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

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#61

Post by throwaway31338 »

seretogis wrote: post #11
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…

The problem isn't the daughter pursuing their interests, the problem is those men being sexually predatory. The solution isn't to blame the victim and try to shelter them from "men will be men", it's to fix the cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior toward women.

I have genuine questions about how I am supposed to conduct myself in a culturally sensitive way about this issue. I have a daughter who knows nothing of sex yet. Eventually there are conversations that I expect will need to occur.

I sincerely don't want to "blame the victim". I also don't understand where that line falls. I've felt that accusing a speaker of "victim blaming" is sometimes used as a way to shout them down in a discussion (or worse, target them for being "canceled" in their life outside of Internet discourse-- hence my use of a throwaway account here).

I do not culturally accept sexually predatory behavior. It is wrong. It should be prosecuted. I do not have a "men will be men" attitude. I also accept that I can't change the culture of institutions myself, no matter how fiercely I believe what I believe.

- Am I "victim blaming" if I talk to my daughter about the existence of sexual predators and her vulnerability?

- Am I in the wrong if I caution her about institutions or settings that have historically adopted a "men will be men" attitude?

- Am I in the wrong if I explain the realpolitik that individuals' rejection of "men will be men" doesn't automatically change the entrenched attitudes of organizations that might systematically act to shield predators and ignore vitims?

- I've already had the conversation about how people are generally good, but that we have to be cautious because there are people with criminal motivations, or mental illness, that might cause them to want to hurt us in a general sense (non-sexual violence). Am I "victim blaming" if I talk to her about general situational awareness, being cautious, and not putting yourself into situations where general violence might occur?

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#62

Post by jeffbee »

mcguire wrote: post #56
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 School…

I just don't understand how they sell it to school districts. If you already adopted ChromeOS you have a robust, free SSO solution that's freely available and already integrated into virtually all relevant applications. What problem does Clever claim to be solving for you?

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#63

Post by mcguire »

whatshisface wrote: post #31
seretogis wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't the daughter pursuing their interests, the problem is those men being sexually predatory. The solution isn't to blame the victim and try to shelter them from "men will be men", it's to fix the cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior toward women.

I feel like if there was an island in the Caribbean filled with pirates, it would be simultaneously a good idea to tell the merchant ships to stay away and to send the Royal Navy.

If the merchants stay away, the navy won't care about the pirates.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#64

Post by falcolas »

Chris2048 wrote: post #57
falcolas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The action I'm referring to here is the indifference. The hiding, the denial. Using the phrase "boys will be boys".

That's the action that's speaking out here. And it's a problem that's broader than Varsity.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#65

Post by mcguire »

Chris2048 wrote: post #57
falcolas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You don't consider indifference to be acceptance?

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#66

Post by opwieurposiu »

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…

How do you explain to a child that something is valuable but should not have a price? I am worried "love is free" is dangerously adjacent to "sex is cheap", the opposite of what I want to convey. Maybe the "price" in this analogy is time or commitment? Avoid the whole market comparison? Open to suggestions here.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#67

Post by gamblor956 »

names_are_hard wrote: post #52
watwut wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Up to college, cheerleading is a serious sport (see, e.g., the Netflix docudrama or even the old movie Bring it On which is surprisingly accurate).

It is one of the most physically demanding sports, and in terms of injuries it is the most hazardous sport for competitive athletes. It's basically gymnastics, but faster, with a dozen or more other people within the same limited space, and people are getting tossed around or jumping off other people, or balancing on top of one or more other people who may themselves be balanced on top of other people.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#68

Post by falcolas »

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-…

If you want to scream in frustration, watch a video about the "training" involved in stretching legs so kids can do the splits. They're regularly posted to YouTube by proud parents.

I have no clue how a parent can "proudly" watch their child crying and screaming as someone forces their legs into unnatural positions.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#69

Post by gwd »

gamblor956 wrote: post #53
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…

> any reduction in a gym's quality generally boosts its nearby competitors.

Right, but the question is how visible that quality is to customers. If you skimp on your ventilation or equipment maintenance, your customers will notice pretty quickly. If you skimp on background checks for your cheerleading coaches, nobody's going to notice on their own until the scandal hits.

The only way customers know there's a difference in the coach vetting if the gym or the cheerleading company tells them. And while it may be possible for Company A and its gyms to distinguish themselves from Company B, it may not be; it depends a lot on the particulars. If they can't, they'll be at a disadvantage.

Re: Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators

#70

Post by Chris2048 »

jancsika wrote: post #12
blippage wrote: post #5

I'm from the UK, so I don't understand how some things work in the US. We don't have cheerleaders in the UK, because what's the point anyway? I was working under the assumption that cheerleaders were just a bunch of teenage girls doing dancing at a sports game. I never realised it was big business.

> I was working under the assumption that cheerleaders were just a bunch of teenage girls doing dancing at a sports game. That's part of what they do. The other part is competing on a high level based on the athleticism and (I'm guessing) choreography of a given teams presentation. Similar to gymnastics but usually with a team and different genre of music. There was an article posted recently to HN titled "Cheerleadi…

> There was an article posted recently to HN titled "Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators"

Isn't that this post?

Post reply on HN