Conservatives shouldn't be so easily outraged, especially over male cheerleaders

Miami Herald

11 hours ago

When I was in high school, I had a social studies teacher who was a male cheerleader in college. So when the Minnesota Vikings announced that Louie Conn and Blaize Shiek — two male cheerleaders — were joining their cheerleading roster for the upcoming football season, I didn't give it a thought.
But some fellow conservatives had a different response about the Vikings' announcement: outrage.
I understand the concern. Some see male NFL cheerleaders as another example where traditional gender roles are being dismantled. These concerns aren't without merit; I support traditional gender roles.
But cultural evolution is not the same as cultural destruction. Not every shift in American culture signals moral collapse. Some are signs of a pluralistic society in which individuals can pursue their own interests.
Male cheerleaders in the NFL aren't new. According to NBC News, roughly a third of NFL teams have men on their cheerleading rosters including the Philadelphia Eagles, the New England Patriots, the Baltimore Ravens, the Kansas City Chiefs, the New Orleans Saints and the San Francisco 49ers.
In 2018, the Los Angeles Rams announced the first-ever male cheerleaders in the NFL. So why the sudden outrage in 2025?
Fox News host Tomi Lahren posted on X, 'I'm sorry, but I don't get the outrage over the male cheerleaders. Who cares?' She added that, 'It's not necessary for conservatives to be outraged over absolutely everything.'
I agree. There is a cost for treating every cultural shift as a five-alarm fire. Like the boy who cried wolf, there is a risk of losing credibility when people stop listening.
We cannot set our hair on fire over every ebb and flow in society. Otherwise, we'll be bald and tired.
Social media only amplifies this problem by creating a false sense of urgency around viral campaigns or news items. Sydney Sweeney's blue jeans? John Stamos at Mar-a-Lago? Male cheerleaders in the NFL? The outrage machine is fired up and moral panic sets in.
But is this the hill we want to die on? I don't think so.
When critics such as Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, argue that '...the NFL continues their war on their fans. This isn't 2020,' the response seems a bit drastic and out of proportion.
Most football fans tune in to watch the game and cheer on their team all the way to the end zone. The cheerleaders are fun to watch, but they're not the main attraction. The notion that two male cheerleaders will somehow derail an entire football game isn't serious.
This kind of reflexive outrage only fuels the perception that conservatives remain in a constant state of fury and are incapable of distinguishing between real threats to American democracy and small cultural shifts.
Some will argue that every cultural shift matters. But there's a difference between defending core principles and policing expressions of individual choice.
Instead of wasting energy on outrage, conservatives should focus on what matters. Republicans have control of Congress and the White House, and there's a real opportunity to deliver on things voters care about such as affordability and comprehensive immigration reform.
Outrage has its place. When constitutional rights are undermined or in times of government overreach, conservatives should be unapologetically vocal. But male cheerleaders on the Vikings? That's not it.
We don't need to be outraged at every turn. Picking and choosing when to hold the line isn't about compromising values, it's about being strategic and knowing when the fight actually matters. Every minute spent outraged about male cheerleaders is a minute lost focusing on championing policies that affect our communities. That's a trade off we can't afford.
Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: [e-mail]