Organized protests and lip sync battles …While We’re Waiting
April 30, 2014Indians lose again as Kipnis leaves with injury
April 30, 2014
Will the Browns someday have a representative in a photo like the one above? According to Will Burge, who has started working with the fine people at Cleveland Scene magazine, it could happen.
As owner Jimmy Haslam and team president Alec Scheiner have previously said, the Browns will be wearing new uniforms, redesigned by Nike, in 2015.
And, according to a source in the organization, the team has also started moving toward adding cheerleaders for the 2015 season. The team has had meetings and started preparations to introduce a squad and is currently in the consultation phase of the process. Reached by Scene this week, the Browns declined to comment through a team spokesman.
Cheerleaders are a hot topic in the NFL right now as I pointed out last week. The league is under attack by some cheerleaders who claim that they haven’t been fairly compensated for their services. I was gloating a little bit that the Browns didn’t have to find themselves involved in one of the league’s scandals, albeit a smallish one.
So here’s hoping if the Browns do end up green lighting cheerleaders in Cleveland that they fairly compensate them for the work they do.
93 Comments
and graphic designers whose biggest college ended up with these:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RAli5iYCpHs/Tmz1PLCvLEI/AAAAAAAAAc8/_0J5FSc5s84/s1600/Marylandunifomrs.jpg
http://www.american-buddha.com/ghostbust.219a.gif
as mentioned in the other thread with humboldt, I think the way around it is to hire actual cheerleaders rather than just the hottest women willing to work for nothing to be gawked at by a drunken fanbase.
go and hire the best actual cheerleaders that can put together actual cheer routines and do it from the best schools.
here’s a scouting report of which schools to initially target:
http://uca.varsity.com/uca-competition-results.aspx
Give those people jobs at good rates and then humboldt can start to claim these jobs are dignified. as they currently hold, I ask you this:
If your daughter was a NFL cheerleader, then would you be proud to tell your friends or worried that they would be going to images.google.com to look at her scantily clad once you left?
It’s a great idea, and it would be a (fairly) non-misogynistic approach – but I think it should be open to both men and women, as are the college cheerleading ranks.
Another question: If your daughter approaches you and asks for your opinion on whether she should tryout to be an NFL cheerleader, what would you think/say?
Btw I think I saw “soft misogyny” on cinemax one night. Plot was thin. 2 stars.
Objects go on pedestals.
DING DING DING!!!!
So we agree that the Cleveland Browns are considering objectifying women. Okay.
I’m sure NFL cheerleaders would take umbrage with your characterization of them as ‘hot women willing to work for nothing’. That is clearly the bias of a man (the ‘male gaze’ as it were) who knows little about the actual profession of cheerleading and the complexities of being a professional. It meets the last 2 criteria for misogyny that I laid out above.
It also implies that jobs with an element of sexualization are inferior to other more ‘proper’ jobs, but there doesn’t seem to be self-awareness that this is essentially a crass projection of your own morals. You need to argue for why female sexual expression is so devalued for you. The NFL fetishizes aggression and violence, but you don’t seem concerned with denigrating the players who enable themselves to be objectified in this way. Why the inconsistency?
Anyhow, not trying to feud but rather to point out that I think our general (male sports fan) thinking with regard to cheerleaders is quite flawed, sexist, and, at times, misogynistic. I admit that I’ve had a hard time working through some of my deep-seated biases in thinking about the issue.
I’d be much more concerned about my son becoming a football player than my daughter a cheerleader
Blame George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore, for that one.
They are also considering giving local women jobs, potentially with fair wages and benefits (pending outcome of the Raiders case).
That’s a different question. Would you want her to be an NFL cheerleader?
I don’t seem to have quite the antipathy towards the profession that you and Bode do. I tend to see it as a profession filled by mostly well-educated girls who are pursuing a career as professional dancers whilst also holding down other jobs (nurses, teachers, accountants, etc). I’m more concerned with the outcome of the Raiders case and making sure that the women who fill these positions in the future are paid a fair wage and given appropriate benefits for their labor.
This presumes that I’m not aware of who these women are, or that I don’t know any of them. I am not antipathetic toward the profession; I’m antipathetic toward the misogyny that drives its form. There’s a better way, but nobody seems to care.
To be an NFL cheerleader is not merely to be sexually objectified. In my opinion that is a drastic oversimplification and diminution of the role. We seem to be stuck on that, and maybe that’s ok…
If being “sexually objectified” is any intentional part of the role, whether fully or partially, obviously or diminutively, it’s not okay. Or at least it shouldn’t be.
If being “sexually objectified” is any intentional part of the role, whether fully or partially, obviously or diminutively, it’s not okay. Or at least it shouldn’t be.
sorry humboldt, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on here. I’ll engage one more time just to get the clarifications out there:
the “willing to work for nothing” is pretty much the basis for the current lawsuits(Oakland, Buffalo). they want to be paid, which is understandable, but it is also stated that to this point they have been willing to work for nothing (or close to nothing if we want to be technical).
“hot women” – please find a man or woman that does not agree that being classified as “hot” is not a prequisite for the job. it is not the “male gaze” that you are trying to indicate here. it is a job pre-requisite. also, this can be seen from the lawsuits as they are even fined for behaviors that might lead them to being considered “less hot” by society (like gaining weight).
jobs with an “element” of sexualization can be dignified. see: my cheerleader idea. or, NFL and NBA players. Professional dancers have an inherent sexualization as well (both men and women). However, if the main basis of the job is to sexually arouse your consumer, then I would definitely argue that it is not dignified. It is great that they do philanthropic work and take pictures with kids. But, if you think those are the reasons the NFL employs them, then I don’t know where to start. Perhaps the controversial Philadelphia Eagles calendar?
and yes, personal morals are a big part. why is that a bad thing? your morals/conscience should absolutely play a part in how you view the world. to suggest that they should not is ludicrous to me.
NFL violence – we can continue to have discussions on it in the appropriate threads. here you are merely circumventing the discussion.
Not at all I think you are assuming the worst for all you know they may just well have co-ed cheerleaders.
I found this for you I think it fits what you are thinking in a visual form:
http://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/flyers-ice-girl-hat-guy.jpg?w=567&h=397
Hiring the local women would be good for the economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEXF78SREnM
Ah yes… the “job creation” argument that justifies environmental exploitation, ill-conceived public policy, and all kinds of other social ills. Has this always been a talking point and I was just oblivious to it or is this some new rhetorical tactic that emerged in the wake of the Great Recession?
Old, school 1920’s co-ed cheerleaders with classy, dated uniforms. I’m sure that’s what Mr. Oil Baron Owner has in mind.
always been there but it definitely gets thrown out more often the past 5-6 years
Oh nj0 regardless it’s his team he overpaid for it so go with the flow mr nj0!!!
Old school…
A willingness to objectify oneself is not the issue to. Nor is a willingness to objectify others. Rationally thinking adults should be allowed to do that as they see fit (within the rule of law).
To me, the issue is a billion dollar organization using sex to sell something completely unrelated to sex. And not just a business, but our Cleveland Browns! That bothers me. I don’t think it’s classy. And I really don’t see a place for it in Browns football. The Browns should bring people together, not drive them apart. However well reasoned an argument for cheerleaders, we all know this is going to turn women (and some men) away from the game. So why do it?
Not to mention: The Browns aren’t a product. They’re an NFL team! They’re our NFL team! And we don’t need T&A for us to “buy” the product. We don’t need wifi or a stadium experience or a jumbotron or new uniforms or any of this other garbage that Haslam seems obsessed with. Just give us 53 dedicated guys playing hard and winning games. That’s it. You give us that and you can drudge Municipal Stadium out of Lake Erie and there will be lines around the block to give their hard earned money to fill that sucker up and pee in troughs.
And there’s the problem… it should have been OUR team. Just like the Packers are Green Bay’s team.
Just see it crop up EVERYwhere now.
“Giambi sucks.”
“What you got against the Indians giving that man a job?”
lol.
It’s almost farcical nj0, because you and I are both on the left, and you are using progressive talking points to undermine my ‘old labour’ argument that cheerleaders should be fairly compensated and receive benefits.
Today’s discussion has been utterly mind-boggling.
Undermine? When did I say cheerleaders shouldn’t be properly compensated? My issue is with the Cleveland Browns hiring cheerleaders, fairly compensated or not. If they do hire them, I would happily advocate for them to be paid fairly.
Not old school enough! The Song Girls started in the late 60’s.
You folded my point about equitable pay and fair benefits into a critique of neoliberal job-creator rhetoric. That’s an unfair move, my friend.
We can both hope the Raiders case turns in favor of the plaintiffs, as this would be a wholescale progressive victory. I don’t have strong feelings about hiring cheerleaders for the Browns, but I find it unfortunate that so many have strong and, in my opinion (see above), borderline misogynistic reasons for it.
The feminist movement provided women with choice to enter professions they desired. Some wish to become professional dancers and pursue a career as cheerleaders, which involves a whole host of skills and attributes, including being sexually alluring (with clothes on, by the way). I fail to see why this is a bad thing, or a marker of decadence, or whatever it is that riles people up.
Frankly, it seems to me that many people on this thread are threatened by female sexuality. It’s an odd sort of puritanical vestige in the American consciousness. Also, I think you are arguing for a mythical purity around the Browns that just doesn’t exist. Read the article in Scene linked to in Craig’s piece; the Browns had cheerleaders in the ’50s. There is precedent. It is not like the helmet, which is not ‘gendered’ in any way and which has consistently been a symbol of pride for the fan base reflecting a certain austerity and toughness in the people. That is worth fighting for.
Let the cheerleaders do their thing. Who cares? And if the Raiderettes win their court case, cheerleaders across the country may earn a living wage and get benefits commensurate with the skilled labor they are providing. Might as well create these sorts of well-compensated positions for local women in Cleveland who aspire to professional dance careers.
Not sure I see it like that. I was happily muttering to myself about the ridiculousness of the Browns getting into the business of objectifying women (whether that is in itself right or wrong is beyond my pay scale) when you brought up the issue of fair compensation for those being objectified.
That is a noble, fair discussion, but not what I was muttering about. My snarky point was: just because it creates job does not alleviate the issues I have with the Browns getting into the business of objectifying women. They should be in the business of winning football games. Eyes on the prize. All other issues are extraneous at this time in space. Period. Finito. End of line. END.
Hopefully tomorrow’s local Cleveland sports internet fight will see us on the same side. Time to e-observe the Indians give away another game.
That’s as old school as I’m willing to go. 😀
Alright, alright mgbode. I may strenuously disagree with you, but I’ll still pull out the Pipe of Peace and offer it up to you in the name of our shared desire for a Cleveland championship :). To less contentious issues tomorrow! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7ErrZ-ipoE
I do not see how anything I said seems “threatened by female sexuality”. I don’t want cheerleaders in my football for the same reason I don’t want mascots, dachshund races, or fireworks shows. To me, they have nothing to do with the game. That is why I tune in and I believe the game deserves respect. I do not like the carnival/sideshow aspect of it all and worry about how Mr. Haslam views his asset.
There are worse places to stop.
“Threatened by female sexuality”? Come on, man. That’s just stupid pseudo-academic rhetoric. It can’t possibly be that we actually value true female sexuality, and not some prepackaged, false and destructive cultural notion of what female sexuality “should” be (but can never be)? No, it must be fear. That’s it.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but there must be limits to ridiculous justifications of obvious misogyny. Somewhere. Somehow.
Peace pipe accepted (I did not inhale 🙂 )
An old man at that