NYT - Redskins Cheerleaders Describe Trip to Costa Rica that Crossed the Line

[NewCliche21]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

You asking that question is why this is going to get moved at some point.  This is bigger then the Redskins, no one in this thread that I've seen have said strippers are bad people, but you know damn well there are plenty of people that feel that way.  That goes to the point I was agreeing with @Califan007 on, these women do so much for the community that it sucks they are looked at a certain way.  That's what leads some to negate or ignore everything they do right for because of what they perceive these women as now (which is something they shouldn't be in the first place).

 

The stripper comment is perception versus reality, okay, these "cheerleaders" are damn near at that level now.  There are people that are saying "well, we're treating like something that isn't a cheerleader anyway", these women went in to be cheerleaders, not what happened in Costa Rica with that escort crap (that's why some of them were supposedly crying).

 

There are a lot of moving parts here, the Redskins name thread is in the Tailgate, its really not that big of a deal to me if its gets moved.

 

 

Gotcha, I misinterpreted your post and thought you were trying to brush this under the rug.  Thank you for clarifying!

[Renegade7]

Just now, NewCliche21 said:

 

Gotcha, I misinterpreted your post and thought you were trying to brush this under the rug.  Thank you for clarifying!

Nah, I want to make this clear, in no way do I want this swept under the rug.  We have a problem that's way bigger then just us, and needs to be looked at in that context to best address it.

[TSO]

17 hours ago, Califan007 said:

I’m not seeing that as a concern, because that segment of fans is absolutely dwarfed by those who are making sure this team and this owner and this article are kept front and center and under a harsh spotlight. Count up all the articles and opinion pieces and editorials that have been put out over the last 24 hours that are trashing Snyder and the Skins, then compare it to the number of articles that in some form or another try to downplay the issues and give the team and Snyder some benefit of the doubt. There's no contest. My focus was more fan-based but it was definitely media-based as well. The tone in the media shouldn't be "Look what Snyder and the Redskins did", it should be "What the **** is going on with cheerleaders?"

 

This is, quite frankly, a disturbing response to my post, Cali. In fact, I’d say many of your posts in here are pretty disturbing and belie your entire claim that you’d like the focus to be on cheerleading in general. 

 

Let’s go over this quickly. I made a post stating that having a distaste for cheerleading in general at the pro level is not mutually exclusive with recognizing that something seemingly went very wrong on that trip. No mention of Dan or Bruce in said post. No mention of even the Redskins as an organization, just the trip that’s being referenced which is absolutely relevant. 

 

You respond, unwarrantedly I might add, with how it shouldn't be viewed through the prism of the Redskins, how it should be all about the cheerleaders and how fans are taking this as justification to trash Dan/Bruce and nothing more. 

 

Now, I put aside how that had little to do with the post I made and gave you a response indicating that both sides of that should be a concern, where the more pressing one is the opposite side since it colors how some view the concerns of the cheerleaders, who are the victims, NOW. The other side, the one you’re concerned about who is supposedly making it only about Dan/Bruce, will be an issue more down the road if it comes out that the story was overblown or outright false.

 

But as of now that doesn’t have a negative impact, or nearly as much as one, on what occurred with the cheerleaders and if we’re concerned about that. In fact, it arguably will have a positive one since it’ll push Dan/Bruce to investigate or change the bad practices inherent in cheerleading at the pro level, whether it’s a widespread issue or not. 

 

Yet, instead of responding and saying it’s all a concern since anything that takes away from the cheerleading issue is, here in this response as well as others you’re almost obsessively focused on the perceived backlash Dan/Bruce are getting. I mean, it’s really tough for me to buy that your concern is really about the cheerleaders after reading your content. Doesn’t come across like that at all if I’m being honest. 

 

What do do you expect? That the owner and team president aren’t going to receive any backlash when something like this comes out? Or that they shouldn’t? We already know and acknowledge (and you’ve said the same) that there are inherent issues here with cheerleading at the pro level. That lends itself to one believing in what these women claim happened on that trip, not questioning them in every way.

 

But even if we want to question them like we’re in a court of law here (which is weird in and of itself, because we’re not and don’t need to be held to those rigorous standards in order to condemn properly), that doesn’t change said inherent issues and, therefore, doesn’t change the justification for condemning the top brass of any organization involved in it. Dan/Bruce are at the top and will rightfully be targeted because of that, and since their organization is involved in the latest and seemingly most egregious case that we know of. If they, or anyone else for that matter, don’t like it they shouldn’t be in those roles. 

 

So seeing you have such a massive problem with the backlash they’re receiving, even doing so when responding to a post that never mentioned them in the first place, is disturbing to me to say the least. And, again, it makes it hard for me to believe your claim that you’d like this to be about the cheerleaders. Seems like it’s just the opposite. :/ 

 

I’ve got no problem at all having a distaste for cheerleading at the pro level and what it entails, disliking Dan/Bruce for a myriad of other reasons, and marrying both of those feelings with recognizing the problems with what happened as presented on that trip. In fact, there is plenty of logical consistencies there with harboring all those feelings and ideas. It doesn’t have to be either/or. One can both wish (knowing it’s a long shot of course) for Dan/Bruce to be removed AND care for the cheerleaders.

 

Suggesting otherwise and questioning it to the extent you’re doing here leaves me wondering about your sincerity, honestly, not mine or anyone else’s.

 

But, hey, I’ll let you have the last word on this since it shouldn’t be about this and should be about the cheerleaders, right? I won’t keep at it with you as what is sure to happen whenever we engage, and I’m sure you won’t want to keep harping on it anymore since it takes away from what our main concern should be, right?  

[Bang]

12 minutes ago, Roger.Staubach said:

 

And if they WANT to do it?  I know plenty of men/women that are proud of their bodies and the hard work that they put into them.  They want to show them off.  So, if they want to show them off, via cheer-leading, fitness competitions, body building, or whatever, let them.  If the industry isn't for them they can move on a do something else.

 

**Don't take this to mean that I support the exploitation that was purported on this trip, but to imply that this is 'softcore porn' is just laughable.  If the food at Hooters didn't suck so bad you might see more of this.

Plenty of places to be a dancer.
And if we are going to let them show off their bodies, then folks need to shut the hell up about other people objectifying them. 

Does this jiggle show enhance football?

Nope, it's just T&A. and if they want to be T&A..  well..  as i said before..  the "line' that was crossed is well within reach of these women already.

 

And this was the point i was making with the photos.

My initial post in this thread is not one that is unsympathetic with women who feel they have been exploited.. and they have been. I agree with them 100% if they are telling the truth, and I believe they are.. because if there is one thing that is a fact.. people with money will exploit women... especially ones they employ to jiggle for cash.

They should sue the team as a result. some penalties should be paid. doesn't change my opinion that they are demeaning and don't really have a place for this sort of entertainment in a football game. People scream they want family oriented things, demand character from players, and then when the whistle blows it's time to slather your tongue around and watch these near-naked women try to give your dick a tickle.

The culture of an NFL game is ****ed up. Every week, alongside the games, we are treated to hours of videos of the brawls in the parking lots and the stands,, at new York Jets games, there is a particular concourse that women were told to avoid, because the jackasses there would scream as much as they could and harrass them to flash their tits.

Meanwhile down on the field, there are 60 women giving everyone a prime show.. no ID required. 

 

When you look at the "audition"..   i guess it would be exceedingly naive to not think that wiggling your tits and ass for people is not going to be your job. 

These are near-strippers.. they bump and grind and shove their camel toes striaght up in the air wearing shorts that probably will let you count the labia folds if the HD is good enough.

 

Cheerleading does have a place in football,, but these women haven't been cheerleaders for a long long time. Ever since the cowboys figured out in the 70s that dressing them as skimpily as possible and having them out there doing stripper routines with pompoms could make a lot of money that this little cheesecake show is all they have been. 

 

Mixing sex with your football... the entirety of it is exploitive. Get rid of it, remove it from the game.

 

~Bang

[Bang]

41 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I am saying that them showing some skin for cheerleading tryouts is not exploitative because that chose to do that.  Obviously the stuff presented in the article is wrong and exploitative. Because that stuff is outside the realm of their job descriptions and obviously they did not feel comfortable doing it.

 

bang is suggesting there is no difference.

No i'm not.

At all.

I'm suggesting none of this has any place in football in the first place. It's not cheerleading, it's softcore porn dancing.

This is the only concrete thing i've suggested at all.

I never once implied they asked for it, should expect it, or should deal with it.

what i am implying is that none of this has a place in football to begin with.

 

as to what happened down in costa rica, i think the 'understanding' problem we have here is you have failed to understand my entire point. I never once said that there is no difference. I have said numerous times that I hope they sue the team and the NFL forces Snyder to sell.

 

My ONLY point toward the women is that they aren't very far from the line that is crossed already. The photos show that. This is how they become "cheerleaders". They have to show as much skin as possible, pose to show their tits and their asses just rigt, and hey, even pose as if some lesbian activity is about to start..   you pull my string and i'll pull yours.

Get rid of the titty dancers with pompoms in the league, and this problem doesn't exist at all. My point is the NFL has no reason to employ this sort of stuff in the first place. They say out of one side of their mouths how they want this to be a family game, and then they give everyone the cheerleaders wearing next to nothing dancing like strippers.

 

I think ANYONE who would put themselves into an industry that's very job description is to wear the tightest smallest thing possible and dance the way they do has put themselves into a position where they can be exploited. And the first step in not being exploited it to not put yourself in such a position. (Which does not absolve the exploiter.)

 

To be clear once more. I hope these women sue Snyder into his grave. If it's true, which i believe it is, it is degrading and reprehensible. Criminal,immoral and disgusting. I want heads to roll.

 

My entire and singular point is this softcore stripping they call cheerleading has no place in the NFL to begin with, and i've felt like that for a long long time. 

 

by the by, it is exploitive when this is what is required to be considered. Again,, this isn't "cheerleading"..  it's dancing with almost nothing on, and what is worn is as tight and small as it can be to accentuate..   .. . I am sure having a pair of shorts splitting your flu is comfortable to dance in, especially when you do the twerks and thrusts.

Rah rah rah.

 

~Bang

 

[JSSkinz]

1 hour ago, thebluefood said:

With a story like this - where rich, powerful, and possibly well known men (or people associated with them) are being accused of this kind of behavior - it's more than reasonable to remain anonymous.

I agree, but another reason to remain anonymous is if you don't have a solid civil or criminal case and going public would violate the NDA they signed in their initial contract. As for the corporate vs average person argument, I get what you are saying and I agree, but with the current movements taking place to confront sex offenders I can't imagine the prominent women's groups and women's right's attorneys letting the Redskins bully these women.

 

Everything else I agree with, by no means am I attacking these women who have gone public with their story, I just want more data.  I can handle the crappy seasons, bad GMs, poor drafts, etc but if we find out something vile took place then I want to know, it may be a deal breaker for me as a fan.

1 hour ago, thebluefood said:

This one's from the NYT - where they implemented even stricter policies two years ago to help prevent anonymous "hatchet jobs" from happening:

 

I think it was smart for them to put that measure in place, IMO the press dodged a major bullet in that case. If the Plaintiff's attorney wasn't disbarred for hiding DNA evidence I think the players would have sued the newspapers once the DNA exonerated them and the court ruled in their favor, now I'm not an attorney but I have watched several episodes of Judge Judy. 

[XtremeFan55]

You know...it just may be the culture under Snyder.   I remember the story of RG3’s pro day in Waco when Snyder, Allen and Shanahan entertained RG3 at a Hooters Restaurant with Allen at the bar talking to the league about the $36 million cap space taken away due to the payment to Haynesworth.   

 

I don’t know...I just can’t picture Gibbs being in a Hooters.   Nor Art Monk...Darrell Green....Charles Mann....etc....

 

the 1980’s Redskins under JKC and Gibbs seemed to represent the area a heck of a lot better than this current group.

 

Allen needs to go to the Raiders and Las Vegas....with their crazy fans.  

 

Then add the stories of Allen drinking in the office against league rules...SMH....

[Spearfeather]

9 minutes ago, XtremeFan55 said:

 

 

I don’t know...I just can’t picture Gibbs being in a Hooters.   Nor Art Monk...Darrell Green....Charles Mann....etc....

 

the 1980’s Redskins under JKC and Gibbs seemed to represent the area a heck of a lot better than this current group.

 

 

Loosen up, Sandy baby.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

@Bang

 

sex sells, the nfl had an interest in selling, so they sell sex.

 

the women who are trying out for cheerleading are fine with selling a version of sex. 

 

Choosing to wear sexy clothing in order to cheerlead at the professional level is not exploitative.

 

*edited for clarity; I use pronouns too much

[XtremeFan55]

4 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Loosen up, Sandy baby.

 

I remember a half time tirade by Gibbs who was flinging oranges around and knocking Gatorade coolers over because the team was behind and not playing good..  The players went back out on the field stunned.  The had never witnessed anyone get that angry before yet not utter a single cuss word.

 

That is the coach I grew up proud of.

 

[Rskins91]

It's interesting. The former cheerleaders on the Today Show are flat out denying most of the NYT report, and one of them made an impassioned Instagram post about her time here and what it meant to her. She brings up some interesting points about how the article is worded.

 

That said, the Today Show interview was done at the behest of the team, and I can't look at that and say that she's completely doing this of her own free will. Yes, she may feel the way she feels, but the fingers on the scale from the team can't be ignored.

 

All the more reason for an independent investigation. I'll say this: The Skins PR is extremely good, which makes this whole thing feel dirtier in my opinion.

[thebluefood]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@Bang

 

sex sells, the nfl had an interest in selling, so they sell sex.

 

the women who are trying out for cheerleading are fine with selling a version of sex. 

 

Not exploitative.

 

 

Oh well, since you put it that way, I guess that's that. I'll make sure to bring this up at my next Union meeting

 

"Hey everyone! @CousinsCowgirl84 on ExtremeSkins says it's not exploitation. It's all good.

 

...Yeah, seriously the CousinCowgirl84!"   

[NewCliche21]

5 minutes ago, Rskins91 said:

It's interesting. The former cheerleaders on the Today Show are flat out denying most of the NYT report, and one of them made an impassioned Instagram post about her time here and what it meant to her. She brings up some interesting points about how the article is worded.

 

That said, the Today Show interview was done at the behest of the team, and I can't look at that and say that she's completely doing this of her own free will. Yes, she may feel the way she feels, but the fingers on the scale from the team can't be ignored.

 

All the more reason for an independent investigation. I'll say this: The Skins PR is extremely good, which makes this whole thing feel dirtier in my opinion.

 

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!"

[daveakl]

Has anyone reached out to Omi to get his thoughts on this?

[WelshSkinsFan]

I saw the comments from the Today show interview too and I sincerely believe Charo and Rachel meant every word and yet I still sincerely believe that the girls the NY Times spoke to meant every word also.

 

Harassment and discrimination are a matter of perception in a lot of cases just as one person can hear a joke and find it funny and another person hearing the same joke is highly offended.  I do think that as Cheer Captains and tenured members of the team Charo and Rachel felt secure enough to deal with any improper behavior and to make their own informed choices about what they were and were not willing to do.  I would imagine as more details emerge it is likely the girls who were uncomfortable with what happened will turn out to have been newer members of the squad without the same confidence and security.  If that is true then it still reflects badly on the team because it is their responsibility to ensure all of their employees feel safe and respected at all times.

 

I imagine an announcement of upcoming workplace harassment training will be made shortly. 

[HardcoreZorn]

4 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

I saw the comments from the Today show interview too and I sincerely believe Charo and Rachel meant every word and yet I still sincerely believe that the girls the NY Times spoke to meant every word also.

 

Harassment and discrimination are a matter of perception in a lot of cases just as one person can hear a joke and find it funny and another person hearing the same joke is highly offended.  I do think that as Cheer Captains and tenured members of the team Charo and Rachel felt secure enough to deal with any improper behavior and to make their own informed choices about what they were and were not willing to do.  I would imagine as more details emerge it is likely the girls who were uncomfortable with what happened will turn out to have been newer members of the squad without the same confidence and security.  If that is true then it still reflects badly on the team because it is their responsibility to ensure all of their employees feel safe and respected at all times.

 

I imagine an announcement of upcoming workplace harassment training will be made shortly. 

That would make sense if Charo and Rachel were coming out and confirming the story but saying "We were fine with it." They're not though. They are saying force, escort, coercion should be stricken from the record and that the NYT featured blatantly false and/or exaggerated claims. Huge difference. 

[Rskins91]

10 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

I saw the comments from the Today show interview too and I sincerely believe Charo and Rachel meant every word and yet I still sincerely believe that the girls the NY Times spoke to meant every word also.

 

Harassment and discrimination are a matter of perception in a lot of cases just as one person can hear a joke and find it funny and another person hearing the same joke is highly offended.  I do think that as Cheer Captains and tenured members of the team Charo and Rachel felt secure enough to deal with any improper behavior and to make their own informed choices about what they were and were not willing to do.  I would imagine as more details emerge it is likely the girls who were uncomfortable with what happened will turn out to have been newer members of the squad without the same confidence and security.  If that is true then it still reflects badly on the team because it is their responsibility to ensure all of their employees feel safe and respected at all times.

 

I imagine an announcement of upcoming workplace harassment training will be made shortly. 

That's a good way of putting it. I can see that situation as you claim.

[Spearfeather]

34 minutes ago, XtremeFan55 said:

 

I remember a half time tirade by Gibbs who was flinging oranges around and knocking Gatorade coolers over because the team was behind and not playing good..  The players went back out on the field stunned.  The had never witnessed anyone get that angry before yet not utter a single cuss word.

 

That is the coach I grew up proud of.

 

 

Sure, we all were, but you mentioned players, and not all of them were squeaky clean in that era either.

[grego]

On 5/2/2018 at 8:19 PM, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Yep you’re right. “Fake news” ?

 

sure mistakes happen but actual Journalists don’t just make up lies and report them for ****s and giggles or to push their agenda.  Good luck holding out for that retraction 

 

They did botch that nail salon exploitation story a few years ago. It's possible. Did they do that in this case? Who knows. 

 

What the ‘Times’ Got Wrong About Nail Salons

Richard Bernstein

 

"How to account for these evident flaws, the one-sidedness of the Times story? Recently the Times’s own Nick Kristof wrote in a column that “one of our worst traits in journalism is that when we have a narrative in our minds, we often plug in anecdotes that confirm it,” and, he might have added, consciously or not, ignore anecdotes and other information that doesn’t. The narrative chosen by the Times, what might be called the narrative of wholesale injustice, is one of the most powerful and tempting in journalism. Certainly, as Mr. Baquet put it, it had “impact.” It was read, he told an audience in mid-June, by 5 million people, which is five times the readership of the Sunday print edition, and produced an immediate government response.

 

But the quest for impact can overwhelm a newspaper’s primary responsibility for accuracy"

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2015/07/25/nail-salons-new-york-times-got-wrong/

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

29 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

Oh well, since you put it that way, I guess that's that. I'll make sure to bring this up at my next Union meeting

 

"Hey everyone! @CousinsCowgirl84 on ExtremeSkins says it's not exploitation. It's all good.

 

...Yeah, seriously the CousinCowgirl84!"   

 

 

I think the only opinion that really matters is the cheerleaders. But being that this is a forum everyone can have an opinion.

 

 

my point is @Bang is suggesting that cheerleaders should not be going around using their hard work, abilities and assets to make money because it sets them up to be taken advantage of.

 

right. I’m sure these creepy men who can’t contril themselves wouldn’t simply find some other victim. It’s what they do.

[Bang]

32 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@Bang

 

sex sells, the nfl had an interest in selling, so they sell sex.

 

the women who are trying out for cheerleading are fine with selling a version of sex. 

 

Not exploitative.

 

 

"Sex sells" is a pretty clear  definition of exploitive.

 

I'm not sure what it is you're arguing with me over.

The NFL doesn't need to sell sex. It does it purely for money. On this we agree.

Just because a person WANTS to be in a certain job doesn't mean the job by definition isn't exploitive. As Mr. Staubach said, some of them may want to do it because they worked hard on their bodies, etc. etc.. and that is true.. but just because they want to fling their ass around with shorts painted onto their crotch doesn't mean it isn't exploitive by the person who decides the best way she could dance was wearing almost nothing, and the choreography that accents it.

The NFL exploits sex to make money off of tits and ass. There is no value added to their product.

 

Unless you're arguing they need it, then i guess we have a discussion,, because i clearly believe they don't. It's a pointless and often tasteless display that is totally counter to their messaging (as are a lot of things they do),

 

I also think that this will only be the opening of a floodgate. I think over the last 48 hours cheerleading coordinators around the league have been grilled on what to say and / or do when one or more of their girls spills the beans. (The Dallas Cowboys have a friggin' PARTY BUS. They ride NFL honchos around in it. A couple of years ago a big flap started because dean Blandino, head of officials, was on it having himself a party with the cheerleaders and other assorted bigwigs.) 

So, this stuff goes on. There's a reason this #MeToo movement has so much swell.. the sheer number of women who have been assaulted or exploited is staggering.. you know them, we all know them. I never did like the cheerleaders in the NFL. Believe me, i'm a red blooded male, but the over the top sexuality of the dancing and clothing, coupled with the atmosphere they are trying to cultivate.. while i'm trying to watch football.. the whole thing has always stunk to me.

 

And now, i think the culture that has been built in this country over how women are objectified is about to change drastically, and the NFL is once again going to find itself in the thick of a big run of **** they could have avoided entirely,, if they never decided to sell sex and exploit skin for money, they would not now be in this embarrassing position.

 

~Bang

[EasternNCbywayofNOVA]

1 hour ago, XtremeFan55 said:

You know...it just may be the culture under Snyder.   I remember the story of RG3’s pro day in Waco when Snyder, Allen and Shanahan entertained RG3 at a Hooters Restaurant with Allen at the bar talking to the league about the $36 million cap space taken away due to the payment to Haynesworth.   

 

I don’t know...I just can’t picture Gibbs being in a Hooters.   Nor Art Monk...Darrell Green....Charles Mann....etc....

 

the 1980’s Redskins under JKC and Gibbs seemed to represent the area a heck of a lot better than this current group.

 

Allen needs to go to the Raiders and Las Vegas....with their crazy fans.  

 

Then add the stories of Allen drinking in the office against league rules...SMH....

Off topic.. to be fair the 80's/90's skins were winning.. that is what they represented... You don't think this culture was around back then? Stories of John Riggins along with other players at local DC bars chugging full bottles of liquor and doing lines in the bathrooms, Darrell Green frequenting Club 55 (Strip Club). The team also had a shed where they drank beer after practice. Let's not act like this culture is new. The technology today is what is new, the 24 hour news cycle. Older players count their blessings there were not cell phone cameras and twitter back then. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I think it is wrong to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body. If she wants to dress sexy, dance in public, and make money, more power too her.

 

of course the easiest way to deal with this issue is just to fire all the cheerleaders, but it won’t anything solve anything.  The best way to solve the issue is to dismiss the men who cross the line.

[Bang]

12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

I think the only opinion that really matters is the cheerleaders. But being that this is a forum everyone can have an opinion.

 

 

my point is @Bang is suggesting that cheerleaders should not be going around using their hard work, abilities and assets to make money because it sets them up to be taken advantage of.

 

right. I’m sure these creepy men who can’t contril themselves wouldn’t simply find some other victim. It’s what they do.

You can stop with the putting words in my mouth. 

The NFL doesn't need it. This is my position. I have never liked it, for all the reasons i mentioned. 

But they can dance anywhere else they want, make a buck however they want, and if the NFL insists on being in the skin industry, then they can dance there, too. I will still think it's stupid, and pointless except to try to mix sex with football. The NFL's product is not in any way enhanced by it being there. And, as is evident by the last 50 years, them being part of the NFL isn't going to turn me from the games, and I am not ever going to mount any sort of protests over them or anything. 

 

Now, is there anything else you haven't understood i need to explain again? Are there some other things i'm saying that i am not aware of that you'd like to fill me in on? I expect my position should be clear enough by now that anyone can follow it.

 

~Bang

[CousinsCowgirl84]

@Bang, you can post what ever you would like, but your suggestion to just get rid of all the cheerleaders does nothing to improve the lives of women. For me, it’s actually sort of arrogant. Just get rid of the people who think forcing them to serve as escorts is a good idea. Why not start there?