RE: Feminism

RE: Feminism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 8:33:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny That is the expected response; it would be humorous if not so misguided. Which sex is more overtly aggressive/confrontational? I dunno. How about if I twist your head off your shoulders and pour diet Pepsi down your neckhole? That answer your question?

aidan -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama I am sure it's possible that there would always be girls who "wanted" to be cheerleaders, in a world where their civilization did not stack a crappy deck against them and lure them down a cultural, social and economic dead end with this waste of their athletic potential. If girls with a lot of athletic potential could win great college scholarships and lucrative careers by using their bodies for sporting events that did NOT involve dressing in skimpy outfits and showing their crotches to strangers, they might go for it. Unfortunately, we cannot determine whether girls with athletic potential would make other choices when they are really not given many other options at the moment, especially in the USA. People can't make choices when they aren't alternatives. It isn't an election if you can only check one box. I think you're being unfair in failing to recognize the positive effects of Title IX. American girls have plenty of opportunities to compete in sports and earn college scholarships when they excel at a sport. Title IX means that if a college wants to keep that big football roster, they have to have an equal number of athletic scholarships for women in sports. I don't think it's safe to assume that every cheerleader is a person with athletic ability that's being misdirected. To the extent it is true, it deals with an athletic ability for gymnastics, and I'd argue that gymnastics is fucked up enough in the way it treats women that a young girl would be relatively safer in the confines of cheerleading. Edit to add: for what it's worth, in the small town I lived in where the math teacher wouldn't let me try out for cheerleading, I did participate in little league baseball as one of three girls among hundreds of boys. I wouldn't say I was encouraged, or even very good at it, but even in that little shit hole, over 20 years ago, I was permitted to try out and play. It's true that Title IX has helped to try and level the playing field a bit, but it still doesn't address issues like the lucrativeness of scholarships offered to female athletes or the kind of social mobility offered to them after their playing days are through. And cheerleading isn't really safer than those other activities, in fact it may be more dangerous specifically because it's participants are not recognized and treated as athletes.

aidan -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:13:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama The number of women participating is all that you can stipulate from Title IX--not the number of dollars or the quality of scholarships they receive. No. A new football team is established at a college, say... 30mil. 6 new woman's teams will pop up costing 5mil each. It's money now, not numbers. Guess which sex gets the short end of the stick? Guess which sex, without interference, plays more sports? By those calculations? Still women. One male team is getting six times the amount of any one female team. That's...still really, really bad.

Arrogance -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aidan quote: ORIGINAL: zenny quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama The number of women participating is all that you can stipulate from Title IX--not the number of dollars or the quality of scholarships they receive. No. A new football team is established at a college, say... 30mil. 6 new woman's teams will pop up costing 5mil each. It's money now, not numbers. Guess which sex gets the short end of the stick? Guess which sex, without interference, plays more sports? By those calculations? Still women. One male team is getting six times the amount of any one female team. That's...still really, really bad. Well, in all fairness, in major programs the revenue from the football team covers most of the costs for every other team.

zenny -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:56:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aidan quote: ORIGINAL: zenny quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama The number of women participating is all that you can stipulate from Title IX--not the number of dollars or the quality of scholarships they receive. No. A new football team is established at a college, say... 30mil. 6 new woman's teams will pop up costing 5mil each. It's money now, not numbers. Guess which sex gets the short end of the stick? Guess which sex, without interference, plays more sports? By those calculations? Still women. One male team is getting six times the amount of any one female team. That's...still really, really bad. You miss the point. Football teams are extremely expensive - more so than most sports. Most of the money goes into facilities, coaches, trainers, et cetera; not the players. The equation may be balanced monetarily, however, women have the overwhelming advantage because of laws that encourage and legalize sexism on woman's behalf. Those who are adherent's to feminism in it's traditional and definitional form will find a problem with this. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama quote: ORIGINAL: zenny That is the expected response; it would be humorous if not so misguided. Which sex is more overtly aggressive/confrontational? I dunno. How about if I twist your head off your shoulders and pour diet Pepsi down your neckhole? That answer your question? Not at all as it was a terrible evasion.

GoDolphins -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:58:17 PM)
Yes, and how many of those women's sports programs can bring in even 1/6 the amount of money even a mediocre football team at a big school can bring in? Excluding a few rarities like the University of Tennessee's women's basketball team who can bring in 20,000 fans for big games you're not going to find very many. I'm a supporter of Title IX, and have probably watched more women's sports than most feminists who sit around griping about how female athletes get screwed (if past conversations are any indication I know I have). Nevertheless, let's be realistic here. Universities and to some extent high schools will spend more money on football teams because they will make more money from them--a lot more in most cases. The reason why colleges spend so much money on football, and to an extent men's basketball, is because for the most part those are the only sports that are going to have a chance to turn any kind of profit at all. Many actually don't, 38% of football programs and 52% of basketball made a profit according to the program I got at the NCAA Baseball Super Regionals I went to last summer, but they come a lot closer than most other sports do, which are probably all either 0% or in the very low single-digit percentages. Without them, athletics programs probably wouldn't exist at most colleges, and that's true not only for women's sports but most men's as well. Now if you have a story about a college that is spending 6 times more on their men's tennis program than its women's program, you've probably got a case of the women's team getting screwed. Oh never mind in the time it took me to write that out 2 people already beat me to it.

zenny -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 10:10:57 PM)
To be sure there is a problem when such a thing happens. However, that should be decided on a case by case basis and regularly monitored - not by law that swings the pendulum on that which it seeks to eradicate. Personally I'd be more for a - 'if you start one team, and there is a female equivalent, you better start that one too or give a damn good reason why not - other than money' or vise versa.

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 7:09:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aidan quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I don't think it's safe to assume that every cheerleader is a person with athletic ability that's being misdirected. To the extent it is true, it deals with an athletic ability for gymnastics, and I'd argue that gymnastics is fucked up enough in the way it treats women that a young girl would be relatively safer in the confines of cheerleading. It's true that Title IX has helped to try and level the playing field a bit, but it still doesn't address issues like the lucrativeness of scholarships offered to female athletes or the kind of social mobility offered to them after their playing days are through. And cheerleading isn't really safer than those other activities, in fact it may be more dangerous specifically because it's participants are not recognized and treated as athletes. I didn't mean it's physically safer. I was referring to the social conditioning aspect that some find so bothersome. Gymnasts are in a difficult spot because they start training when they are very young with the awareness that the physical ideal in their sport is a barely pubescent form. Gymnastics can make a girl hate herself for gaining height, hips, and breasts. That's messed up. Shakti spoke of girls with athletic potential being misdirected into cheerleading. My point was that I think that's only true of gymnasts, and they're more likely to get healthy positive feedback for their skill in a cheerleading context than a gymnastics context. You are correct about issues with physical dangers in cheerleading.

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 7:19:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Personally I'd be more for a - 'if you start one team, and there is a female equivalent, you better start that one too or give a damn good reason why not - other than money' or vise versa. That's basically what Title IX does, except at the level of comparing women's scholarships vs. men's scholarships. There is no female sports "equivalent" to football. And I don't see the benefit in viewing it as you do, where female sports must be partnered to male sports (or vice-versa). Education is good. Athleticism is good. On average, college athletes perform at a higher level in the workplace than grads who weren't athletes. Title IX isn't just some form of feminist payback, it's about tapping and training the potential of the american work force. And recognizing that at least 50% of that potential work force is composed of women, so why not invest in athletic women as well as men?

opecpromo -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 7:42:36 AM)
hi there

zenny -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 7:51:20 AM)
No, that isn't how title IX works. Also, there aren't the same number of women athlete's as men. Hence one at a time with justification. If you want loathing, abuse, and shitty coaches, check out crew. That is one messed up 'sport'.

Andalusite -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 8:49:48 AM)
ShaktiSama, most of the cheerleaders I've known/went to school with also did other forms of athletics, including track, swimming, volleyball, basketball, softball, etc. It is moving more toward being its own sport, although I'm not sure that's a good thing (involving younger and younger participants). I think having them wear similar uniforms to the guys, or otherwise less revealing would be fine, and should be required for the ones who aren't yet in high school. I agree that Elisabella was out of line coming here with the "women should do feminine sports and stay home instead of working" thing, but adding more sexism to sexism isn't going to help.

Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 10:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite I agree that Elisabella was out of line coming here with the "women should do feminine sports and stay home instead of working" thing, but adding more sexism to sexism isn't going to help. Please quote one single post where I said women SHOULD stay home instead of working? What I said was that women should RECEIVE EQUAL RESPECT for homemaking as they would for working outside the home. What I said was that traditionally feminine pursuits should be given as much respect as traditionally male ones. I swear to god I'm like 99% ready to throw in the towel on this, except that will just give some people positive feedback that acting like an irrational bint and throwing up red herrings large enough to supply me with sushi for a year is the effective way to have a disagreement. Seriously though, quote it or shove it. I am so sick of so called feminists going banshee whenever someone says that girly stuff should be given just as much respect as guy stuff. And I'm even more sick of illiterate feminists saying "Elisabella said this" without a single direct quote to back it up. How would you feel if I came on here saying "Andalusite said women shouldn't be allowed to be cheerleaders because it's unfeminist" - pretty damn pissed off that some idiot was putting words in your mouth that weren't even remotely close to what you actually said, right? I really don't care if you respect my views or not, so long as you represent them correctly.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 1:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Gymnasts are in a difficult spot because they start training when they are very young with the awareness that the physical ideal in their sport is a barely pubescent form. Gymnastics can make a girl hate herself for gaining height, hips, and breasts. That's messed up. Shakti spoke of girls with athletic potential being misdirected into cheerleading. My point was that I think that's only true of gymnasts, and they're more likely to get healthy positive feedback for their skill in a cheerleading context than a gymnastics context. I think that cheerleading and gymnastics tend to abuse young girls in different ways. I have serious objections to the cheerleading phenomenon at the adult social and economic level, but if you want to confine the discussion to the impact of the institution on the lives of small girls, I am also fine with that. Briefly: I consider the cheerleader role in American society to be sexually explotive of minors, thus a form of child sexual abuse. I agree with you that the field of competitive/Olympic gymnastics is also exploitive and destructive to minors in a different but equally harmful way--serious competition-level training in the sport tends to do long term damage to a young girl's body. The regimen of malnutrition and drugs that are used to retard their growth are essentially a form of physical as well as psychological abuse.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 1:53:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite ShaktiSama, most of the cheerleaders I've known/went to school with also did other forms of athletics, including track, swimming, volleyball, basketball, softball, etc. As an erotic photographer and a friend of many other erotic photographers, I've known a good many former cheerleaders myself, Andalusite. I am well aware of their athletic ability and potential. I'm also well aware of what kind of lives they tend to lead after high school and what kind of income they can expect after having participated in this athletic pursuit. Having compared it to the lives that even the mid-level MALE athletes on a football field can enjoy, after having won a four-year university scholarship based on their athletic ability? Sorry, but I see neither equality nor any kind of fairness or value in Football as an institution. The football field is a huge symbolic microcosm of American society as a whole. It tells us everything we need to know about the kind of treatment that equally gifted male and female human beings--the male and female human beings that our society tends to prize the most highly--can expect to receive. The football field tells us that our most prized women are destined to be nameless, unacknowledged and exploited sexual objects. In contrast, the society's most valued men will be recognized by name, lionized as heroes for their accomplishments and feats, publicly acknowledged and praised for their abilities, and given the opportunity to prosper in legitimate, long-lasting ways based on their hard work and training. I'm all in favor of Title IX and I don't think our society is as beknighted as it was 100 years ago, don't get me wrong. As a feminist, I still find football problematic. And this is after having been raised in a small rural town with three older stepbrothers who played the game, two of whom got full-ride college scholarships.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 4:42:50 PM)
~fr~ Title 9 is a sports thing, right? Yeah, I am all for... sports. [8\|] Sorry, supporting athletics over acdemics is a monster sore spot with me. When I was in high school (30+ yrs ago) I RAN OUT OF CLASSES TO TAKE because there wasn't "funding" for advanced science in our district. Plenty of cash for sports, though. Yepper.

nanshakh -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 6:07:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus Title 9 is a sports thing, right? Yeah, I am all for... sports. Sorry, supporting athletics over acdemics is a monster sore spot with me. Music to my ears. [;)]

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 6:10:20 PM)
~FR~ I thought part of feminism was about the choice of a female to live her life as she pleases, enjoying equitable treatment? If that is so, why impose that they should not be this or that because it promotes something that someone else objects to?

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 6:21:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama I'm also well aware of what kind of lives they tend to lead after high school and what kind of income they can expect after having participated in this athletic pursuit. Having compared it to the lives that even the mid-level MALE athletes on a football field can enjoy, after having won a four-year university scholarship based on their athletic ability? Sorry, but I see neither equality nor any kind of fairness or value in Football as an institution. The football field is a huge symbolic microcosm of American society as a whole. It tells us everything we need to know about the kind of treatment that equally gifted male and female human beings--the male and female human beings that our society tends to prize the most highly--can expect to receive. The football field tells us that our most prized women are destined to be nameless, unacknowledged and exploited sexual objects. In contrast, the society's most valued men will be recognized by name, lionized as heroes for their accomplishments and feats, publicly acknowledged and praised for their abilities, and given the opportunity to prosper in legitimate, long-lasting ways based on their hard work and training. While I'm sympathetic to your concerns and sensitivities, the world you reference is very different than the world I observe. No one looks at cheerleading as a way out of poverty and into millions. I just think it's terribly off to treat playing football and being a cheerleader as opposites or complimentary. Yes, there are problematic issues with the presentation of cheerleaders. And a lot of that is self-reinforcing. Most of the crap I hear people talk about cheerleaders is when they obviously don't grasp the basics of the game they are supposed to be cheering (football cheerleaders starting a cheer during an offensive drive, etc.). Cheerleading at the highschool, college, and "professional" level (the ladies aren't pros, they're just cheering pros) has a bunch of different issues that we could discuss but I can't summon enough concern to go into it because it just isn't that important. As for football and what it represents, culturally, that is simply a lot bigger than what cheerleading is. In considering the career opportunities of college scholarship athletes, focusing on football is misleading as most of the career high-achievers are in non-revenue earning sports who translate the discipline of their sport into a non-sport career. As for football players, geez LOUISE, if you want to talk about people suffering from exploitation at the hands of the patriarchy... let's talk about NFL players. I don't consider premature aging, a higher degree of conditions resulting from brain damage, the high number of bankruptcies and impoverished lives suffered because men are lionized for smashing into each other on a field and rarely encouraged to develop any other life sustaining skills or long term plan to be the best that society has to offer. It's not that I disagree with you that a football game sends cultural signals about what our society rewards. I just think it's uglier and more complicated than what you represent.

nanshakh -> RE: Feminism (10/20/2009 6:26:43 PM)
That thread reminds me of those heroic times of aviation pioneering. I can't help having that image of an overloaded plane desperately trying to take off. There are those instants when it seems it is just about to succeed, when it does lift off the ground, where a refreshing breeze comes to help, most specially thanks to ShaktiSama's, and a few others', bright, witty and sensible comments, a light breeze that seems to succeed in raising the level a little. AH! is it going to make it at last? Hell no, it is slammed down by adverse winds to the muddy field again where it gets glued, hopelessly. Fortunately it is only a thread, so there's no risk it could burst into flames some half a mile after the end of the runway, right. quote: ORIGINAL: SomethingCatchy ...How do you view feminism? How does feminism affect your D/s and 'vanilla' relationships? What do you think about the above woman's conflicted love affair with her favorite game? So far I don't even really understand the original question. Why entitle a thread Feminism, which seems a rather broad subject, and then take as a starting point the hesitations of a woman who wonders if it is right for her to indulge in enjoying a sport because maybe she shouldn't? Really. I understand it reflects a crucial issue linked to feminism. But maybe there are others? Maybe after 9 pages a discussion on feminism could have taken some altitude and considered other striking aspects linked to feminism. The fact that, if taking into account the entire humanity, 7 women out of 10 throughout the world are subjected to domestic violence during their life? Not in antiquity, not in Rome, not in medieval times. Today. But ok, maybe I don't understand the rules of the games. I'm very new to this forum. Almost a tourist :) So I'm all willing to understand that, notwithstanding its rather general title, the thread should remain focussed on some women and their relation to some sports in one particular country today. But even then, the 9 pages seem surrealistic to me. For instance, I don't understand how sports could be so central to a thread on Feminism, especially in regard to equality of chances for education? There are countries, many a country, developed countries too, where education, higher education, is free. Where scholarships are granted indiscriminately to those who want to study, regardless of their capacity to play a sport. Where sport is one thing, higher education another thing, and the former is not used to finance the latter. And therefore where... sport is not an issue much related to feminism. People practice a sport if they like it, and don't if they don't like it. Regardless of their gender. And people go to university if they want to study, or don't if they don't want to. Regardless of their gender. Yes, I know the idea will appear so ridiculous to many here. I think it's an important element: free education helps for equality of chances, not only between classes or ethnic groups, but also between genders.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875