Another scandal on Mint Street???

[TheCasillas]

10 minutes ago, vorbis said:

18 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

I am assuming you read my original comment? Are you stating that you believe the OP replied correctly to me on a equal sided acknowledgment that did not indicate any type of social injustice or workplace inequality?  

one thing you can do is separate the specific argument you were trying to make from the larger context. the reality is that OP had no room to engage you because along with point-by-point disagreements came a wall of misogynistic garbage that more-or-less showed a thread environment where her input was not welcome. what do you realistically expect someone to do in that situation? what would you do? 

I expect someone to remain composed and provide a strong argument to change my mind. On a daily basis we deal with ambiguity in life, and if we took the approach of becoming emotional as opposed to staying strong imposing our beliefs, then I doubt a situation like such would reach a peak as it did.

You asked me what I would do.... I'm exemplifying that now. It's obvious you do not necessarily agree with me, but I am not going to call you any names or state that you lack intelligence, but what I will state that the argument today was more relative to a pity party rather than someone actually suffering.

The worst part about all of this..... This entire time we have been arguing that no one knows what its like to be a cheerleader and what they go through, and this is unfair for them.  In the end, where did we get this information? Media. If they hated their jobs, then let them handle it. Why fight for their own unfairness? I've hated jobs before, and I found something better. These articles we read are in the same theme as PETA articles feeling bad for animals. The cheerleaders don't need a freedom fighter force.

[pantherphan96]

6 minutes ago, h0llywood said:

Argumentum ad absurdum. 

Because being told when to drink water is not the same as not being allowed to drink water.  

In your line of work, are you allowed to eat and talk to a client at the same time?  

your argument being that since someone has worse working conditions that you shouldn't point out injustice or adverse working conditions (of less severity) elsewhere? it's a shitty argument.

[stirs]

If you were honest about "cheerleading", their jobs, the calendars, the appearances, etc., you'd say that it is a job that requires you to be "sexy" and you have to want people to look at you, your hair, your body, your outfit, etc.  

Now, for the modern man and woman, you'd think the job in itself is a bit if not a whole lot demeaning.  But, if you as a woman WANT that kind of attention and whatever opportunities it brings, then more power to you.  I would say that 95% of the country knows very little of the Top Cats or any other group because they watch at home.  They see commercials, not Top Cats.

So, it is for the fans at the games primarily as entertainment, that is all fine and good.  And their pay?  Whatever the market will bear i would say.  

But you can be as for and against something all you want, but no reason to be outraged that grown women who choose freely to be cheerleaders and all that it holds, are somehow being demeaned by just the pay.  The first demeaning is the choice to be a cheerleader and it is totally theirs

[h0llywood]

1 minute ago, pantherphan96 said:

your argument being that since someone has worse working conditions that you shouldn't point out injustice or adverse working conditions (of less severity) elsewhere? it's a shitty argument.

My argument is to point out that being told when to drink water is not the same as being told you are not allowed to drink water.

Lets take for example week 14 game against Tampa Bay. The Panthers had 9 scoring drives and as such, were afforded 9 opportunities to drink water. How is that adverse working conditions? I made no opinion on the other topics other than the water issue. Do you really feel that only 9 opportunities to drink water during a game is depriving them of justice?

To reiterate, please make a solid argument how that correlates to being an adverse work environment. 

[vorbis]

3 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

I expect someone to remain composed and provide a strong argument to change my mind. On a daily basis we deal with ambiguity in life, and if we took the approach of becoming emotional as opposed to staying strong imposing our beliefs, then I doubt a situation like such would reach a peak as it did.

You asked me what I would do.... I'm exemplifying that now. It's obvious you do not necessarily agree with me, but I am not going to call you any names or state that you lack intelligence, but what I will state that the argument today was more relative to a pity party rather than someone actually suffering.

The worst part about all of this..... This entire time we have been arguing that no one knows what its like to be a cheerleader and what they go through, and this is unfair for them.  In the end, where did we get this information? Media. If they hated their jobs, then let them handle it. Why fight for their own unfairness? I've hated jobs before, and I found something better. These articles we read are in the same theme as PETA articles feeling bad for animals. The cheerleaders don't need a freedom fighter force.

so you have now said at several times in this thread that the discussion devolved when a female poster became emotional, or let her emotions get the better of her. any context to making a statement like that that you'd be willing to consider? do you think maybe that could play a role in an environment that makes a woman feel unwelcome? that 'women be emotional' is one of the oldest run-of-the-mill hostilities perpetrated on women trying to speak out about something they believe in? as if the second they say something with passion they're somehow veering off this true course of effective rhetoric? 

also, there's an important distinction between your self-described response to disagreement and OPs. your disagreement, as you describe it, was with her. one person. her disagreement was with the entire environment that bubbled up seemingly out of nowhere the moment she expressed her opinion. the scale is not comparable.

[panthers55]

30 minutes ago, vorbis said:

not. good. enough. surely you are capable of better than this.

Capable of what? The whole notion of woman dancing and shaking themselves dressed in skimpy clothes whipping up the masses to root for their team speaks of sexism and male chauvinism. Same as beauty contests, talents shows where they have a swim suit competition, etc. These are willing participants who like what they are doing and don't see it as degrading or a problem. Heck they train and compete for the chance to be a top cat. I don't see where there is the huge issue you do because there is a dress code or rules of conduct. They are a reflection of the team and as such are expected to behave and not cause issues. I personally think this is much ado about nothing. But again that is my opinion and I am an old fashioned white guy so what do you expect?

[vorbis]

1 minute ago, panthers55 said:

But again that is my opinion and I am an old fashioned white guy so what do you expect?

more than this.

[pantherphan96]

4 minutes ago, h0llywood said:

My argument is to point out that being told when to drink water is not the same as being told you are not allowed to drink water.

Lets take for example week 14 game against Tampa Bay. The Panthers had 9 scoring drives and as such, were afforded 9 opportunities to drink water. How is that adverse working conditions? I made no opinion on the other topics other than the water issue. Do you really feel that only 9 opportunities to drink water during a game is depriving them of justice?

To reiterate, please make a solid argument how that correlates to being an adverse work environment. 

Your argument was a pithy jab about one element of what Cookie was mentioning in the OP.

It's not an adverse work environment just because of few water breaks, its that + near-minimum wage pay + shouldering costs of uniform + unpaid appearances at charity events/golf tournys + creepily invasive, sometimes objectifying, and paternalistic regulations regarding personal hygiene etc.

Ultimately the job is voluntary, and I personally wonder why on earth anyone would take it, but there are legit complaints regarding it and to dismiss those complaints so blithely is pretty fuged imo.

[AggieLean]

2 hours ago, Dex said:

You're preaching to the choir. This is the Huddle.

 

22 minutes ago, Dex said:

Good lord, I didn't just come in this thread and start posting about playing nice. I actually contributed to the subject matter. I only responded to the hostility when I became involved. That's all I'm going to say on the subject because this thread is beyond salvaging.

 

In the future, if you notice me oozing hypocracy you feel free to let me know good sir.

Cookie wasn’t “hostile” towards you until maybe the 12th or 13th Page in this thread. After you started trying to lecture her on being nice. I’m still trying to find out where she was hostile towards YOU (not unless when she said the board was fully idiots - do you consider yourself an idiot?). You were not involved in the hostility at all, so in reality, you did come in here on some “play nice” tip. 

The thread is beyond salvaging, because you’re being called out on some inconsistencies. 

As for the bold; I’m not invested that much to go through all that. I ain’t going to call you out. Just know it’s all being noticed. 

[Dex]

1 minute ago, AggieLean said:

 

Cookie wasn’t “hostile” towards you until maybe the 12th or 13th Page in this thread. After you started trying to lecture her on being nice. I’m still trying to find out where she was hostile towards YOU (not unless when she said the board was fully idiots - do you consider yourself an idiot?). You were not involved in the hostility at all, so I’m reality, you did come in here on some “play nice” tip. 

The thread is beyond salvaging, because you’re being called out on some inconsistencies. 

As for the bold; I’m not invested that much to go through all that. I ain’t going to call you out. Just know it’s all being noticed. 

You're grasping at straws. If you want to put it that way then yes. I do consider myself one of the idiots she was referring to. That is why I took offense because it seems to her that anyone who disagrees with her point is an idiot. My first 3 posts had nothing to do with playing nice. All in all I apologized a few pages back and I'd like to move on. If you still have some problems with me feel free to DM me so we can work it out. Bickering like this is only derailing the thread even more.

 

If you still think I'm a hypocritical jackass then so be it. You're entitled to your opinion on the internets.

 

 

[TheCasillas]

11 minutes ago, vorbis said:

so you have now said at several times in this thread that the discussion devolved when a female poster became emotional, or let her emotions get the better of her. any context to making a statement like that that you'd be willing to consider? do you think maybe that could play a role in an environment that makes a woman feel unwelcome? that 'women be emotional' is one of the oldest run-of-the-mill hostilities perpetrated on women trying to speak out about something they believe in? as if the second they say something with passion they're somehow veering off this true course of effective rhetoric? 

also, there's an important distinction between your self-described response to disagreement and OPs. your disagreement, as you describe it, was with her. one person. her disagreement was with the entire environment that bubbled up seemingly out of nowhere the moment she expressed her opinion. the scale is not comparable.

Ah, @vorbis I appreciate your attempt but I will not get into a gender conflict driven conversation. If you are stating that due to the fact the OP is female, that is why the OP was unable to stay composed, then that is between you two. 

No matter the gender, the OP became hostile toward the audience.  You are attempting to change the rhetoric in this conversation and I do not want to participate in that, because that is not where the disagreement occurred. You are claiming it was the OP against the world, well the torches were not lit until the OP called the thread participants idiots. 

As a mature adult, you/we should know that negativity only leads to problems, not solutions.

I believe in gender equality, and that is also a reason I can not state "because she is a woman this is a tough environment" - that wouldn't be fair to her.

there are some accusations in your post that are false around what I have said. Now if you feel I am incorrect i'd be willing to look over any previous comments that I said that provides significant evidence I was being sexist or misogynistic.

[CatTower]

7 minutes ago, pantherphan96 said:

Your argument was a pithy jab about one element of what Cookie was mentioning in the OP.

It's not an adverse work environment just because of few water breaks, its that + near-minimum wage pay + shouldering costs of uniform + unpaid appearances at charity events/golf tournys + creepily invasive, sometimes objectifying, and paternalistic regulations regarding personal hygiene etc.

Ultimately the job is voluntary, and I personally wonder why on earth anyone would take it, but there are legit complaints regarding it and to dismiss those complaints so blithely is pretty fuged imo.

Lots of places make you buy your own uniform as well as pay minimum wage(think fast food).  You also aren't allowed to take water breaks during busy times.  These women are in no worse position than the majority of Americans. 

[h0llywood]

13 minutes ago, pantherphan96 said:

Your argument was a pithy jab about one element of what Cookie was mentioning in the OP.

It's not an adverse work environment just because of few water breaks, its that + near-minimum wage pay + shouldering costs of uniform + unpaid appearances at charity events/golf tournys + creepily invasive, sometimes objectifying, and paternalistic regulations regarding personal hygiene etc.

Ultimately the job is voluntary, and I personally wonder why on earth anyone would take it, but there are legit complaints regarding it and to dismiss those complaints so blithely is pretty fuged imo.

Yes it was a jab at the water issue, because as I previously pointed out with facts regarding the opportunities to drink water, it is a non-issue. I am going to reiterate, being told when to drink water is NOT the same as not being allowed to drink water. Therefore, it isn't an element at all.

Are there legitimate complaints about the other issues at hand? Absolutely. But then again, I do not feel bad for anyone who understands the requirements of their job description and willfully signs up for employment.

[Zaximus]

Not sure if others hit on it, but I'm too lazy to look, but cheerleaders are one of the most sexist things going.    It needs to just be scraped.    If I had a daughter I'm not sure I'd want them doing it, or at least not after they become teenagers.