Too sexist (even for me)

[Bern]

Hey if these women didn't want to be there then they wouldn't be right? IMO the mere fact they are sets them up for these comments. I mean they don't just cheer these girls really lay it on with those dance moves. It's not about the team it's the "look at me" factor for them.

Oh geez now I've gone and done it

 

[ColoJohnBoy]

Ew. Girls are icky.

 

[Kobushi]

Most of those girls looked pretty homely to me, and I DO lika da ladies. I see better looking woman than those just walking across campus....and they're often exposing more.

Just one of the many reasons I don't watch football.....buncha homophobic macho men wearing tights and slapping eachother on the bum if ya ask me.

 

[jsw]

Just one of the many reasons I don't watch football.....buncha homophobic macho men wearing tights and slapping eachother on the bum if ya ask me.

Same with the players, too.

 

[Thomas Veil]

Wow. Go away for a day, and find that this thread has taken some odd turns.

Anyway. I'm not even criticizing objectifying women. To varying degrees, Playboy models, Chippendale dancers, TV hunks and bikini models are all objectified. And that's okay as long as you understand it's not real life.

What I have a problem most is taking a picture of a cheerleader in mid-leap, and rotating it to make it look almost pornographic. That one girl looks like, if Peter North walked into the picture from the right side, she'd be ready for him.

Geez, if CNN/SI is that desperate to sell sex, they should just open a porn site and do it honestly.

 

[iDM]

Yeah, seriously. Cheerleaders at hockey games? How do their nipples ever put up with such extreme temperatures?

You know that is such a good question.....i hear a thesis coming on!!

 

[clayj]

You know that is such a good question.....i hear a thesis coming on!!

They dress warmly.

 

[Lacero]

What I have a problem most is taking a picture of a cheerleader in mid-leap, and rotating it to make it look almost pornographic. That one girl looks like, if Peter North walked into the picture from the right side, she'd be ready for him.

Who's Peter North? Maybe if you looked it from the other end, you can say the same of Seymore Butts?

I think you're reading too much into it, or really the people behind the photos are just plain sleazy.

Got milk anyone?

 

[LethalWolfe]

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."

I didn't contradict myself, but I was waiting for someone to over analyze what I was saying. I'm not talking about indirect effects people have on the economy. I'm talking about the income specific individuals generate for the people that cut their paychecks.

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.

I agree that teachers are undervalued and underrated. And so are cops, fireman, construction workers, and truck drivers. Not to mention coal miners, oil workers, and the peons working for craptacular wages building circuit boards in Asia. There are many important jobs out there. Just some are harder to fill than others.

The rhetorical question posed wasn't "who is more important for society in general" it was "why do they get paid more." Super star pro athletes get paid millions of dollars a year because the market allows team owners to pay them that much and still get a return on their investment that will generate a profit for their business (the team). NFL teams generate more revenue than NHL teams so, on average, NFL players will make more money. If tax rates were high enough that public high school teachers could make 1 million dollars a year w/o bankrupting everyone then high school teachers would make 1 million dollars a year. If college tuition was high enough to support college profs making 2 million a year then they would be making 2 million a year.

If every school had a salary cap of $80 million of course teachers would get paid more. But the market can't support that. If schools sold ad space like crazy like stadiums do then teachers would make more, but corporate interests all over our schools are seen as a conflict of interest (and rightfully so, IMO). If schools were commercial endeavors like sports teams teachers could make more. But then education would cost more and be available to fewer people. Not exactly a good thing either.

There are lots of factors as to pay gap between teachers and sports stars. But it can be pretty much boiled down to basic economics.


Lethal

 

[dansuz1]

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.

What are you, a socialist? That's not how our society works. We don't get paid our proportionate contribution to society. Those of us in the commercial world get paid what our companies, or customers feel our work is worth. Government workers get paid what State and Federal Congresses and administrations feel they can afford to pay to retain the teachers and meet their educational goals.

While I think what professional athletes get paid is silly, I certainly don't want your version of society to take hold.

 

[madmaxmedia]

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.

Yeah, it's not really reasonable to compare the salaries of a couple thousand professional athletes to that of the entire teaching profession. Becoming an elite athlete is practically like winning the lottery. Some professional boxers make $20 million for a single night of work, but 95% of boxers are basically paid almost nothing to get their brains turned into hamburger.

You can also point to a relatively small number of actors/actresses or pop stars too, they make tons of money. But the majority of those who try make nothing (or get paid $50 a game to be a cheerleader!)

I do think teachers should be paid more. Their salaries are arbitrarily set, so there is some control over that. Not just because of what they do, but by paying more we can also get better teachers.

 

[madmaxmedia]

What are you, a socialist? That's not how our society works. We don't get paid our proportionate contribution to society. Those of us in the commercial world get paid what our companies, or customers feel our work is worth. Government workers get paid what State and Federal Congresses and administrations feel they can afford to pay to retain the teachers and meet their educational goals.

While I think what professional athletes get paid is silly, I certainly don't want your version of society to take hold.

Actually, you bring up a good point. Teacher salaries are NOT based on free market, they are set by a bureaucracy (necessarily so because we have a public education system.) And I think that bureaucracy has made a poor choice in how teachers are compensated. So in a socialist government, teachers may not get paid any differently than they are now...

Then again, I don't work in the educational system. But it seems we might have better teachers and better education overall if teachers were paid more competitive salaries compared to other professions that potential teachers might seek out instead (not to diss any teachers here BTW , I'm talking about the system in general...)

 

[madmaxmedia]

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.

What some guys watch on Sunday afternoons, and the salaries of the athletes they are watching, has absolutely ZERO correlation with the ethnicities of graduating scientists and engineers in American universities.

While the second is a pressing issue, it has nothing to do with athelete's salaries. If you could conceivably tax 90% of pro athlete's salaries and pay teachers with them, this is what would happen:

1. Less people would try to become athletes because frankly it is hard work, has low success rate, and has little job security, and the reward would not be worth it for many.
2. Crappy sports on TV. The NFL would become the equivalent of the XFL.
3. People stop watching sports and move on to other activities, revenue pool for taxation drops significantly.

 

[nbs2]

I believe it was Roger Clemens who justified his salary, when compared to "noble" professions, in this way (or something close to it) - People are willing to pay a lot of money to watch me do what I do, so if you can throw a baseball 95 mph on a regular basis through a 2'x1' box from 60', you can take my job.

In a silimar vein, I think a lot of the cheerleaders would say that if you can watch what you eat, exercise on a reuglar basis, make time for school or work (there are actually a lot of professional/in training women who are cheerleaders - dentists, doctors, etc), and dance as well as me, you can have the job. It's a lot of work, and a lot of them do it for the opportunity to continue the dance training they got when they were younger, to publicize their businesses through contacts that they make, or just take a break from the mundane.

Someone being attractive has no affect on how much I love my wife. I think she is the most beautiful woman I have even seen and wouldn't trade and aspect of her for anyone else - neither physical, mental, or psychological. Does that mean that she would be a good cheerleader? No - I don't think she can dance well enough. What cheerleaders do at those games is help the crowd stay involved in the game and keep them unified - they lead cheers, and people just don't like looking at ugly things. I mean, would you rather look at a Dell DJ or an iPod?

 

[thedude110]

Then again, I don't work in the educational system. But it seems we might have better teachers and better education overall if teachers were paid more competitive salaries compared to other professions that potential teachers might seek out instead (not to diss any teachers here BTW , I'm talking about the system in general...)

As a teacher, you people are driving me crazy. First, madmaxmedia is right to point out that there's this ugly, underlying assumption in these comments that teachers aren't getting the job done. Are there bad teachers in our public school systems? Yes. And there's a lot of bad teachers. But when I see the committment that my colleagues in my school (an urban, public school) have for their students and their learning ... well, there's a lot more good teachers than bad teachers. But this generalized public assumption that teachers are failing their schools, their students and their communities -- well, it explains why so many in my profession are so demoralized.

I also dispute the claim that raising teacher salaries will lead to better teaching. It's been my experience that most good teachers are motivated by social justice, not by salaries. If we recruit teachers who are living toward their paychecks rather than teachers who are living toward their students, then you're really going to see the quality of education go to hell ...

 

[madmaxmedia]

I also dispute the claim that raising teacher salaries will lead to better teaching. It's been my experience that most good teachers are motivated by social justice, not by salaries. If we recruit teachers who are living toward their paychecks rather than teachers who are living toward their students, then you're really going to see the quality of education go to hell ...

Thanks, I'm glad you didn't take offense at my remarks. I agree most teachers are not in it for the money, and are doing it because they are helping kids. So in that sense, I agree the goal shouldn't be to get a bunch of teachers who are purely motivated by money.

But I still wish teachers were compensated better, as they have a critically important job. Ultimately in life you have to take care of yourself (and your family) as well as others. Doctors are very well-paid and also have an important job, and I think most also genuinely care about what they do.