Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#51

Post by dehrmann »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #37
takbw4234 wrote: post #4

Daily reminder that any young female-driven competitive venture (fashion, sports, academics, acting in the movie industry) is filled to the brim with sexual predators: coaches, judges, trainers, consultants, marketers, agents and so on. Do not ever put your daughter in a situation where she can be pressured by older men to do what they want in order to advance. She doesn't need a gold medal or be world famous, she ne…

Regarding sports: If it's not sexual predators, it's just plain old emotional and physical abuse. Sending your daughter to gymnastics means condemning her to abuse of all kinds. For example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53509107 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/sports/olympics/gymnastic... https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/300071427/an-insidious-culture... https://theconversation.com/winning-at-all-costs-…

Not to justify it, and I don't have an answer, but won't most sufficiently competitive activities devolve to this in an arms race?

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#52

Post by names_are_hard »

watwut wrote: post #34
takbw4234 wrote: post #4

Daily reminder that any young female-driven competitive venture (fashion, sports, academics, acting in the movie industry) is filled to the brim with sexual predators: coaches, judges, trainers, consultants, marketers, agents and so on. Do not ever put your daughter in a situation where she can be pressured by older men to do what they want in order to advance. She doesn't need a gold medal or be world famous, she ne…

"Do not ever put your daughter in a situation where she can be pressured by older men to do what they want in order to advance" The only way to achieve this is to not have ambitions and not try to be competitive. And even then you are not sure, because she still want some job. I dont think it is good overall solution.

Well I think that at least in some cases there are other options, though I'm not sure how realistic they are in modern society. Where I grew up it would be considered highly inappropriate for a man to coach girls sports. It was taken as a matter of course that girls should be coached and supervised by women.

This attitude comes with other side effects that might not be desirable, and it doesn't do much to prevent the rape of young boys. Still, there is a partial mitigation here if you want your daughter to be able to compete without having the gatekeeper be a man.

As an aside, I am vaguely aware that cheerleading is considered a legitimate competitive sport, but my only exposure to it is from NBA and NFL, where it seems to me a rather ridiculously sexualized objectification of women. I love watching football but I wish they got rid of the cheerleaders. And if I had a daughter, I'd rather she take up a sport like football or basketball or soccer or motorcycle racing than join a cheerleading squad. I acknowledge that my biases here might be way off base. Please show me where I'm wrong, I'd like to understand what I'm missing. Why are people in the west in with this?

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#53

Post by gamblor956 »

gwd wrote: post #36

What's somewhat ironic about the "monopolies lead to absentee landlords" theory is that competition can sometimes have exactly the same effect, if the difference in quality isn't immediately obvious to the consumer. Imagine this story instead: There are two companies, A and B, which are competing (among other things) for gyms to sign up with them. Company A requires extensive background checks, inspections, and lots…

Or, you could assume a hypothetical based on how the gym industry actually works (outside of COVID lockdowns):

Company A gyms successfully advertise that their gyms are nicer, safer, cleaner, and members pay several hundreds of dollars each month, while Company B gyms rely on being cheap and get members who are only willing to pay $10/month.

I am of course talking about gyms like Equinox and David Barton, which were flourishing and adding new locations, vs gyms like Planet Fitness which were shutting down gyms because $10/month/member means you need a lot of members just to pay rent.

OTOH, middle-market gyms like Golds, 24 Hour, and LA Fitness compete directly against each other and live or die based on the quality of their facilities and staff, and any reduction in a gym's quality generally boosts its nearby competitors.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#54

Post by jtbayly »

lefrenchy wrote: post #28
takbw4234 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solution (...) [i]s to fix the cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior toward women No, sorry, you're taking the wrong angle here. There's no wide ranging cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior, that's why they're called sexual predators and not sex-positive mentors. And they're attracted like flies to shit to positions of power in these kind of institutions. Please do shelter the victims…

> Please do shelter the victims if you can, and warn them all they're setting themselves up for this kind of abuse. Are you serious? You want to make victims feel responsible for being assaulted and taken advantage of? They must already feel an incredible sense of shame and guilt, the answer is absolutely not to tell them they are “setting themselves up” by pursuing their interests or passions..

No. We want to prevent them from becoming victims in the first place. Hence the word "warn" as opposed to the phrase "you had it coming."

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#55

Post by starkred »

blackbear_ wrote: post #45
starkred wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no wide ranging cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior There is as long as the solution is "keep women away from sexual predators" instead of "keep sexual predators away from women". Keeping girls away from competitive sports is yet another example of "boys will be boys".

Nice word play, but what is a practical, pragmatic solution to achieve that?

Teach your damn boys for once.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#56

Post by mcguire »

jeffbee wrote: post #26

The bit about Clever is completely baffling. My school district issued a Chromebook to every student and had a perfectly seamless SSO story until one day they inexplicably decided to adopt Clever. Now they have an abundance of malfunction and are constantly emailing parents to clear browser cookies or undertake other workarounds. The only explanation for this is that school districts are poorly advised on software an…

Speaking as a federal government enterprise contractor and former large corporate contractor, that is a pretty common story. So is this:

"The problem is that Clever, which is now in like 60% of the nation's schools, then is able to extort a very high fee from any educational software vendor that wishes to continue serving the district. Just to give you an example, we recently signed a contract with XYZ Public Schools for the 2020-2021 school year for $18,000. XXYZ now wants us to use Clever for rostering and sign on — Clever has a minimum price to do this of $10,800. If we don't pay this fee to Clever (thus losing our ability to properly serve XYZ’s teachers and students), our chances of continuing our relationship in the future is in serious jeopardy…"

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#57

Post by Chris2048 »

falcolas wrote: post #20
takbw4234 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solution (...) [i]s to fix the cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior toward women No, sorry, you're taking the wrong angle here. There's no wide ranging cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior, that's why they're called sexual predators and not sex-positive mentors. And they're attracted like flies to shit to positions of power in these kind of institutions. Please do shelter the victims…

> There's no wide ranging cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior Were that the case, there wouldn't be these kinds of cases where entire swaths of predators are being shielded (or ignored). It may not be openly discussed or acknowledged, but as they say, actions speak louder than words. And, fwiw, there are female sexual predators as well; best to not ignore them.

> actions speak louder than words

that doesn't really follow when those actions are explicitly hidden, or denied. If it was generally accepted, why would they need to hide?

The case being made here is one of indifference, and not just of sexual abuse, but any negative effects that don't directly benefit Varsity.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#58

Post by GeoAtreides »

dehrmann wrote: post #51
GeoAtreides wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding sports: If it's not sexual predators, it's just plain old emotional and physical abuse. Sending your daughter to gymnastics means condemning her to abuse of all kinds. For example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53509107 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/sports/olympics/gymnastic... https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/300071427/an-insidious-culture... https://theconversation.com/winning-at-all-costs-…

Not to justify it, and I don't have an answer, but won't most sufficiently competitive activities devolve to this in an arms race?

This is exactly where my thoughts converged, too. The abuse is baked in. It seems to me that some people are wired to do anything, absolutely anything, to win. It's fine when adults are making the choice for themselves, it's abhorrent and wrong when the adults are choosing it for children.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#59

Post by jtbayly »

falcolas wrote: post #19
opwieurposiu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My daughter is only two, not sure what I will do when the time comes to discuss this stuff. I need some way to make her understand that her sexuality is a valuable thing, and she should demand a high price for it. Ideally a marriage and a house.

By putting a price on her sexuality, you'll be harming her as much as any other rando who offers to pay her for the same. EDIT: this has been on my mind, and perhaps it deserves more commentary. By putting a price on her sexuality, it establishes the precedent that her body and her intimacy are commodities to be sold. That if someone comes along with the right price (a bag of candy, $1000, a promise of protection), i…

You'd rather devalue? Then it doesn't matter if somebody else takes it by force. It's nothing of value.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#60

Post by abetusk »

starkred wrote: post #17

> I don’t know how much Varsity was involved here, but I suspect, at the very least, that Varsity execs were turning a blind eye to what was happening. As far as I can tell this is the sum up of his assertion that Varsity is responsible for sexual predators in cheerleading. Everything else is about Varsity having a monopoly on cheerleading and monopolies are bad - both of which are arguably true but I think dodges th…

I read it as how the effects monopolies produce organizations that attract abusers and predators.

Here is an excerpt that goes into more detail (with some details omitted for brevity):

> ... Varsity might have preferred to do little about the sexual abuse allegations. ... Varsity was protecting high-profile cheer celebrities because those celebrities were valuable recruiters for the sport. ... there may have been other reasons, like ... blackmail or ... certain officials didn’t think ... it was a big deal. But a more likely reason is simply that, as a monopolist, Varsity, didn’t have to. There was nowhere else ... to go ... because Varsity could retaliate ... by having them exiled from the sport. Being able to crush someone’s livelihood is power.

For extra emphasis:

> But a more likely reason is simply that, as a monopolist, Varsity, didn’t have to.

The author is further talking about "absentee ownership". That is, using their power to keep a grip on the monopoly without incurring any of the responsibility for maintaining it. The author's argument is that turning a "blind eye" to this and other types of abuse is a consequence of monopolies. The way I read it is that this is not so much a central tenet but a common symptom.

Post reply on HN