Cheerleaders: Fact vs Fiction

Intro
Jessica Corsetti, a former cheerleader herself, has first-hand experience with people

making assumptions about her because of her sport. In her article, 9 Things You Never Knew

Were Totally Wrong About Cheerleaders, Corsetti lists 9 common misconceptions about

cheerleaders, and argues their incorrectness. In building her argument, Corsetti gives herself

credibility through the use of personal facts and insider knowledge, makes appeals designed to

target her audiences sense of logic, and subtly uses emotion to persuade readers to share her

feelings; additionally, she utilizes GIF imagery to further support her claims.

Ethos Analysis
Within the first two sentences, Corsetti begins to establish her ethos: Every time I tell

people I was a cheerleader, I get a mixture of Seriously? You dont seem like the type and

Why? Both of those things are pretty rude to say, but what is the cheerleader type

anyway? (Corsetti). By starting off her article this way, Corsetti immediately tells her audience

that she was once a cheerleader, giving her credibility as a former athlete. She also shows that

she has experienced, first-hand, the assumptions people make about cheerleaders.

Corsetti opens her article by telling her audience about her status as a former cheerleader.

She utilizes the same technique in her eighth point, which is about the assumption that all

cheerleaders are coordinated, using her own personal experiences as evidence to support her

argument. She begins by stating, I am the classic example of an uncoordinated cheerleader.

(Corsetti). Including this reminds her readers that she is knowledgeable on the subject as a

former cheerleader. It also works well because she included this reminder towards the end of her
article, making sure that the I formation remained fresh the audiences mind as the article comes

to a close.

Corsetti continues to utilize this technique, displaying her knowledge about cheerleaders,

to help support her argument. In her second point, she breaks down the stereotype of

cheerleaders being stupid, stating that To be on a schools athletic team, you have to have a

certain GPA. (Corsetti). Most athletes of a school are aware of this, but for the average person

with no real knowledge in what goes on behind the scenes, this is new information. When

arguing in her sixth point that cheerleaders wear their uniforms all the time she tells the

audience You wear your uniform on game days. (Corsetti). If all of someones information on

cheerleaders stems from Bring it On, then they would not be aware of the fact that cheerleaders

dont wear their uniforms all the time. Again, Corsetti provides information that one really only

knows if they are an athlete. The information she provides serves to show that as a former

cheerleader, Corsetti is knowledgeable on the subject.

Along with using her ex-cheerleader status to build her credibility, Corsetti uses humor to

help establish her ethos. Her writing style is sarcastic and humorous, helping her to connect with

her audience. In her first point which is about cheerleaders not being considered athletes

Corsetti says, LOL O K A Y. Whether you believe it or not, cheerleading IS indeed a sport.

(Corsetti). The text speak and sarcastic way she wrote it is both entertaining, and strategic. The

humor keeps her audience engaged, and builds a connection between her and her audience. This

is a classic move when it comes to establishing ones ethos. Another big part of her humor, is her

use of GIFs. She primarily uses them in a satirical way, showing the ridiculousness of the

stereotype while also making the article funnier and more enjoyable to read.
Audience, Setting, Style
Audience and Setting
The article itself is very informal; however, the platform it is posted on (gurl.com) is, too.

Gurl.com is not a place people go to read scholarly journals. It is a place for articles with casual

subjects, such as Corsettis. With the setting being as informal as it is, Corsettis unique style fits

well. However, it should be acknowledged that though engaging and entertaining, if the setting

were not as casual as it is, the article would be deemed immature and unprofessional

destroying any credibility Corsetti has. That being said, when considering the setting in which

the article itself is posted, and who her target audience is, the way she wrote it was a well-done

strategic move. The short-n-sweet list formatting, entertaining GIFs, and, overall, humorous style

and tone keeps readers interested. It also helps with preventing from turning readers away.

Visuals
A large part of Corsettis argument takes place though the use of visuals. She includes

one with every point, and they play a large role in supporting her arguments. Though mostly

used to make fun of the assumptions and add humor

Corsetti does occasionally use them sincerely, adding visual evidence to support her argument.

In her first point, she argues against the stereotype that cheerleaders are not athletes, also

including a GIF showing three elite basket tosses. In her argument she says, Most squads

(especially competition squads) are in the weight room because, you know, stunts require lifting

and throwing PEOPLE. (Corsetti).

Double tap to view GIF

This display of skill directly contradicts the notion that cheerleaders arent athletes. It also

supports Corsettis statement about how stunts require lifting and throwing PEOPLE.

(Corsetti).
 Another moment where Corsetti intends for a GIF to act as genuine evidence, is in her

eighth point, in which she rebukes the assumption that all cheerleaders are coordinated. Not only

does she provide evidence by using herself as an example, she also includes a GIF in which an

accident happen due to an uncoordinated cheerleader:

Double tap to view GIF

Corsettis goal is to contradict the idea that all cheerleaders are coordinated. The GIF acts as

evidence to help her support her claim.

Pathos Analysis
Irritation
From the article, one can clearly see that Corsetti deeply believes in what she is trying to

convey. She is careful in the techniques she uses to persuade her audience, making sure not to

come off too strong with her argument. Had she simply gone and expressed her irritation,

indignation, anger, etc., it would have completely detracted from the point she was trying to

make. Instead, she subtly utilizes pathos to entice readers into sharing her feelings.

In her first point, Corsetti argues that cheerleaders are athletes while detailing the level of

athleticism the sport requires:

 LOL O K A Y. Whether you believe it or not, cheerleading IS indeed a sport. And it

requires a great deal of athleticism. Most squads (especially competition squads) are in

the weight room because, you know, stunts require lifting and throwing PEOPLE. We

used to have two-a-day practices! Oh, and cheerleading has the most athletic injuries of

any sport. (Corsetti).

Her argument here is sarcastic, facetious, and entertaining. Above all of that though, she makes

very good use pathos, subtly manipulating her audiences emotions. After reading her argument,

one can better understand and feel how frustrating it is to be denied recognition of ones skills.

Corsetti also makes use of subtle pathos in her fifth point. She talks about her annoyance

with how cheerleaders are always portrayed as coach-less, and able to do whatever they want:

One of my biggest gripes with the portrayal of cheerleaders is that they never seem to

have a coach and just do whatever they feel like doing. You cannot be a legitimate school

team if you dont have a coach. (Corsetti).

Her annoyance at the faulty portrayal is evident and makes for a really good way to connect with

her audience. In order to be a legitimate school team, there must be a coach, if not more than

one. With cheerleaders consistently depicted as this group of individuals doing whatever they

please, it delegitimizes the sport and its athletes. The audience connects with Corsetti, and shares

her feelings of irritation, not just at having ones skills and sport denied, but by that denial being

caused by inaccurate representation.

Fallacy
Corsetti does a really good job of not letting her personal feelings take over when she is

debunking the assumptions; however, there is one occasion where she lets go a bit too much.
 It happens when she is arguing her first point. She starts out well, talking about the

athleticism cheerleading takes smartly giving the example of weight training for tosses, as well

as including a persuasive visual in the form of a GIF of back-full basket tosses. Her irritation at

the skill cheerleading requires being ignored is just enough to influence the audience to share

those feelings. She follows up these great examples and visual by saying, We used to have two-

a-day practices! (Corsetti). She had been subtly appealing to pathos, letting the audience feel

her irritation, and influencing them to share her feelings. With the way she mentions two-a-day

practices, she goes from being an athlete who is irritated at not being recognized, to a whiner.

Many athletes have to do two-a-day practices, so the incredulity of the sentence detracts from her

argument that cheerleaders are serious athletes.

Corsettis mistake is small, but by finishing the sentence with an exclamation point, she

sounds more like she is complaining than stating. The sentence itself is fine, but it would have

worked better for her purposes if she had used a period.

Logos Analysis
In the article, Corsetti uses a lot of artistic logos moves. Her arguments often point out the

ridiculousness of the assumptions, making her arguments appear as common sense. She often

does this by utilizing sarcasm to make her point. Corsettis argument in her third point is a prime

example: Some cheerleaders are mean, but anyone can be mean. Its not like being a jerk is a

requirement for joining a squad. Thats ridiculous. (Corsetti). By phrasing it the way she did,

Corsetti really highlights just how ridiculous the assumption is. Her sarcastic style really

emphasizes it, and for her audience, her argument really does appear to be common sense.

Another moment of logos is her argument in her final point. Arguing against the claim that

cheerleaders are sluts, Corsetti shows the true foolishness of the assumption: being a
cheerleader does not make you anymore sexually active than anyone else. Its not like you put a

cheerleading uniform on and suddenly start having sex with everyone in sight. Corsetti). Once

again, Corsettis phrasing and tone show the ridiculousness of the statement, in a way that makes

the audience see it as plain logic.

Her argument in her sixth point differs from the rest, in that she does not really utilize

sarcasm. Instead of her usual wit and sass, Corsetti elects to plainly state her argument against

the assumption: You wear your uniform on game days. Cheerleading uniforms really arent that

comfortable so I dont know why anyone would even want to wear it every day. (Corsetti). The

argument also has slight tone of confusion, in that Corsetti sounds as though she truly doesnt

understand why people believe the stereotype to be true. It also reads as though there is also an

invisible DUH at the end, making it appear as though what she says is obvious, and should be

common knowledge. The tactic works well in that it makes readers pause and say, yea . . . that

really doesnt make sense.

Though she mostly used artistic proofs, Corsetti does make a couple attempts to use inartistic

proofs as well. In her first point, Corsetti makes a solid argument against the stereotype that

cheerleaders arent athletes. She finishes her claim by saying, Oh, and cheerleading has the

most athletic injuries of any sport. (Corsetti). The idea that cheerleading may be more

dangerous than say, football, would boggle some peoples minds. Ending on that point makes

readers pause, and reevaluate what they know about cheer and cheerleaders. Also, since it is

something most people would never expect to hear, it leaves them more open to the rest of the

article, and what Corsetti has to say.

Corsetti also attempts to make an inartistic logos move in her second point. In rebuttal of the

stereotype that cheerleaders are stupid, Corsetti says, To be on a schools athletic team, you
have to have a certain GPA. (Corsetti). This helps support her claim, as it tells the audience that

in order to maintain their status as school athletes, cheerleaders must also maintain their grades.

It also goes back to supporting her claim that cheerleaders are athletes. Athletes have to meet

certain GPA requirements. Cheerleaders also have to meet these requirements; therefore,

cheerleaders are athletes.

Fallacies
Corsetti avoids making hasty generalizations through the use of qualifiers. There are several

instances where she disputes an assumption by making it clear she does not mean all

cheerleaders.

While talking about the athleticism cheerleading requires, Corsetti says, Most squads

(especially competition squads) are in the weight room because, you know, stunts require lifting

and throwing PEOPLE. (Corsetti). She uses most to show that while there are teams that do

have weight room training, there are other that do not.

She does it again in her third point stating that Some cheerleaders are mean, but anyone can

be mean. (Corsetti). In that sentence she uses some to show that she is not trying the claim

that all cheerleaders are nice.

Corsettis last final use of a qualifier, is in her fourth point. She starts her argument off by

saying, While I know a few cheerleaders who exclusively hung out with their squad, I know

plenty who didnt. (Corsetti). The few allows her to make a legitimate claim to support her

argument. Corsettis acknowledgement that the stereotypes hold true for some people strengthens

her claims, as it means she has taken away the opportunity for someone else to dismantle her

arguments.
 It should also be noted, that though not fallacious, Corsetti does make the mistake of not

providing evidence to support her facts. Had she cited where she got her information from, it

would make it harder to question and dispute her claims, regardless of the fact that she is correct.