Raiderettes facing the axe

johnboy 11 December 2013 53

The Herald Sun brings the unexpected news that the Canberra Raiders are thinking about disposing with their dancing girls:

In an historic move, Raiders chief executive Don Furner told The Daily Telegraph that his club was “reviewing the club’s game-day entertainment.”

“We have always had them but research among our fans indicates it might be time for a change,” Furner said. “It’s not definite but we are reviewing our game day entertainment.”

Furner denied the move was based around any female exploitation.

“There are a couple of reasons,” he said. “One, it is quite cold and a big ask for the woman, particularly during night games. And, two, cost.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
53 Responses to Raiderettes facing the axe
Filter
Order
LadyxBec LadyxBec 2:49 pm 12 Dec 13

2604 said :

gungsuperstar said :

Of course this is about exploitation – the Raiderettes are sponsored, and they only get paid casually anyway. And as I mentioned, they already do rug up when it’s cold.

But ditching the Raiderettes for reasons of exploitation is not a bad thing. It’s time the NRL got with the times.

How can it be ‘exploitation’ when they’re doing it on a voluntary basis? If they don’t like the terms and conditions of the job and feel they’re being exploited, they can quit at any time.

I’d also love to know how having cheerleaders constitutes sexism. The uniforms are no more revealing than women’s beach volleyball uniforms. Cheerleading is an officially recognized sport – my secretary’s seven year old daughter does it, in fact – and the fact is that it’s not only males watching the Raiderettes, plenty of young girls attending the game also get into it.

Cheerleading the sport is very different to Australian cheerleaders at the footy. What the Raiderettes do is much closer to dancing than the gymnastics and tricks performed in competative cheerleading.

(Incidentally, in 2010 an American court found that cheerleading is not a sport for the purpose of title IX)

Solidarity Solidarity 2:04 pm 12 Dec 13

The cheerleaders like being cheerleaders! If they didn’t like being cheerleaders, they wouldn’t be cheerleaders. All this is doing is denying people happiness.

Antagonist Antagonist 1:27 pm 12 Dec 13

2604 said :

I’d also love to know how having cheerleaders constitutes sexism.

I have to say that I share the confusion. On the one hand, I am sexist if I say I enjoy watching the cheerleaders. On the other hand, I am sexist if I suggest that a woman cannot make her own (empowering) choice to cheerlead. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

As for Furner’s claim that ‘we have always had them’, well I call BS. I don’t recall ever seeing cheerleaders out at Seifert Oval in the early days of Raiders. Not one.

BimboGeek BimboGeek 11:58 am 12 Dec 13

Ben_Dover, when I was dancing burlesque it was at Sinsations. And snobbery has nothing to do with the reason children weren’t allowed in!

If my 18 year old daughter wants to become a stripper then I’ll help her learn how to do it without getting hurt but if my 7 year old daughter wanted to become a cheerleader I’d enrol her in real dance classes with age appropriate costumes, no sexual content and little chance of eating disorder. I know some responsible ballet teachers. Jo McKinley would probably be my top choice.

bigfeet bigfeet 11:19 am 12 Dec 13

gungsuperstar said :

2604 said :

Using this argument, magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Zoo are not exploiting women, because they get paid for it.

Money doesn’t change the fact that the subject is being exploited.

It’s an extremely weak argument.

What I find ‘weak’ is the patronizing attitude of ‘These women are being exploited but they are just too dumb to know it. They are incapable of making decisions or judgements about themselves or their lifestyle. Luckily I am intelligent enough to tell them and will now make decisions for them’

Stevian Stevian 11:00 am 12 Dec 13

LFL

Need I say more?

Ben_Dover Ben_Dover 10:24 am 12 Dec 13

BimboGeek said :

As poetix explained, Bogan Burlesque. There’s nothing wrong with burlesque of course but in the 21st century perhaps it belongs in a more appropriate setting. If cheerleaders were simply leading the crowd in cheering then they wouldn’t need to be young women, they wouldn’t need to wear sexy uniforms and be subjected to comments on their sex appeal or arguments on the womens rights issues. Cheerleading contests are usually held in adult venues and sponsored by adult magazines because that’s their true audience.

(Bogan) burlesque belongs in a “more appropriate” setting? 🙄 Suggest one?

So now, what if there is an audience for “bogan burlesque”, and women who want to indulge/participate in it, why should it not go ahead?

I love the snobbery of; “burlesque is ok, but only on my terms, you cannot have men from the lower classless enjoying it!”

Burlesque, it’s only for middle class hipsters you know, because they watch it in an ironic manner.

BimboGeek BimboGeek 10:17 am 12 Dec 13

Ben_Dover said :

BimboGeek said :

Cheerleading is a sport in the same sense that pole dancing is a sport.

And gymnastics, sychronised swimming, diving etc. If they are judged as sports so can cheerleading be.

BimboGeek said :

You can go to “for fitness” classes but if you’re doing it professionally then we all know what that means.

Ok, I’ll bite, what dies it mean?

As poetix explained, Bogan Burlesque. There’s nothing wrong with burlesque of course but in the 21st century perhaps it belongs in a more appropriate setting. If cheerleaders were simply leading the crowd in cheering then they wouldn’t need to be young women, they wouldn’t need to wear sexy uniforms and be subjected to comments on their sex appeal or arguments on the womens rights issues. Cheerleading contests are usually held in adult venues and sponsored by adult magazines because that’s their true audience.

chewy14 chewy14 10:17 am 12 Dec 13

gungsuperstar said :

2604 said :

gungsuperstar said :

Of course this is about exploitation – the Raiderettes are sponsored, and they only get paid casually anyway. And as I mentioned, they already do rug up when it’s cold.

But ditching the Raiderettes for reasons of exploitation is not a bad thing. It’s time the NRL got with the times.

How can it be ‘exploitation’ when they’re doing it on a voluntary basis? If they don’t like the terms and conditions of the job and feel they’re being exploited, they can quit at any time.

Using this argument, magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Zoo are not exploiting women, because they get paid for it.

Money doesn’t change the fact that the subject is being exploited.

It’s an extremely weak argument.

Yes it is a very weak argument that you think you can define people as being “exploited” if you don’t like the free choices they make.

If you have free will and make a choice to do something then you’re not being exploited. Otherwise nearly every worker is being exploited, forced to do something they wouldnt otherwise do for money. Oh the humanity.

gungsuperstar gungsuperstar 8:37 am 12 Dec 13

2604 said :

gungsuperstar said :

Of course this is about exploitation – the Raiderettes are sponsored, and they only get paid casually anyway. And as I mentioned, they already do rug up when it’s cold.

But ditching the Raiderettes for reasons of exploitation is not a bad thing. It’s time the NRL got with the times.

How can it be ‘exploitation’ when they’re doing it on a voluntary basis? If they don’t like the terms and conditions of the job and feel they’re being exploited, they can quit at any time.

Using this argument, magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Zoo are not exploiting women, because they get paid for it.

Money doesn’t change the fact that the subject is being exploited.

It’s an extremely weak argument.

Ben_Dover Ben_Dover 5:45 am 12 Dec 13

BimboGeek said :

Cheerleading is a sport in the same sense that pole dancing is a sport.

And gymnastics, sychronised swimming, diving etc. If they are judged as sports so can cheerleading be.

BimboGeek said :

You can go to “for fitness” classes but if you’re doing it professionally then we all know what that means.

Ok, I’ll bite, what dies it mean?

BimboGeek BimboGeek 10:34 pm 11 Dec 13

Cheerleading is a sport in the same sense that pole dancing is a sport. You can go to “for fitness” classes but if you’re doing it professionally then we all know what that means.

2604 2604 9:11 pm 11 Dec 13

gungsuperstar said :

Of course this is about exploitation – the Raiderettes are sponsored, and they only get paid casually anyway. And as I mentioned, they already do rug up when it’s cold.

But ditching the Raiderettes for reasons of exploitation is not a bad thing. It’s time the NRL got with the times.

How can it be ‘exploitation’ when they’re doing it on a voluntary basis? If they don’t like the terms and conditions of the job and feel they’re being exploited, they can quit at any time.

I’d also love to know how having cheerleaders constitutes sexism. The uniforms are no more revealing than women’s beach volleyball uniforms. Cheerleading is an officially recognized sport – my secretary’s seven year old daughter does it, in fact – and the fact is that it’s not only males watching the Raiderettes, plenty of young girls attending the game also get into it.

chewy14 chewy14 8:33 pm 11 Dec 13

isaidno said :

Right! And given that 2.5 million watch the state of origin, it means that 20 million people (or 90% of Australia) don’t watch it. Quite clearly the majority are disinterested so they had better stop covering that too.

Just to be accurate that figure is 2.6 million for one game in five capital cities of the tv viewing population at one time. If you include regional areas the figure is closer to 4 million.
Quite clearly there is an audience for it, unlike the vast majority of other sports and past times in this country.

My initial point was that there are thousands of different sporting events in this country of all skill levels and types. If they’re popular they will get media coverage, if they aren’t they won’t. It’s completely disingenuous to talk about equality in this issue because not all sports and competitors are created equal. It’s a fact of life and it’s not unfair in any sense of the word.

CraigT CraigT 8:24 pm 11 Dec 13

What a disgrace.
Women are once again being denied opportunities to demonstrate their intellectual capabilities and achievements by pathetic bean-counting misogynists.

gungsuperstar gungsuperstar 7:46 pm 11 Dec 13

I feel a bit bad for the girls. As others have said, they’re great ambassadors for the club – they’re polite, they’re friendly, they stop and chat to the kids as they walk laps of the oval.

They’re among the more modestly dressed than most in the NRL, and they already rug up for the cold; many of them are students, some of them aspire to be able to make careers out of dancing, and cheer leading provides an opportunity where not many exist in Canberra.

But with all that said – their time has come. The era where boofy blokes crash into each other while the little girls cheer them on is gone. The era where bogans can ogle young girls in a sport still struggling with its treatment of women is gone.

Of course this is about exploitation – the Raiderettes are sponsored, and they only get paid casually anyway. And as I mentioned, they already do rug up when it’s cold.

But ditching the Raiderettes for reasons of exploitation is not a bad thing. It’s time the NRL got with the times.

shauno shauno 7:12 pm 11 Dec 13

Their good and heard on the radio today also of excuses like weather for one. Canberra isnt cold compared to US NFL games in the middle winter in northern states and the cheer leaders there dont stop lol. The only reason for stopping them is they are short of cash but surely a sponsor would cover the wages?

banco banco 7:10 pm 11 Dec 13

poetix said :

chewy14 said :

poetix said :

Clearly, having cheerleaders (or whatever they are called), is quintessentially sexist. It’s just bogan burlesque.

It’s a shame women’s sport, you know, where they actually play, doesn’t get more attention though. I scour these e-pages in vain for updates on women’s soccer, for example.

Agreed, I scour these pages for the local tiddlywinks results and nothing!

It’s blatant discrimination against a clearly popular and well patronised sport I tells ya.

Soccer *is* a popular sport, and reasonably well patronised. Whereas Tiddlywinks is your nickname around these parts.

No men’s soccer is a popular sport.

isaidno isaidno 6:39 pm 11 Dec 13

BelcoMan said :

poetix said :

chewy14 said :

poetix said :

chewy14 said :

poetix said :

Clearly, having cheerleaders (or whatever they are called), is quintessentially sexist. It’s just bogan burlesque.

It’s a shame women’s sport, you know, where they actually play, doesn’t get more attention though. I scour these e-pages in vain for updates on women’s soccer, for example.

Agreed, I scour these pages for the local tiddlywinks results and nothing!

It’s blatant discrimination against a clearly popular and well patronised sport I tells ya.

Soccer *is* a popular sport, and reasonably well patronised. Whereas Tiddlywinks is your nickname around these parts.

Soccer itself is a world wide popular sport as a whole. Women’s soccer in general, mmm, not so much. Local women’s soccer, even less so.

I don’t see local basketball results, I don’t see local table tennis results either. Should we he focusing on them too? What about the local reserve grade Rugby League comp, no coverage.

Now you can rail against how ‘unfair’ it is that people don’t like and support the same things you do or you can join the rest of us in a place called Reality.

Nah, name calling is so much more productive, hope it makes you feel better.

Fun guy! The name bit was a harmless joke.

There were about 800 at the women’s soccer at the weekend.

Not a huge crowd, but it does indicate an interest.

Whilst acknowledging your point, and the fact that I am a big fan of the round ball, we must also acknowledge that 99.76% of the ACT were not at that game so unfortunately, the disinterested here clearly hold the majority.

Right! And given that 2.5 million watch the state of origin, it means that 20 million people (or 90% of Australia) don’t watch it. Quite clearly the majority are disinterested so they had better stop covering that too.

gazket gazket 5:27 pm 11 Dec 13

“We have always had them but research among our fans indicates it might be time for a change,” Furner said.”

I didn’t know so many gay males went for the Raiders

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site