I can't read the article due to paywall. Can someone share how this is characterized as a title ix complaint?

Are their songboys who were treated better than the songirls?

bearister said:

---

Perhaps the damning allegation is that they are forced to wear sweaters 3 sizes too small.



" Within a year of joining USC's prestigious Song Girls team, one member who'd never before worried about her weight, sought outpatient treatment for an eating disorder."

This may well constitute the longest reach for the brass ring of victimhood I have ever seen.

---

Two sizes too big, actually.

Fyght4Cal said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

---

Sorry but this is lame.

---

Yes it is, and it's a direct quote from an article written by a former SC Song Girl. I know it sounds like work, but you should read before commenting.

---

Glad we agree.

USC's PR machine is working double-time to address these grievous claims.

Here's the cover of the 2021 Song Girl Media Guide. Notice that Lori "Cruella De Vil" Nelson is nowhere to be found.

I've always liked them in those sweaters. Classy, yet attractive. One of the few good things about $C.

Big C said:

---

I've always liked them in those sweaters. Classy, yet attractive. One of the few good things about $C.

---

I have read the charging allegations of the complaint. I'm confused by the term "sweater puppets" in Paragraph 34.

"Let's face it. A sweater can
make anyone look classy!"

hanky1 said:

---

---

No Nobel prize for her.

It's kinda his thing. If it isn't in his Twitter feed, it isn't real.

Blueblood said:

---

"Let's face it. A sweater can
make anyone look classy!"

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

USC's PR machine is working double-time to address these grievous claims.

Here's the cover of the 2021 Song Girl Media Guide. Notice that Lori "Cruella De Vil" Nelson is nowhere to be found.

---

Wholesome Stanfurd "dollies" not submitting to the cruel dictates of body shaming.

Shocked and a little disappointed you did not go with this:

...when you factor in the modern bump and grind dance routines that are more suitable for the Bada Bing than a family sporting event, their claims are even more ludicrous.

AunBear89 said:

---

Shocked and a little disappointed you did not go with this:

---

After carefully inspecting the options available with regard to photos of Ms. Carter modeling sweaters, I have come to the conclusion that you are a gentleman with a refined sense of decorum.

bearister said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Shocked and a little disappointed you did not go with this:

---

After carefully inspecting the options available with regard to photos of Ms. Carter modeling sweaters, I have come to the conclusion that you are a gentleman with a refined sense of decorum.

---

Definitely an NSFW Google image search...

socaltownie said:

---

Yeah - I try to be an enlightened male. I gotta a daughter that is the apple in my eye and I want her to seize the world by its throat and subdue it all while looking marvelous in high heels.

But I DON"T get this. You make a choice. You are there TO be oggled. This isn't rocket science and it isn't like you can't look at the sweaters, the make up, the skirts, etc. etc. etc. and not realize that being a song girl IS about being objectified.

And then, when you ARE objectified and abused for not fitting in the tight barbie ideal you complain.

Look, this isn't workplace harrasment. No one's life is or isn't going to be determined by their skills with a pom pom. I also get that I am a guy so I dont' face this and it is really hard to walk in someone elses shoes and I am willing to listen but, again, I just don't sympathize.

---

Agree. The young ladies being cheer leaders / pom pom girls / song girls, whatever are SUPPOSED TO BE good looking, right?

(also have a daughter)

bearister said:

---

Perhaps the most damning allegation is that they are forced to wear sweaters 3 sizes too small.



" Within a year of joining USC's prestigious Song Girls team, one member who'd never before worried about her weight, sought outpatient treatment for an eating disorder."

This may well constitute the longest reach for the brass ring of victimhood I have ever seen.

---

Bearister, come on, man, you're better than that. The "brass ring of victimhood?" Do you really believe that's a thing, much less it's something for which people are really grasping.

Also, as an attorney, I'm sure you're familiar with IIED. Are you suggesting emotional distress is a crock? Or are you suggesting that a eating disorder is never a symptom of emotional distress? Do you not think an 18-22 year old can suffer emotional distress as a result of a woman placed in a leadership position above her constantly criticizing her weight and her appearance?

bearister said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

"Let's face it. A sweater can
make anyone look classy!"

---

---

Are you vying to be the next Shocky?

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yeah - I try to be an enlightened male. I gotta a daughter that is the apple in my eye and I want her to seize the world by its throat and subdue it all while looking marvelous in high heels.

But I DON"T get this. You make a choice. You are there TO be oggled. This isn't rocket science and it isn't like you can't look at the sweaters, the make up, the skirts, etc. etc. etc. and not realize that being a song girl IS about being objectified.

And then, when you ARE objectified and abused for not fitting in the tight barbie ideal you complain.

Look, this isn't workplace harrasment. No one's life is or isn't going to be determined by their skills with a pom pom. I also get that I am a guy so I dont' face this and it is really hard to walk in someone elses shoes and I am willing to listen but, again, I just don't sympathize.

---

Agree. The young ladies being cheer leaders / pom pom girls / song girls, whatever are SUPPOSED TO BE good looking, right?

(also have a daughter)

---

No. They're supposed to be good dancers and have school spirit. They're no different than TheFiatLux except that they also dance. If you don't think Ken needed to be hot and sexy in order to be a Mic Man then why do you think any cheerleader needs to be hot and sexy?

They broke the mold after Shocky. I am a neutered modern male in comparison.
Not even a hint of decolletage in my photojournalism.




After being taken to the mat by Mama Bear, what little testosterone I had left was squeezed from me like a wash rag.

"No, they're not there to be ogled, they're there to dance and lead cheers. They are not there to be objectified and ogled."

Give me a break. We can't really speak to their state of mind....but if they don't think getting ogled is a foreseeable by product of wearing tight clothes and doing bump and grind routines, then their cause of action should be based on being taken advantage of because they are intellectually challenged.

Their clothing and routines are a throwback to an era of toxic masculinity that should be well behind us.

Explain how cheerleading would be less effective if it was desexualized. Why don't the men cheerleaders dress like Chippendales? Are they less effective because they don't?
I don't even watch them during a game because the thought going through my mind is how mortified I'd be if that was my daughter out there doing that with the fat f@uck in the row below me transfixed.

I spent my career with facts and dealing with the world as it is.

Yes, cheerleading for pro sports is even more sexualized than it is at the college level....but college cheerleading seems to be on an arc that comes close to intersecting with pro cheerleading. For that reason, points made in this article, in my mind, apply to our discussion:

NFL cheerleading is sexist and demeaning to women. Reform it or end it.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/09/nfl-cheerleading-sexist-demeaning-women-reform-end-column/897735002/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/897735002

" It's time to call this out for what it is: demeaning to women and an anachronism that ought to be beneath the male fans to whom this titillating eye candy is served.
... Beginning with the Dallas Cowboys in the 1960s, pro football "cheerleading" has gravitated farther and farther away from real cheerleading, which is primarily about arousing team spirit, not male sexual fantasies. Real cheerleading features infectious, syncopated chants. It showcases impressive coordination and athleticism as squads form human pyramids and toss teammates in the air with daring and precision.

... Those male cheerleaders won't be sent be out in Speedos and no shirts. The women shouldn't be either. If the NFL wants to demonstrate that it's on board with the new era for gender relations and that it truly values women big "ifs," to be sure it will have the women cheerleaders baring roughly the same amount of skin as the men."

bearister said:

---

"No, they're not there to be ogled, they're there to dance and lead cheers. They are not there to be objectified and ogled."

Give me a break. We can't really speak to their state of mind....but if they don't think getting ogled is a foreseeable by product of wearing tight clothes and doing bump and grind routines, then their cause of action should be based on being taken advantage of because they are intellectually challenged.

Their clothing and routines are a throwback to an era of toxic masculinity that should be well behind us.

Explain how cheerleading would be less effective if it was desexualized. Why don't the men cheerleaders dress like Chippendales? Are they less effective because they don't?
I don't even watch them during a game because the thought going through my mind is how mortified I'd be if that was my daughter out there doing that with the fat f@uck in the row below me transfixed.

I spent my career with facts and dealing with the world as it is.

Yes, cheerleading for pro sports is even more sexualized than it is at the college level....but college cheerleading seems to be on an arc that comes close to intersecting with pro cheerleading. For that reason, points made in this article, in my mind, apply to our discussion:

NFL cheerleading is sexist and demeaning to women. Reform it or end it.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/09/nfl-cheerleading-sexist-demeaning-women-reform-end-column/897735002/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/897735002

" It's time to call this out for what it is: demeaning to women and an anachronism that ought to be beneath the male fans to whom this titillating eye candy is served.
... Beginning with the Dallas Cowboys in the 1960s, pro football "cheerleading" has gravitated farther and farther away from real cheerleading, which is primarily about arousing team spirit, not male sexual fantasies. Real cheerleading features infectious, syncopated chants. It showcases impressive coordination and athleticism as squads form human pyramids and toss teammates in the air with daring and precision.

... Those male cheerleaders won't be sent be sent out in Speedos and no shirts. The women shouldn't be either. If the NFL wants to demonstrate that it's on board with the new era for gender relations and that it truly values women big "ifs," to be sure it will have the women cheerleaders baring roughly the same amount of skin as the men."

---

You're conflating the issues. The ogling is didferent from their emotional distress. The latter is due to their cheer team leader, an USC employee, who berated them about their appearances. The song girls are not complaining of being ogled by dirty old men and other members of the audience. In fact, the ogling was something you brought up as something you believe is their due.

As I said before, just because you believe the song girls are there to be ogled does not mean that's their purpose, let alone why these girls signed up for the team. Even if you consider the performances of the song girls to be more sexual in nature does not mean that the girls are there to be sexually objectified. It's pretty apparent that it's been a while since you've gone to a nightclub or a college-aged bar. How the young women dance now is more "sexually provocative" than the coeds of your youth danced. Of course, the dances of your youth were also likely considered to be sexually provocative by the older crowd. Heck, Elvis's hip gyrations on the _Ed_Sullivan_Show_ were considered dirty. In short, what you consider sexualized, young people consider normal non-sexual behavior.

The same applies to cheerleading. Just because cheerleading was more yelling and leading cheers 100 years ago doesn't mean it still has to be that way. Things change and evolve all the time. Tumbling and dancing have been added to cheerleading. That also includes some of the dance routines you may consider sexually suggestive or explicit. But that comes with aging; young people do things we consider inappropriate but they consider perfectly acceptable.

As for the outfits, I don't disagree they may have originally been inspired to attract the male gaze. However, that doesn't mean that was right then, let alone that it's right now. More importantly, it doesn't mean young women who wear those uniforms intended to become sex objects either then or now. Put it differently, when your daughter or granddaughter wears a bikini do you think they're asking to be sexually objectified and ogled? If not, why do you think young women in short skirts and crop tops are asking for it?

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yeah - I try to be an enlightened male. I gotta a daughter that is the apple in my eye and I want her to seize the world by its throat and subdue it all while looking marvelous in high heels.

But I DON"T get this. You make a choice. You are there TO be oggled. This isn't rocket science and it isn't like you can't look at the sweaters, the make up, the skirts, etc. etc. etc. and not realize that being a song girl IS about being objectified.

And then, when you ARE objectified and abused for not fitting in the tight barbie ideal you complain.

Look, this isn't workplace harrasment. No one's life is or isn't going to be determined by their skills with a pom pom. I also get that I am a guy so I dont' face this and it is really hard to walk in someone elses shoes and I am willing to listen but, again, I just don't sympathize.

---

Agree. The young ladies being cheer leaders / pom pom girls / song girls, whatever are SUPPOSED TO BE good looking, right?

(also have a daughter)

---

No. They're supposed to be good dancers and have school spirit. They're no different than TheFiatLux except that they also dance. If you don't think Ken needed to be hot and sexy in order to be a Mic Man then why do you think any cheerleader needs to be hot and sexy?

---

Because that is my reality. I know that could be interpreted as being a ridiculous answer, but it's all I got. I grew up in the late '60s-'70s and that's my world. I don't care what the Mic Man looks like (although somebody else is welcome to).

For the record, I never said "hot and sexy"; I said "attractive" and "good looking". I like the Cal or U$C or UCLA look, not some of those NFL "Vegas showgirl" looks. Something I could be okay with my daughter doing.

Big C said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yeah - I try to be an enlightened male. I gotta a daughter that is the apple in my eye and I want her to seize the world by its throat and subdue it all while looking marvelous in high heels.

But I DON"T get this. You make a choice. You are there TO be oggled. This isn't rocket science and it isn't like you can't look at the sweaters, the make up, the skirts, etc. etc. etc. and not realize that being a song girl IS about being objectified.

And then, when you ARE objectified and abused for not fitting in the tight barbie ideal you complain.

Look, this isn't workplace harrasment. No one's life is or isn't going to be determined by their skills with a pom pom. I also get that I am a guy so I dont' face this and it is really hard to walk in someone elses shoes and I am willing to listen but, again, I just don't sympathize.

---

Agree. The young ladies being cheer leaders / pom pom girls / song girls, whatever are SUPPOSED TO BE good looking, right?

(also have a daughter)

---

No. They're supposed to be good dancers and have school spirit. They're no different than TheFiatLux except that they also dance. If you don't think Ken needed to be hot and sexy in order to be a Mic Man then why do you think any cheerleader needs to be hot and sexy?

---

Because that is my reality. I know that could be interpreted as being a ridiculous answer, but it's all I got. I grew up in the late '60s-'70s and that's my world. I don't care what the Mic Man looks like (although somebody else is welcome to).

For the record, I never said "hot and sexy"; I said "attractive" and "good looking". I like the Cal or U$C or UCLA look, not some of those NFL "Vegas showgirl" looks. Something I could be okay with my daughter doing.

---

I stand corrected, but the underlying question remains; why do the cheerleaders need to be "atteactive" and "good looking" if you don't demand Mic Men like Ken also to be attractive and good looking*? Just because that's what you were used to fifty or sixty years ago? I'm sure you understand how poorly reasoned is that response. Sixty years ago, interracial marriage was still outlawed in many parts of the country. Fifty years ago, it was still "frowned upon." By your logic, that's how things should still be because that's what you were used to back then. Yet, I'm all but certain you would not be in favor of returning to that set of cultural mores and norms. So why do you want to implement other demeaning and damaging social mores from that era?

At the very least, think of what kind of an example that sets for your daughter. Do you really want her to grow up in a world where women are little more than sex objects for men? A world where it is assumed that women's motivation for doing anything is to attract male attention? That no matter how a girl or woman dresses, men will think they're entitled to her body? I'm sure you wouldn't want random men in an online forum suggesting your daughter has to be good looking in order to be allowed to participate in a school-sponsored extracurricular activity. Why then, would you be okay with random men making those comments about other people's daughters?

*Not that this is intended to be an insult about his looks; I'm sure he's much better looking than I.

Quote:

---

... Those male cheerleaders won't be sent be sent out in Speedos and no shirts.

---

OK, maybe this is jeering and not cheering, but close!

The SC Song girls are performing in the land of starlets, whom they resemble. The outfits and routines are provacative. They shake more than their pom poms, but so do lots of cheerleaders and 'dance teams' now. They know this when they try out and sign up. Even the less shellacked Stanfurd 'dancers' are called "Dollies" which implies they are playthings (of the team?) yet I bet there is great competition to become a Dolly. Is it all about entertainment on game day? Seem out of date in today's world.