thread; coming from those led by the flesh, and those led by the Spirit.
I just replied to a private message; and now I have yet another thing to pray about.
Latest?
My son-in-law had girls pestering him in the seven grade! CAlling him at home and being VERY aggressive.
Oh boy; did HE have fun!
Until he HAD to get married (Not in the seventh grade though...) and ended up divorced a few years later.
His brother got the news; a few years after he was married with family; that HIS 'wild oats' had sprung up, and now HE was going to be paying for a child he didn't even know he had.
Obviously the Left wants to kill football.
If ‘left’ is a synonym for SOCCER; then I agree.
At New Palestine schools, a VAST amount of acreage is given over to multiple soccer fields.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7148216,-85.8923962,265m/data=!3m1!1e3
I wonder what changed?
Why the EXCEPTIONS?
I guess schools with a Dress Code/uniforms are the fifth column of the Taliban.
I haven’t watched the NFL in years, so I had to go looking for pics. A thought...
If you need adhesive to keep what passes for your top in place, and if your butt cheeks are hanging out below what passes for your bottoms, your outfit is unsuitable for cheerleading.
Pole dancing, yes. Cheerleading, no.
The "appeal to extremes" is not a logical argument unless there are no parameters that prevent the extreme. Using your same logical fallacy, your opposition could argue that sanctioning erotic dancing by scantily class shapely beautiful women means you might as well proceed to public fornication. Granted, in both cases this is a possibility unless limits are expressed, which your opposing poster expressed, and more so when there is appeal to a sure defining moral standard, as i argued as being Scripture (and thus rejected clothing women in tents), without which standard you are like a country without a constitution and Bill of Rights.
Which rejection of Scripture is what moral libertines and liberals both have in common.
“If you wear skimpy garbage, you are demeaning yourself. Period.”
The Taliban agree with you.
Still peddling that old baloney I see. “Very little action in a 3+ hour game.”
According to you, only hockey is a legitimate sport because, like soccer there’s “action” all the time, even if much of that time consists of the thrilling sight of teammates passing the puck, or the ball, back and forth to no effect. So golf, tennis, track and field, baseball, bowling and just about everything else are boring wastes of time because there’s “ very little action.”
I really wish one trick ponies got some new material.
The war is on white cheerleaders
Black cheerleaders and their hyper sexual gyrating is just fine
In fact it’s a cultural treasure
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.