Bad news supposedly coming out of Washington eventually

[AFJF]

So it looks like cheerleaders added over a million in revenue per team back in 2003.  If we were being insanely generous and said that they have quadrupled that to $4 million per team, that's still not enough, in my opinion, to retain and run the risk of losing that money many times over via lawsuit or possibly the team itself.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/nfl-cheerleaders-surprising-facts/4/

 

[Jetsfan80]

9 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I would hire Mike Tyson in a minute.

"Sir, yes, you can have any job you want, please don't kill me.  Take my job, yes.  I'll leave now."

[AFJF]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

Simple question, do believe that someone that is a sexual predator, limits their authority of power to dominate only over those that dress suggestively? You think they distinguish along those lines? Or, may they continue to prey and consider it some sort of domination game?

It is a fair question to understand what your point is here.

Sexual predators are like any other predator.  They're going to target whoever they feel gives them the best chance to get away with what they're doing.  

[SackExchangeNYJ]

2 hours ago, Dcat said:

THinking the same thing.  Manny Skins fans thinking the same thing on message boards.

We've either all been duped to think it was going to be much worse, thereby softening the blow of the actual story OR Snyder's lawyers intervened and put a halt to whatever could not be substantiated OR the NFL itself intervened to save itself.

Those are the exact scenarios I think could be at play here. 

[TuscanyTile2]

5 minutes ago, AFJF said:

So it looks like cheerleaders added over a million in revenue per team back in 2003.  If we were being insanely generous and said that they have quadrupled that to $4 million per team, that's still not enough, in my opinion, to retain and run the risk of losing that money many times over via lawsuit or possibly the team itself.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/nfl-cheerleaders-surprising-facts/4/

NFL owners are really missing out on a golden opportunity to have you consult for them!

Also, NFL cheerleaders are missing out on the opportunity to have you advise them on their careers, too!

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, AFJF said:

So it looks like cheerleaders added over a million in revenue per team back in 2003.  If we were being insanely generous and said that they have quadrupled that to $4 million per team, that's still not enough, in my opinion, to retain and run the risk of losing that money many times over via lawsuit or possibly the team itself.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/nfl-cheerleaders-surprising-facts/4/

 

 

So your assumption is teams can't hire cheerleaders without the expectation that there is heavy risk involved? 

Companies hire hot women all the time for similar purposes as NFL teams do (marketing) without issue.  It's pretty simple:  Create a positive, safe culture and you have little to worry about.  Avoid throwing sex and drug parties.  

Has the NBA ever had issues with their cheerleaders?  Any big Laker girl scandals?  Don't think so.

[AFJF]

Just now, TuscanyTile2 said:

NFL owners are really missing out on a golden opportunity to have you consult for them!

Also, NFL cheerleaders are missing out on the opportunity to have you advise them on their careers, too!

You're the one imagining that I said what cheerleaders should do instead of cheerleading.  I actually said it's a no-brainer for them and they should do it.  If we see more situations like the one in Washington, they won't need me as a consultant.  They'll figure it out themselves and get rid of the cheerleaders.

[TuscanyTile2]

40 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

OR....if you want to be a cheerleader, go for it.  But don't expect every man to respect you in a 2020 hand-holding sort-of way.  If you want to dance as a cheerleader, then role with the punches.  If someone treats you well, treat them well back.  If someone whistles at you, ignore them or give them the finger.  

These are adult women.  You think they need hand-holding?  Or to be told by you how they should react to men being attracted to them?

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Sexual predators are like any other predator.  They're going to target whoever they feel gives them the best chance to get away with what they're doing.  

So create a culture where sexual predators are not welcome, and if they do show up, the punishment falls on the sexual predator, not the organization.  

If your organization allow and welcomes sexual predators as part of their business model, of course they're going to get clipped eventually.  But if that is seen as an outlier because the org has proper protections in place, they won't get successfully sued.

This really isn't THAT hard.

[batman10023]

7 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Sexual predators are like any other predator.  They're going to target whoever they feel gives them the best chance to get away with what they're doing.  

you guys have beat this to death.

[AFJF]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

 

So your assumption is teams can't hire cheerleaders without the expectation that there is heavy risk involved? 

Companies hire hot women all the time for similar purposes as NFL teams do (marketing) without issue.  It's pretty simple:  Create a positive, safe culture and you have little to worry about.  Avoid throwing sex and drug parties.  

Has the NBA ever had issues with their cheerleaders?  Any big Laker girl scandals?  Don't think so.

There is risk in every job and every position.  My point with cheerleaders is that if they were gone tomorrow, notbody (outside of a few pervs) would care.  

Do you believe that in all of pro sports, this is the fist time cheerleaders have been mistreated?

Didn't Mark Cuban and the Mavs have an issue a few years ago?

[TuscanyTile2]

2 minutes ago, AFJF said:

You're the one imagining that I said what cheerleaders should do instead of cheerleading.  I actually said it's a no-brainer for them and they should do it.  If we see more situations like the one in Washington, they won't need me as a consultant.  They'll figure it out themselves and get rid of the cheerleaders.

You wrote "There are also those who feel women should aspire to do more than make a living by taking most of their clothes off...". 

[Scott Dierking]

3 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Sexual predators are like any other predator.  They're going to target whoever they feel gives them the best chance to get away with what they're doing.  

If they even remotely cared about getting caught, they would not do it in the first place.

They do it because of control. They like the aspect of controlling. It does not matter if the control is over someone that may be considered provocatively dressed, or is their inferior. These predators are serial in their nature, and do not discriminate.

 

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, AFJF said:

There is risk in every job and every position.  My point with cheerleaders is that if they were gone tomorrow, notbody (outside of a few pervs) would care.  

Do you believe that in all of pro sports, this is the fist time cheerleaders have been mistreated?

Didn't Mark Cuban and the Mavs have an issue a few years ago?

 

There are a lot of jobs that aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.  But it generates some money and can help launch careers.  It's a net positive.  So why get rid of it because perverts can't control themselves?  That's a dumb solution to the problem. 

[AFJF]

Just now, TuscanyTile2 said:

You wrote "There are also those who feel women should aspire to do more than make a living by taking most of their clothes off...". 

Why only represent one side?  I literaly offered the counter point to that which is also a position taken by some people and I acknowledged that it would be an entirely different discussion.  Both sides make valid points.

[Scott Dierking]

7 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

So your assumption is teams can't hire cheerleaders without the expectation that there is heavy risk involved? 

Companies hire hot women all the time for similar purposes as NFL teams do (marketing) without issue.  It's pretty simple:  Create a positive, safe culture and you have little to worry about.  Avoid throwing sex and drug parties.  

Has the NBA ever had issues with their cheerleaders?  Any big Laker girl scandals?  Don't think so.

You know, Matt Lauer would have not been such a problem if NBC did not hire so many damn good looking employees.

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

If they even remotely cared about getting caught, they would not do it in the first place.

They do it because of control. They like the aspect of controlling. It does not matter if the control is over someone that may be considered provocatively dressed, or is their inferior. These predators are serial in their nature, and do not discriminate.

That's actually been determined to be a myth.  For the most part, sexual predators care primarily about having sex with a woman they otherwise could not have sex with without force.  Not so much about control. 

It's an important distinction because proponents of the "it's all about control" argument thought victims could talk predators out of doing what they do in the moment.  No, they really can't.  The only proven way to stop a predator in the moment is by fighting back.  

[TuscanyTile2]

6 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Why only represent one side?  I literaly offered the counter point to that which is also a position taken by some people and I acknowledged that it would be an entirely different discussion.  Both sides make valid points.

So you're saying that you're not advising the cheerleaders, just the owners (and maybe the league)?  

[AFJF]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

If they even remotely cared about getting caught, they would not do it in the first place.

They do it because of control. They like the aspect of controlling. It does not matter if the control is over someone that may be considered provocatively dressed, or is their inferior. These predators are serial in their nature, and do not discriminate.

 

Are you suggesting that predators willingly operate out in the open and make no effort to conceal their intentions? 

Predators absoultely discriminate.  That's what being a predator is.  They choose from a group of targets and decide which will give them the best chance of getting what they want.  These guys who went after these cheerleaders, do you think they would have just as easily gone after a female assistant coach who has a higher standing in the organization and makes more money?  Or do they look at a cheerleader, realize she's there to catch a break so won't "rock the boat", and only makes $150 a game? 

I once worked in an office where I was the only dude among like 20 young women.  We used to conduct training on job related issues as well as "life tips" for their well being.  I looked up the literature and interviews with serial rapists and they absolutely had certain things they looked for that made them choose the women they targeted as well as things that made them look in another direction if they thought a potential target would pose too much of a challenge.

In the end my boss said "we can't present that data because it could be  construed as 'victim blaming', but you better believe I'm going to share this with my teenage daughter to make her less of a target.  Thanks".

[AFJF]

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

There are a lot of jobs that aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.  But it generates some money and can help launch careers.  It's a net positive.  So why get rid of it because perverts can't control themselves?  That's a dumb solution to the problem. 

Again, it's risk vs benefit.  Generating a very tiny fraction of overall income, doing zero to help win football games and possibly causing an owner to lose his team is a no-brainer IMO.

In the grand scheme of things I'm glad Snyder is in hot water over this, but he was dumb to retain a near worthless asset that could land him where he is today.

[Scott Dierking]

11 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

That's actually been determined to be a myth.  For the most part, sexual predators care primarily about having sex with a woman they otherwise could not have sex with without force.  Not so much about control. 

It's an important distinction because proponents of the "it's all about control" argument thought victims could talk predators out of doing what they do in the moment.  No, they really can't.  The only proven way to stop a predator in the moment is by fighting back.  

Could  not have sex with, without force? That is not control?

https://www.workplacesrespond.org/page/harassment-facts/

Workplace sexual harassment and violence is not primarily about sex.

It is about power and control. 

[AFJF]

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

That's actually been determined to be a myth.  For the most part, sexual predators care primarily about having sex with a woman they otherwise could not have sex with without force.  Not so much about control. 

It's an important distinction because proponents of the "it's all about control" argument thought victims could talk predators out of doing what they do in the moment.  No, they really can't.  The only proven way to stop a predator in the moment is by fighting back.  

This is also correct.  The study was very controversial and after gaining initial support from congress it was dismissed as "condoning rape" because it didn't fit the power vs powerless narrative.  Politicians gonna' politician.

[Jetsfan80]

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

https://www.workplacesrespond.org/page/harassment-facts/

Workplace sexual harassment and violence is not primarily about sex.

It is about power and control. 

 

And I say again, that's been shown to be a myth.  The data does not support it on a large scale.

Are there power dynamics at play when it happens in the workplace?  Sure.  A boss can get away with it easier when harassing an underling who has no power.  But that's not the motivation for the harassment itself. 

[AFJF]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

https://www.workplacesrespond.org/page/harassment-facts/

Workplace sexual harassment and violence is not primarily about sex.

It is about power and control. 

This is the narrative, but an extensive study several years ago determined that forcing somebody to have sex is actually about sex.  Congress initially wanted to look closer at the findings but after coming under pressure they caved and condemned it.

[AFJF]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

And I say again, that's been shown to be a myth.  The data does not support it on a large scale.

Are there power dynamics?  Sure.  A boss can get away with it easier when harassing an underling who has no power.  But that's not the motivation for the harassment itself.

Exactly. Humans do it, chimpanzees do it and orangutans do it.  Of course there are heirarchies within those communities, but their violent act has  no impact on their standing within those heirarchies which is what would suppor the "power" narrative.  Some people are just disgusting and willing to force a woman to have sex with them if they're in the mood and the woman doesn't consent.

[TuscanyTile2]

18 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

That's actually been determined to be a myth.  For the most part, sexual predators care primarily about having sex with a woman they otherwise could not have sex with without force.  Not so much about control. 

It's an important distinction because proponents of the "it's all about control" argument thought victims could talk predators out of doing what they do in the moment.  No, they really can't.  The only proven way to stop a predator in the moment is by fighting back.  

 

 

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Exactly. Humans do it, chimpanzees do it and orangutans do it.  Of course there are heirarchies within those communities, but their violent act has  no impact on their standing within those heirarchies which is what would suppor the "power" narrative.  Some people are just disgusting and willing to force a woman to have sex with them if they're in the mood and the woman doesn't consent.

Yep.  The people who created this narrative were feminist women who had the best of intentions when trying to analyze what was going on.  They simply don't understand what disgusting pigs men tend to be, and had to come up with an alternative explanation than "Men want sex, and a lot of it.  And some will do horrible things to get it." 

That explanation just wasn't good enough at the time.  Problem is they didn't really use much data (and certainly not GOOD data) when coming up with the new theory.  And the narrative that was created was actually quite dangerous, because it served to discourage women from fighting back from their attacker/predator.  

[AFJF]

11 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Could  not have sex with, without force? That is not control?

https://www.workplacesrespond.org/page/harassment-facts/

Workplace sexual harassment and violence is not primarily about sex.

It is about power and control. 

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-07103-000

Their findings coincide with comments I was able to find from serial rapists in how/why they choose their targets.  It's not simply grabbing anyone they find to assert power.  It has to do with several factors that they feel will determine the likelihood of them getting away with a forced sexual act.

[slats]

1 hour ago, AFJF said:

We're having two different conversations.

I'm talking about whether or not a company should add an employee who brings no value with tons of risk.  You're talking about what they'll wear to work. 

Cheerleaders bring plenty of value. Sure, maybe people aren't going to football games just to watch pretty girls dance, but everyone is taking a good look at them during the course of the game. And it doesn't end there, There's posters, calendars, clothing, and clicks. If these young ladies weren't money makers for these organizations, they wouldn't exist. 

[AFJF]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Yep.  The people who created this narrative were feminist women who had the best of intentions when trying to analyze what was going on.  They simply don't understand what disgusting pigs men tend to be, and had to come up with an alternative explanation than "Men want sex, and a lot of it.  And some will do horrible things to get it." 

That explanation just wasn't good enough at the time.  Problem is they didn't really use much data (and certainly not GOOD data) when coming up with the new theory.  And the narrative that was created was actually quite dangerous, because it served to discourage women from fighting back from their attacker/predator.  

Exactly.  Over the past few years in looking at the things going on in the world, I've never seen a more appropriate time for the old "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" saying.

This was the book/study I was talking about.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-07103-000

 

[TuscanyTile2]

2 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Exactly.  Over the past few years in looking at the things going on in the world, I've never seen a more appropriate time for the old "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" saying.

This was the book/study I was talking about.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-07103-000

Sort of like your good intentions depriving women of jobs and potential career advancement.

[AFJF]

Just now, slats said:

Cheerleaders bring plenty of value. Sure, maybe people aren't going to football games just to watch pretty girls dance, but everyone is taking a good look at them during the course of the game. And it doesn't end there, There's posters, calendars, clothing, and clicks. If these young ladies weren't money makers for these organizations, they wouldn't exist. 

As I said above, they generated roughly $1 mil per team back in 03.  If we pretend they've quadrupled that, they generate $4 million per team.  That's a few pennies for mult-billion dollar teams.  Dan Snyder could be on the verge of losing his team, or possibly 20+ years of profits that the cheerleaders generated while wearing the stain that goes along with it.

Perhaps some people feel that the risk is worth it for an asset that doesn't help you win games.  I would disagree. 

[AFJF]

2 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Sort of like your good intentions depriving women of jobs and potential career advancement.

Which I never said but you keep repeating.  Sure.

[TuscanyTile2]

4 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Which I never said but you keep repeating.  Sure.

Aren't you against the idea of teams having cheerleaders?

[AFJF]

5 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Aren't you against the idea of teams having cheerleaders?

I think it is dumb for teams to have cheerleaders, but if teams choose to do it, that's up to them.

And you're talking about this in a way that suggests for some reason that cheerleaders should be guaranteed employment no matter how much or how little their role brings, just because they would like it to be so.  Are there any other jobs you can think of that should exist based solely on the desire of somebody to have that job?  

If an asset doesn't help you win football games and isn't essential to conduct your day to day operations but you retain it and run the risk of lawsuit and/or losing your football team, it's dumb.