NewCliche21

Members
  • Content count

    22,787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

About NewCliche21

  • Rank
    Ring of Fame
  • Birthday 06/09/1984

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
    Since 1984
  • Favorite Redskin
    Sean Taylor
  • Location
    Middletown, DE
  • Occupation
    Social Worker
  1. God I've missed these posts! Football's almost back, baby!
  2. Per Schefter: DeAngelo Hall Retiring

    Wow, didn't realize he came into the league at 20. One of my favorite Redskins even though his contract ****ed us over in the salary cap bull****. I hope he sticks around to coach. Seems to be a hell of a locker room guy. Wishing DH the best!
  3. 1) The one you reference in number two. 2) It's not about number of years; it's about number of articles written. While the nail salon article may have been more recent in when it happened, that has nothing to do with reporting. They just caught the Golden State Killer this year, so I guess those murders were more recent than those in 2016? No, that's not how time works. Your nail salon article also isn't a good example; it's an outlier. Believe it or not our run defense had a couple of TFL last year. Were they any good? No. And you wouldn't argue as such. Harping on one article when you have thousands to pick from isn't changing minds, Cali. I like you, you know that, this is just not the way to get things across. When it comes to exploitation, that's a real issue that's pervasive throughout our society. I don't want this **** to be true, I've just been in this field for fifteen years and understand exploitation, abuses of power, consent, and a **** ton of other themes that are running through this situation. I'm not opposed to more facts, who would be? That's stupid. I'm opposed to dismissing this as "girls complaining" or "they should know better" or "they could've said no" or any other number of very common victim-blaming posts. 3) What it comes down to is what facts? How many? How are they proven? CAN they be proven? In what timeframe? And so on and so forth ad infinium. And it's bull**** when some posters, your name not being among them, lose their minds when it's another team's player or another team altogether, but are so "hardcore" as fans that they need to defend anything that has our name in it. 4) To everyone: PLEASE stop bringing in that people have agendas or hate the team or the media is out to get everyone. You look like idiots.
  4. What's so juicy about this story? Not to get political, but there are a million things in US Politics alone that are juicy stories. And you keep citing this *one* article from years ago. What's with that? I stole a pencil from my kindergarten class. Am I now branded a thief forever? It sounds like some of you, and I say "sounds like" because I'm not trying to speak for you, just want this to not be true. I wonder the veracity of these arguments had it been "Dallas Cowboys" in the headline instead of "Washington Redskins."
  5. Uh, and? Just because it happens frequently doesn't make it right.
  6. Disappointment level rising in 3, 2, 1 . . .
  7. Wouldn't matter if she didn't experience/know about it as long as one person did, you know? And the only thing worse than our run defense is our PR department. Ironic that their rallying cry is, "No means no!"
  8. Gotcha, I misinterpreted your post and thought you were trying to brush this under the rug. Thank you for clarifying!
  9. Absolutely. This isn't a women's issue by any stretch; it just happens WAY more often with them. There's no reason for any of these women to have expected this scenario when they signed up, or even to be asked to be placed in the scenario which is pressure in and of itself.
  10. Who said strippers are bad people? I signed up for a job with the understanding that it was X, and then my job turned into Y. That's bull**** no matter what. It has nothing to do with strippers. And this is literally not a degree of separation from the team. I would be very disappointed if this got moved. All of this matters because all of it will affect the team, its personnel, its structure, everything. You don't move it just because it also falls into another category. Got it. They go to the tryouts and do the job knowing what it is. Not exploitative. They're asked/pressured/forced to do something else, that's exploitation. I'm with you.
  11. This is almost right but still flawed. Cheerleading involves dancing to cheer for your team. It's reasonable to expect them to know that they'll be in skimpy outfits and likely objectified. It's not reasonable to know that people will be there while they are changing, that they will be in a foreign country being told to dress with way less on, that they will be on display to the suite owners, that they will be offered/encouraged/voluntold to escort those people. Some women want to do that, and more power to them. It's your body, do what you want. It's not ever okay to coerce someone into doing so. None of this is in the cheerleading job description. Is this really what parents sign their children up for in youth cheerleading? High school? Is this what they sign up for in college? Is this in the contract? Nah. Wait, are you saying cheerleading isn't exploitative or the non-cheerleading parts of this story?
  12. What I think some people are missing is that it really doesn't matter, at all, if they would have lost their jobs/been in danger had they said "no." It's the pressure and, again, the implied or explicit coercion, that matters. If it puts them in a position to feel pressured to do something, then management ****ed up. If they didn't know all of the circumstances beforehand to allow them to make the most informed decision possible, then management ****ed up. When crimes occur (no, I'm not saying this is a crime), which hold a much higher burden of proof, intent to follow through only matters so much. It's in statutes themselves that a person has to fear for her/his life in order for it to be a crime, same **** when it comes to self defense. There doesn't have to be a threat, just a perceived one. And that's when a 98% degree of certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt) is required to make that judgement. That's not how it is in employment situations. And to those of you saying that it's no big deal even if it happened, god damn. If it were your mother, daughter, sister, and/or wife who actually experienced this, then I'd hate to have you as a support.
  13. Well thank god because it wasn't. Not sure what your point was, then. Could you rephrase?
  14. Right? So some accounts corroborate the story. And keep in mind that you have these cheerleaders talking to the very people who hold real power over them. I'm never a fan of internal investigations when it comes to mistreatment of employees.
  15. See this is the problem when it goes to "She said, she said" situations. There's a ton of shame involved in this, so many cheerleaders may have never disclosed it happening, never heard of it happening, or in denial, or a number of other legitimate reasons that they genuinely don't recall or don't believe that it happened. Person A can say it happened and Person B can say it didn't and both can pass lie detector tests as long as they genuinely believe what they're saying.