Comment by coolso | Hacker News Reader

Comment by coolso | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So as a team owner you'd be fine with the idea of players and cheerleaders co-mingling all the time? You don't think that's an unprofessional look?

The team and league can't win. Let them co-mingle, then there's the potential for drama surrounding the team because of the stories that get out about the players and cheerleaders screwing around. Or even if they don't screw around, it still looks like they are, which can be just as bad. The "F" in "NFL" already has been replaced with a few different words, disparaging the league and making it look bad. If that were to happen we'd have yet another "F" that would start being used. So you get half of America disliking all the sex drama and who just wants to watch football, and the other half disliking the fact that players are "taking advantage" of cheerleaders and the team is "allowing" it.

Punish players that exploit or take advantage of cheerleaders, and now you have to deal with punishing a valuable part of the team who you pay millions of dollars to (because it's hard to find good players), when you could have avoided it by forbidding the co-mingling in the first place.

The easiest option is just don't allow the co-mingling. Is it really that big of a deal for a person to have to leave a restaurant and eat somewhere else? It's part of the job. A job that thousands of other women would love to have thanks to the exposure and how good it looks on your resume.

> So as a team owner you'd be fine with the idea of players and cheerleaders co-mingling all the time?

I'm not a team owner, I'm a human being looking at this the way I would look at other professions. When the clock stops your time is yours and you get to eat (and do whatever else you want to) wherever you want.

> You don't think that's an unprofessional look?

Men and women having food in the same place? No, I'm totally ok with that. Doesn't strike me as unprofessional, but it does strike me as practical.

> Is it really that big of a deal for a person to have to leave a restaurant and eat somewhere else?

Obviously, yes. Because you know, you got there first. NFL players are not minor royalty.

I once was in a place in Toronto and the artist formerly known as 'Prince' aka the Symbol aka whatever his real name was walks in and asks the manager to remove the plebs. Instead the manager told 'the celebrity' to fuck off. To mild applause.

> It's part of the job.

No it isn't. The job is to cheerlead, not to 'restaurant evacuate'. Hence the job title of 'cheerleader'.

> A job that thousands of other women would love to have thanks to the exposure and how good it looks on your resume.

I have absolutely no idea why cheerleading is a job anybody would like to have or why it would look good on your resume.

> I'm not a team owner, I'm a human being looking at this the way I would look at other professions. When the clock stops your time is yours and you get to eat (and do whatever else you want to) wherever you want.

Most other professions don't involve being in the public eye all of the time.

> No it isn't. The job is to cheerlead, not to 'restaurant evacuate'.

It is if that's in the contract you sign. I highly doubt it's a common occurrence anyway.

> I once was in a place in Toronto and the artist formerly known as 'Prince' aka the Symbol aka whatever his real name was and asks the manager to remove the plebs. Instead the manager told 'the celebrity' to fuck off. To mild applause.

As the manager should've - but that's not an analogous situation.

> I have absolutely no idea why cheerleading is a job anybody would like to have or why it would look good on your resume.

It puts you in front of millions of people on national TV as well as other outlets. Being one of the select few - among thousands and thousands - that gets hired by an NFL team to cheerlead looks great on your resume if you have any desire to be a model, dancer, or involved in the entertainment industry. It gets you tons of exposure. Plus, maybe it's fun?

> Most other professions don't involve being in the public eye all of the time.

Neither does this one.

> It is if that's in the contract you sign.

It shouldn't be in there and even if it is it doesn't make it right. Your boss owns your time when he pays for it. If you're not being compensated for your time you are off-work and there is nothing so much off-work as a cheerleader having dinner.

> It puts you in front of millions of people on national TV as well as other outlets. Being one of the select few - among thousands and thousands - that gets hired by an NFL team to cheerlead looks great on your resume if you have any desire to be a model, dancer, or involved in the entertainment industry.

Sounds like a lot of fluff people would tell someone to accept a job with a shitty wage, crappy contract and no life of your own.

> It gets you tons of exposure.

Well, apparently not that much, for instance, when you potentially are about to get some of that exposure you are asked to leave.

> Plus, maybe it's fun?

Most people get jobs to get paid.

> Neither does this one.

Yes, athletes are in the public eye pretty much all the time.

> It shouldn't be in there and even if it is it doesn't make it right. Your boss owns your time when he pays for it. If you're not being compensated for your time you are off-work and there is nothing so much off-work as a cheerleader having dinner.

What if your boss pays for it in other ways? Like bad publicity and exposure to his company, or movie or TV show, or NFL team? If the "can you hear me now" Verizon guy, who now works for Sprint, was seen in public wearing an AT&T shirt, should he not be allowed to be fired because that poorly represents his employer, Sprint?

> Sounds like a lot of fluff people would tell someone to accept a job with a shitty wage, crappy contract and no life of your own.

You do realize that cheerleading jobs are part time and that tons and tons of women audition in the hopes of becoming an NFL cheerleader. Which is why they get paid a base salary of not much more than minimum wage.

> Most people get jobs to get paid.

Why not both?

Are you for real? (Am I being Poe’d) here?

KAJ is right that this represents a patronizing and archaic attitude towards the treatment that of their employees.

What is the intent here? Protect the poor little ladies from predatory players. Protect players from the devilish seductive powers of the females.

It begs the question of why the woman would have to leave, versus the player have to leave.

It’s one thing to have a policy of non-fraternization. This is just a demeaning way of treating adults, and carries echos of distasteful and unjust power relationships up and down the line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com