![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The New York Times has an article about a group of New York schools who have started requiring cheerleaders to girls' basketball games as well as boys'.
Not surprisingly, there are a lot of complaints to this new policy, most of them being some variation of, "But we don't waaaaaaannaaaaaaaa." Mostly, this is because the added workload of cheering at girls' games has required the schools to stop sending cheerleaders to the boys' away games. Because, you know, of course we're all equal now and Title IX is outdated and female athletes are on equal footing with the boys ... except, you know, when giving girls equal support means actually having to take something away from the boys (gasp!).
To the Times' credit, the article itself is rather well-balanced - not very surprising, since the Times is part of the Lib-rul Media and all. However, there were a couple of ... interesting quotes just ripe for analysis:
In regard to the way that female athletes themselves oppose the new policy: "Several cheerleaders there recalled a game two years ago, long before the complaint, when the squad decided at the last minute to cheer for the girls' team because a boys' game was canceled. The cheers drowned out directions from the girls' coach, frustrated the players, and created so much tension that the cheerleaders left before halftime."
In other words, one of the reasons not to have cheerleaders at girls' games is because ... their cheers are loud? And this is somehow not a problem for male athletes? What, do boys just have superior ears that allow them to sort through noise? Are male coaches just better at projecting their voices?
Of course cheerleading adds noise to a game, and of course athletes and coaches will need practice in order to get used to it. Clearly, girls' teams have never gotten this practice - that's just another sign that this new policy is necessary.
(One wonders what the schools' answer would be if this problem were posed in relation to boys' games. Should we cut out cheerleaders from those games in order to keep the male athletes from getting distracted? Or what about cheering from fans? Is that too loud?)
Consider this quote from a school official, talking about how haaaaard it is now that the cheerleaders are being sent to girls' games instead of boys': "'It's probably toughest on some of the parents,' said John Allen, athletic director of the Chenango Valley Central School District, just northeast of Binghamton. 'All of a sudden they’re at games, and there are no cheerleaders.'"
So ... lemme get this straight. 1) Boys' games need cheerleaders, because it's really disappointing not to have them, but at the same time, 2) girls' games don't need cheerleaders for this exact same reason? Perhaps they're trying to imply that boys are just much more weak-willed, and can't do as well without a bunch of boisterous support from cheerleaders, whereas girls are strong enough on their own. That's the only explanation I can think of! But you know what? I think I'll decline on that compliment, thank you.
To be fair, some of the complaints are genuine, such as those from the cheerleaders themselves, who "said the team was not as fun without traveling to away games and being able to check out routines by rival cheerleading teams." That's definitely a loss, and I think it should be addressed - perhaps by adding more cheerleaders in order to divide the workload.
However, a lot of cheerleaders dropped out because they "just did not want to cheer for other girls." What does that tell you? That cheering for female athletes is seen as so unappealing or worthless that even other female athletes (cheerleaders) don't want to do it.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the cheerleaders who dropped out are heterosexual girls who wanted to catch the attention of male athletes. I remember being a high school girl; cheerleader or not, a lot of us had that on our minds. But it's not like they won't get to cheer for the boys; it's just that they'll also have to cheer for the girls. And that is somehow undesireable. If there's anything to show us how unappreciated female athletes are, how persistent the sexist de-valuing of teenage girls doing 'male' activities is, and how much we need a policy like this one - however small a step it repreesents - this is it.
Not surprisingly, there are a lot of complaints to this new policy, most of them being some variation of, "But we don't waaaaaaannaaaaaaaa." Mostly, this is because the added workload of cheering at girls' games has required the schools to stop sending cheerleaders to the boys' away games. Because, you know, of course we're all equal now and Title IX is outdated and female athletes are on equal footing with the boys ... except, you know, when giving girls equal support means actually having to take something away from the boys (gasp!).
To the Times' credit, the article itself is rather well-balanced - not very surprising, since the Times is part of the Lib-rul Media and all. However, there were a couple of ... interesting quotes just ripe for analysis:
In regard to the way that female athletes themselves oppose the new policy: "Several cheerleaders there recalled a game two years ago, long before the complaint, when the squad decided at the last minute to cheer for the girls' team because a boys' game was canceled. The cheers drowned out directions from the girls' coach, frustrated the players, and created so much tension that the cheerleaders left before halftime."
In other words, one of the reasons not to have cheerleaders at girls' games is because ... their cheers are loud? And this is somehow not a problem for male athletes? What, do boys just have superior ears that allow them to sort through noise? Are male coaches just better at projecting their voices?
Of course cheerleading adds noise to a game, and of course athletes and coaches will need practice in order to get used to it. Clearly, girls' teams have never gotten this practice - that's just another sign that this new policy is necessary.
(One wonders what the schools' answer would be if this problem were posed in relation to boys' games. Should we cut out cheerleaders from those games in order to keep the male athletes from getting distracted? Or what about cheering from fans? Is that too loud?)
Consider this quote from a school official, talking about how haaaaard it is now that the cheerleaders are being sent to girls' games instead of boys': "'It's probably toughest on some of the parents,' said John Allen, athletic director of the Chenango Valley Central School District, just northeast of Binghamton. 'All of a sudden they’re at games, and there are no cheerleaders.'"
So ... lemme get this straight. 1) Boys' games need cheerleaders, because it's really disappointing not to have them, but at the same time, 2) girls' games don't need cheerleaders for this exact same reason? Perhaps they're trying to imply that boys are just much more weak-willed, and can't do as well without a bunch of boisterous support from cheerleaders, whereas girls are strong enough on their own. That's the only explanation I can think of! But you know what? I think I'll decline on that compliment, thank you.
To be fair, some of the complaints are genuine, such as those from the cheerleaders themselves, who "said the team was not as fun without traveling to away games and being able to check out routines by rival cheerleading teams." That's definitely a loss, and I think it should be addressed - perhaps by adding more cheerleaders in order to divide the workload.
However, a lot of cheerleaders dropped out because they "just did not want to cheer for other girls." What does that tell you? That cheering for female athletes is seen as so unappealing or worthless that even other female athletes (cheerleaders) don't want to do it.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the cheerleaders who dropped out are heterosexual girls who wanted to catch the attention of male athletes. I remember being a high school girl; cheerleader or not, a lot of us had that on our minds. But it's not like they won't get to cheer for the boys; it's just that they'll also have to cheer for the girls. And that is somehow undesireable. If there's anything to show us how unappreciated female athletes are, how persistent the sexist de-valuing of teenage girls doing 'male' activities is, and how much we need a policy like this one - however small a step it repreesents - this is it.