Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators
mattstoller.substack.com
mattstoller.substack.com
Imagine this story instead: There are two companies, A and B, which are competing (among other things) for gyms to sign up with them. Company A requires extensive background checks, inspections, and lots of other things to make sure their programs are free of sexual predators. These are effective, but are expensive and invasive, and gyms really don't like them. Company B is far more lax; and so gyms start to go over to Company B. A is forced to lower their standards in order to continue competing.
Yes, in theory A could try to advertise that they're safer; but suppose (hypothetically) that the economics makes it infeasible to advertise directly to the end-consumers, leaving gyms to do it; and gyms as we've seen have a short-term advantage to just going with the lower standards and not mentioning that particular difference in their advertising.
Company A gyms successfully advertise that their gyms are nicer, safer, cleaner, and members pay several hundreds of dollars each month, while Company B gyms rely on being cheap and get members who are only willing to pay $10/month.
I am of course talking about gyms like Equinox and David Barton, which were flourishing and adding new locations, vs gyms like Planet Fitness which were shutting down gyms because $10/month/member means you need a lot of members just to pay rent.
OTOH, middle-market gyms like Golds, 24 Hour, and LA Fitness compete directly against each other and live or die based on the quality of their facilities and staff, and any reduction in a gym's quality generally boosts its nearby competitors.
Right, but the question is how visible that quality is to customers. If you skimp on your ventilation or equipment maintenance, your customers will notice pretty quickly. If you skimp on background checks for your cheerleading coaches, nobody's going to notice on their own until the scandal hits.
The only way customers know there's a difference in the coach vetting if the gym or the cheerleading company tells them. And while it may be possible for Company A and its gyms to distinguish themselves from Company B, it may not be; it depends a lot on the particulars. If they can't, they'll be at a disadvantage.
"The problem is that Clever, which is now in like 60% of the nation's schools, then is able to extort a very high fee from any educational software vendor that wishes to continue serving the district. Just to give you an example, we recently signed a contract with XYZ Public Schools for the 2020-2021 school year for $18,000. XXYZ now wants us to use Clever for rostering and sign on — Clever has a minimum price to do this of $10,800. If we don't pay this fee to Clever (thus losing our ability to properly serve XYZ’s teachers and students), our chances of continuing our relationship in the future is in serious jeopardy…"
It's also free to districts.
Do not ever put your daughter in a situation where she can be pressured by older men to do what they want in order to advance. She doesn't need a gold medal or be world famous, she needs not to be raped
Essentially, sexual predators looking to abuse children will go wherever the children are, be that schools, churches, athletics, social media, online games, and so on. Additionally, certain situations have power dynamics weighted heavily in the direction of the adults, for instance coaches, doctors, pastors, etc, and those dynamics make it far easier for abusers to avoid detection, avoid being reported if caught, and generally maintain their abuse.
Knowing those two facts makes it far easier to avoid abusive situations or properly handle them if they arise. This doesn't mean that you avoid all situations entirely, but a parent may choose to make judgement calls about certain situations, people, or activities based on those facts.
Again, I fully agree that the blame falls on the abusers and not the victims, but that's separate from being situationally aware.
The issue with "properly handle them if they arise" is that ability to properly handle things strongly depends on whether complains are taken seriously (ideally long before it all escalates to high abuse) or not.
That's one judgement call to make, but not the only one. There are lots of different factors that could affect any given situation, but certain situations are safer than others, and there are ways to increase or decrease the safety of many given activities.
> [the] ability to properly handle things strongly depends on whether complains are taken seriously...
This is huge, and is actually a good example of how a parent might increase the safety of a situation - parents that are involved in their children's lives, are aware of what's going on, and, critically, believe their children if they communicate that something is uncomfortable or anything happened go a long way towards both deterrence and handling things that do happen. Child abusers generally gravitate towards opportunity, so obstacles in the way of that opportunity like an aware parent decrease the likelihood that abuse will happen with that child.
There's a ton of systemic problems with complaints being taken seriously though, in society at large, in institutions, and with all people, not just children.
Any just a bit ambitious position have older men in position to pressure. And low paid jobs are ripe for abuse like that, because employees have zero power. I dont mean to say that abuse is everywhere. But the above quote does not describe some kind of unusual rare situation. It is pretty much everywhere.
Also, the parents believing is not the only nor the most important people who needs to believe. The parents taking their daughter away are not making abuser go away. Abuser just moves on another target. That is not solving the problem, that is just shifting victims until one does not know how to talk about it or have to make hard choice or is otherwise unprotected.
The issue with these institutions typically are years of cover ups of evidence.
I sincerely don't want to "blame the victim". I also don't understand where that line falls. I've felt that accusing a speaker of "victim blaming" is sometimes used as a way to shout them down in a discussion (or worse, target them for being "canceled" in their life outside of Internet discourse-- hence my use of a throwaway account here).
I do not culturally accept sexually predatory behavior. It is wrong. It should be prosecuted. I do not have a "men will be men" attitude. I also accept that I can't change the culture of institutions myself, no matter how fiercely I believe what I believe.
- Am I "victim blaming" if I talk to my daughter about the existence of sexual predators and her vulnerability?
- Am I in the wrong if I caution her about institutions or settings that have historically adopted a "men will be men" attitude?
- Am I in the wrong if I explain the realpolitik that individuals' rejection of "men will be men" doesn't automatically change the entrenched attitudes of organizations that might systematically act to shield predators and ignore vitims?
- I've already had the conversation about how people are generally good, but that we have to be cautious because there are people with criminal motivations, or mental illness, that might cause them to want to hurt us in a general sense (non-sexual violence). Am I "victim blaming" if I talk to her about general situational awareness, being cautious, and not putting yourself into situations where general violence might occur?
No, sorry, you're taking the wrong angle here. There's no wide ranging cultural acceptance of sexually predatory behavior, that's why they're called sexual predators and not sex-positive mentors.
And they're attracted like flies to shit to positions of power in these kind of institutions. Please do shelter the victims if you can, and warn them all they're setting themselves up for this kind of abuse.
And yeah, jail the bastards who do act on it, of course. I might as well say that if that's not clear already. But there is a legion behind the ones that get caught vying for those spots for the very same reasons.
Were that the case, there wouldn't be these kinds of cases where entire swaths of predators are being shielded (or ignored). It may not be openly discussed or acknowledged, but as they say, actions speak louder than words.
And, fwiw, there are female sexual predators as well; best to not ignore them.
that doesn't really follow when those actions are explicitly hidden, or denied. If it was generally accepted, why would they need to hide?
The case being made here is one of indifference, and not just of sexual abuse, but any negative effects that don't directly benefit Varsity.
That's the action that's speaking out here. And it's a problem that's broader than Varsity.
Who used the phrase "boys will be boys" in this situation?
A monopolist hiding behaviour from society doesn't sound like societal acceptance, it sounds like the opposite: hiding behaviour it knew isn't accepted.
There is as long as the solution is "keep women away from sexual predators" instead of "keep sexual predators away from women". Keeping girls away from competitive sports is yet another example of "boys will be boys".
So a policy of "keep sexual predators away from children" just cannot work. That's a game you have to win every time. They just have to win once. One mistake and you've just allowed a predator access to children. And it's not like they'll stop.
And note, I say children, not women, because we aren't talking about the abuse of adults, we're talking about people sexually preying on children.
So I'm sorry. "Just stop criminals from committing crime" is a intellectually bankrupt argument.
The issue is that the problem is vast and multifaceted. We have to balance safety with allowing these children access to these things. And on some level, these children will have to become proactive members of their own safety. Whether we want them to be or not, they will have to be responsible to some degree.
And, no, it shouldn't be necessary. But we ultimately have to deal with the world as it is, not as it ought to be.
Make it economically infeasible for companies like Varsity and their related organizations to ignore. And yes, you will get a lot of push back, using libertarian, freedom-related arguments.
Are you serious? You want to make victims feel responsible for being assaulted and taken advantage of? They must already feel an incredible sense of shame and guilt, the answer is absolutely not to tell them they are “setting themselves up” by pursuing their interests or passions..
"Setting themselves up for this kind of abuse" has a very similar ring to "you had it coming".
People can be abused in so many different environments (sports, school, church, politics). We can't prevent them from participating in any of these things, and tell them they're "setting themselves up" if they do. That's absurd and will never serve to actually fix the root cause of the problem.
There are a host of cultural issues (over-sexualization, hyper masculinity, etc...) that contribute to the pervasiveness of abuse, and without addressing those we will never solve anything. We can also educate our children (or people more generally) on what is an is not acceptable behavior from people in those positions of power doing the abuse.
I want her to be in a bad situation of any sort even less than I'd like myself to be in one but I'm not going act unreasonably cautious at the expense of something wonderful. I don't want her to do that either.
For example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53509107
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/sports/olympics/gymnastic...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/300071427/an-insidious-culture...
https://theconversation.com/winning-at-all-costs-how-abuse-i...
I have no clue how a parent can "proudly" watch their child crying and screaming as someone forces their legs into unnatural positions.
> Do not ever put your daughter in a situation where she can be pressured by older men to do what they want in order to advance
Are you also suggesting that we don't let her work at a FAANG company? Many of us are 'pressured' by older men to advance, if you extend 'pressured' to mean 'doing the job that you've been hired for.
I'm suggesting you should outright tell them that it's very likely that at some point some guy will try to demand sex from her and strongly suggest that she should GTFO and call you and/or the police asap in that case. She will not only be protecting herself but all other potential victims and that's worth more than any prize she could get.
btw, as someone else said: this also happens (a lot more than acknowledged) with boys and older (wo)men. It's apparently less common, though.
> Are you also suggesting that we don't let her work at a FAANG company?
Tell her it's OK to work somewhere else if the only way to get there is to fuck the interviewer. But somehow I imagine that's not the only way to get a job there. Also, call the police etc.
> Many of us are 'pressured' by older men to advance, if you extend 'pressured' to mean 'doing the job that you've been hired for.
What?
Tell her that if that happens then she is strong enough to report it until something is done about it. Don't give in to bullies.
If I had heard that growing up I would have avoided men under any and all circumstances. Since I am posting here, you might imagine what a detrimental effect that would have had on my life.
Seriously, all you are going to teach young women is that the world is a terrifying place and they should hide themselves from it. I don't think you can imagine how awful that advice is. I easily can.
Re my last statement. If you told everyone of either gender that they should avoid situations where they have to rely on older men for their advancement, no one would have any job.
However, I think the costs outweigh whatever benefits exist.
The only way to achieve this is to not have ambitions and not try to be competitive. And even then you are not sure, because she still want some job.
I dont think it is good overall solution.
This attitude comes with other side effects that might not be desirable, and it doesn't do much to prevent the rape of young boys. Still, there is a partial mitigation here if you want your daughter to be able to compete without having the gatekeeper be a man.
As an aside, I am vaguely aware that cheerleading is considered a legitimate competitive sport, but my only exposure to it is from NBA and NFL, where it seems to me a rather ridiculously sexualized objectification of women. I love watching football but I wish they got rid of the cheerleaders. And if I had a daughter, I'd rather she take up a sport like football or basketball or soccer or motorcycle racing than join a cheerleading squad. I acknowledge that my biases here might be way off base. Please show me where I'm wrong, I'd like to understand what I'm missing. Why are people in the west in with this?
It is one of the most physically demanding sports, and in terms of injuries it is the most hazardous sport for competitive athletes. It's basically gymnastics, but faster, with a dozen or more other people within the same limited space, and people are getting tossed around or jumping off other people, or balancing on top of one or more other people who may themselves be balanced on top of other people.
EDIT: this has been on my mind, and perhaps it deserves more commentary.
By putting a price on her sexuality, it establishes the precedent that her body and her intimacy are commodities to be sold. That if someone comes along with the right price (a bag of candy, $1000, a promise of protection), it's OK - if not expected - that she takes the payment in exchange for her body.
That nobody - whether they be friends, family, or strangers - is entitled to her sexuality.
That it's priceless - it's not something that can be sold (or held for randsom), no matter the price.
Even in marriage, it's still hers. She can always say no, no matter how pretty the house, how rich the husband.
And just as importantly - though perhaps after puberty has started - that because it's her sexuality, she's also allowed to say yes. Because if she can't say yes, it's not hers.
Also, support her. No matter her choices, or what is forced upon her, support her through everything. Even if it was her choice, and she now regrets it, and it pisses you off to no end, support her.
That's my opinion, and what I do.
> Then it doesn't matter if somebody else takes it by force. It's nothing of value.
This is a rather chilling position to try and argue for.
If it’s hers...
and if it is valuable...
or even if just her ability to choose what to do with it is valuable (ie letting her choose how much to value it)...
then it is appropriate to teach her how to protect it.
If it is inappropriate to teach her how to protect it (because some feminist somewhere declared by fiat that it would be victim blaming to do so), then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it has no value. She must never be taught to value it. She must never be taught to protect it. And thus, her choice is made for her: it has no value, and as long as those exist who choose to take it by force, her desire is meaningless. Society has decided she may not value it out lest other people have their feelings hurt because they lost theirs.
A thing isn't valuable just because it has a price; and conversely something valuable doesn't need to have a price.
No school. No work. No going to stores because you know the nasty shopkeep might be tempted to give her a discount for a blowjob.
Which nunnery will you be putting your child in?
I think a lot of people are into cheer and they are mad as hell...
As far as I can tell this is the sum up of his assertion that Varsity is responsible for sexual predators in cheerleading. Everything else is about Varsity having a monopoly on cheerleading and monopolies are bad - both of which are arguably true but I think dodges the question of why sports like this are full of sexual predators, who is actively allowing this, and how can they be stopped.
Sexual predictors aren't going to go away if monopolies are busted up. I think conflating the two is more about headline grabbing than a serious examination of a real problem.
I think that it’s likely that a field which wasn't a monopoly would more rapidly evolve better systems for dealing with reports than a monopoly, in part because the discussions between participants on the other side and the industry would be more likely to be open discussions about industry-wide arrangements rather than confidential one-on-one negotiations, and in part because failing to deal with them would be a potential short-term competitive benefit (avoiding a narrow scandal) that would have long-term competitive adverse consequences (the greater scandal of more abuse plus neglect and coverup.)
But without competition, the pressure to deal with problems is less, until the consequences become existential even in the absence of competition, which requires them to get extremely bad (cf, USA Gymnastics.)
Complaints of all kind probably go unheard because Varsity knows they're the only game in town. Of course sexual predators wouldn't "just go away", but that's not a reasonable expectation to have, but it is reasonable to expect companies to not ignore such complaints. Without a monopoly, for example, you can apply pressure on Varsity to do something about complaints by going with Nike next time or by getting Nike to do something about it.
I think the article does a good job of explaining this...
If the governing body is beholden to a company, then the company's priorities (money) will be what the they care about. Which I think is what happened here.
I also think the the courts allowing large interests to bully smaller individuals, such as the lawsuit against a non-sanctioned competition, needs to be addressed. Either Varsity is a gatekeeper, or it isn't - if it isn't, how could it possibly have a say in what competitions a gym competes in.
A monopoly is maybe "what", but these other violations are "how".
Here is an excerpt that goes into more detail (with some details omitted for brevity):
> ... Varsity might have preferred to do little about the sexual abuse allegations. ... Varsity was protecting high-profile cheer celebrities because those celebrities were valuable recruiters for the sport. ... there may have been other reasons, like ... blackmail or ... certain officials didn’t think ... it was a big deal. But a more likely reason is simply that, as a monopolist, Varsity, didn’t have to. There was nowhere else ... to go ... because Varsity could retaliate ... by having them exiled from the sport. Being able to crush someone’s livelihood is power.
For extra emphasis:
> But a more likely reason is simply that, as a monopolist, Varsity, didn’t have to.
The author is further talking about "absentee ownership". That is, using their power to keep a grip on the monopoly without incurring any of the responsibility for maintaining it. The author's argument is that turning a "blind eye" to this and other types of abuse is a consequence of monopolies. The way I read it is that this is not so much a central tenet but a common symptom.
Anyone know more about this one?
I was working under the assumption that cheerleaders were just a bunch of teenage girls doing dancing at a sports game. I never realised it was big business.
We do. Not usually at sports games but it's a decent sized sport in a lot of universities these days with national competitions etc.
I didn't know a lot about it until recently I watched a Netflix series on it (Cheer). Like any other team sport there are a variety of positions with different skillsets necessary. The athleticism required is pretty incredible.
Decent risk of injury at the high-levels - so you have to be very fit.
Same point as soccer: some people like it.
That's part of what they do. The other part is competing on a high level based on the athleticism and (I'm guessing) choreography of a given teams presentation. Similar to gymnastics but usually with a team and different genre of music.
There was an article posted recently to HN titled "Cheerleading, Monopolies and Sexual Predators" that gives some details about just how competitive cheerleading is, as well as the problems to the safety and security of its participants due to the monopoly power of a single company.
Isn't that this post?
I'm American, by the way.
All humans have crazy, and believe in explicitly made-up things. The best believe in Justice or Mercy, some both at the same time. Many more believe in King and Country, Capitalism, or Counter-terrorism, some all three.
Don't football clubs have fan groups that meet up and plan the chants that will be uses during a match? That is roughly what the "classic" cheerleaders (like George W. Bush) do. At some point this also developed into an independent sport, which is like a team gymnastics routine.
Apparently three other US presidents were cheerleaders, too, but finding out which ones seems to require opening clickbait.