Dude, you must've never seen a Barbie doll.dornoforpyros said:...barbie doll clones arean't really that appealing...woman are suppose to have...CURVES.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Too sexist (even for me)
- Thread starter Thomas Veil
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For what it's worth, I have a friend that was a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader for the last three years. She was very thin, but not because she didn't eat. She worked out all the time to stay fit.
Before she even started cheering, she received a degree from SMU, and graduated near the top of her class. She is now a pharm. sales rep with a highly reputable company in LA.
She made many contacts all over the world while cheering, and it definitely propelled her career. Smart move if you ask me.
Before she even started cheering, she received a degree from SMU, and graduated near the top of her class. She is now a pharm. sales rep with a highly reputable company in LA.
She made many contacts all over the world while cheering, and it definitely propelled her career. Smart move if you ask me.
Oh, I wasn't arguing that the cheerleaders were dumb.crdean1 said:
Only that, from my point of view browsing CNN/SI galleries, it doesn't matter.
Kinda hard to judge their personality or their intelligence from a photo, isn't it? Quite a few of the Panthers' cheerleaders are teachers in their real lives, if I remember correctly.chucknorris said:
And here's a dime... no, make that two dimes. Can I have my two dozen hot women now, please?
Personally, I feel like some of the women are too thin-- not in pictures, not on tv, but in person, because let's face it-- photographs tend to make people look bigger/thicker than they do in person.
I'm w/ you Katie!
But I mean... men and women are a little different. Most of the women I know don't get a rush of blood to their nether regions when they see a 'hot' person but a man can easily feel the blood when they see a 'hot' person. Damn their visually-oriented hardwiring. Sigh.
I'm w/ you Katie!
But I mean... men and women are a little different. Most of the women I know don't get a rush of blood to their nether regions when they see a 'hot' person but a man can easily feel the blood when they see a 'hot' person. Damn their visually-oriented hardwiring. Sigh.
dejo said:
DEAR GOD YOU READ MY MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
No cheerleaders (except the fans), which is kind of a bummer. Because the only reason I would want to watch football in the first place is to see those girls shake their asses.
I'm all for exploitation of women (and men for those who want to look at men). Call me a jerk or whatever you want, but a nude person, and even sex is something that should not be scrutanized and debated over.
As Larry Flynt's arguement went: "Which is worse, pictures of naked women, or pictures of rotting corpses in the street?"
And I'm not sure why they showed those girls. They weren't even soem of the more attractive ones.
And Steve Jobs only gets paid $1 a year but seems to be able to budget that pretty well!Lacero said:
The girls choose to do it and they get paid to, OK their 'wage' my only be $50 but they know they're gonna get paid for PA's, calenders and SI photo-shoots. I wonder how much they take through the back door?
It always makes me mad when people say the women in Playboy/Hustler etc. are being exploited. The way I see it they choose to pose and they do that either 'cause they want to or because it's going to get them paid. They're exploiting the desires of the guys buying the mag if anything.
emw said:... (I like to think I married one
I like to think I'm tall, handsome with all the cunning of a fox and the skills of Bruce Lee, Michael Schumacher and Steve Jobs, attractive to all women and a fantastic sexual athlete who's never left a women unsatisfied.
I'm quite tall 6'3''ish so that's a start.
katie ta achoo said:
LethalWolfe said:
Lethal, I believe that you contradicted yourself within your own statement. The US has become a knowledge based economy, so let's treat knowledge as a fiscal resource and analyze how much impact teachers have on US "revenues."
The US GDP in 2004 was approximately $11,667,515,000,000 (according to the World Bank statistics). According to the US State Department, in 2004, spectator sports contributed 0.4% to our total GDP. The knowledge-based industries contribute roughly 70% to our GDP. Let's be extremely conservative and say that teachers only have a direct effect on 15% of that 70%, in some form or another. Therefore, teachers directly affect ~11% of the US GDP. Again, this is extremely conservative.
Now let's look at the total dollar figures contributed to GDP, using our percentages.
Athletes/Sports:
$46,670,060,000
Teachers/Schools:
$1,283,426,650,000
As you can see, the impact of teachers on the US GDP VASTLY outweighs that of sports. Therefore, by your own argument that athletes ought to be paid according to their contribution to the money they bring in, teachers ought to be paid much more than athletes.
The travesty is that teachers are extremely undervalued and underratted in America, precisely at a time when they should not be. While Joe Six pack sits around and watches the big game with overpaid athletes on TV, other countries are coveting their teachers and producing large numbers of scientists and engineers. Before too long, America's reluctance to pay teachers what they are worth will result in far greater losses in GDP than athletes could ever contribute.
Ah, it's good to see that, when I think a comment I want to make might be going a bit too far, you're there to do it for me.powermac666 said:You did that on purpose, didn't you?
jsw said:Ah, it's good to see that, when I think a comment I want to make might be going a bit too far, you're there to do it for me.
You and I are always thinking outside the box......
I can never think inside the box. I feel like my head is under a lot of pressure then.Lacero said:
jsw said:
lmfao. That's great. I saw that "backdoor" comment and thought of something I shouldn't have, lmao. I'm such a guy.
hoyboy9 said:
How many people on earth can play hockey at the elite professional level? About 700. And the average career lasts less than five years.
Do you think rare, talented brain surgeons deserve the high salaries they demand?
I agree that teachers are undervalued and unappreciated and the profession is not given due respect, but blaming gifted athletes with rare talents for making more is not the answer.
While I agree we should, in some cases, pay teachers more (many already make significant salaries), I'm not sure the numbers support your conclusion, if we look at contribution per average individual vs. as a group.hoyboy9 said:
There are 6.2 Million teachers in the US according to the Census Bureau (from 2004). That equates to roughly a $207,000 contribution per teacher, which is about 4.5 times the US average teacher's salary.
There are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 professional athletes in the roughly 115 professional sports teams across the country. I'm not including the minor leagues, as I don't they'd be included in this GDP figure. That equates to $9,334,000 per athlete, which divided by 4.5 is 2,074,000. So the contribution per athlete compared to annual salary for an athlete is at least comparable to a teacher, and perhaps more so.
Even if we use the figures for all athletic positions, according to the government there were 158,000 people employed as "athletes, coaches, umpires, and sports-related workers". Taking your number above, this equates to $295,000 per "athlete." Also according to government figures, average salary for those 158,000 people was $45,320, a factor of over 6.5. So in either case, athletes contribute as much to the GDP on a per-person basis (relative to their salaries) as educators.
Now, this says nothing about the relative "societal" impact they may or may not have, but purely from a numbers standpoint, they hold their weight.
Sorry, we're keeping them.m-dogg said:
I was at Game 3 of the Stanley Cup finals between the 'Canes and the Red Wings back in 2002... AWESOME triple-OT game (which we unfortunately lost). It was also the loudset sporting event in recorded history... 116 dB peak inside the RBC Center, and 5 straight minutes of 110+ dB noise at one point. Had ringing in my left ear for a week (forgot my ear plugs).
And we do have cheerleaders there.
Well the NHL could always hire Lonie to develop some marketing incentives, to help with the fan/cheerleader, ass-shaking paradigm.Onizuka said: