Numbness to GameDay misogyny

Submitted by 950_Blue on September 11th, 2017 at 12:10 AM

While at a bar watching Gameday before the Cincinnati game, a female friend of mine commented on the requisite 'Ann Arbor is a whore' sign bobbing up and down in the background. As an 18 year old freshman male, I must confess I found these signs and t-shirts fairly funny, and figured Michigan must be doing something right to get so much attention. In turn, I bought a few of my own that jabbed at the usual suspects while en route to Michigan Stadium and Crisler, and was easily acculturated to yelling about how it was 'all their fault' at Yost.

As a 36 year old, I'm ashamed to say the misogynistic quality of that sign, though similar to several others each week televised on national television, was still lost on me. Male sporting events are no doubt a remaining bastion for easy bigotry and sexism, but they can also be a place for Michigan to lead by example. These signs, t-shirts, and chants aren't ironic, they're not witty, and here's hoping the next generation of Michigan Men and Women uphold a more advanced sense of social awareness than mine did. Perhaps we can listen more closely to the lyrics of another common ritual at every game and show how we really are the Leaders and Best.



September 11th, 2017 at 12:14 AM ^

You are posting this on a board that is full of misogynists. Everyone will jump to deny it, but as one of the 10% female audience, I can attest that the misogyny is pretty bad here. 


September 11th, 2017 at 2:50 AM ^

Op is using a saying that is thrown against Michigan as an insult in order to accuse Michigan of misogyny.

It makes no sense. Go start a thread on RCMB and 11W about why they're using Ann Arbor in a whore context to insult Michigan.

And go find some actual issues to talk about instead of this super first world bullshit at midnight.

901 P

September 11th, 2017 at 8:28 AM ^

You can't spell BiSB without B.S.! 

Actually, I'd cut BiSB (and other mods) some slack. It's got to be pretty tough to determine when things cross the line and have to be deleted. I mean, some things are totally obvious. But there are lots of threads/posts that fall in a grey area--some of us would find them completely out of line, others would find them innocuous. 

Toasted Yosties

September 11th, 2017 at 8:55 AM ^

It's laughable to see him condemn the board like that knowing he's one of the few people that actually has the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Clearly he thinks there is plenty of women-hating behavior occurring on the board. No offense to BiSB, but I'd say he's obliged to do something about it if that's how he feels (unless the higher ups disagree?) Put up a meta thread about what is and isn't allowed here. Draw the lines and enforce them. I remember when certain risqué gifs were banned. The board seemed to have little issue with it. Ban hammer those who don't follow the rules. Get rid of the mysoginists.


September 11th, 2017 at 11:20 AM ^

People do get banned.  This is a volunary position as a moderator.  His job is not to pour over every post to make sure that someone isn't being sexist or racist.  The community is pretty good at flagging that stuff, and when they do it gets dealt with.  And if this thread has taught me anything, it's that if someone were to be scolded or banned because of racist or sexist comments, there would be a calvacade of people bitching and moaning about censorship and safe spaces and all that lazy bullshit.



September 11th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^

Lets break this down to apply a little common sense.

1) She claims that everyone here will deny it

2) She claims that her experience here, as a woman, gives her special relevant knowledge about the situation.

The only way for number 1 to be true is if everyone is either lying or wrong. The only way for number 2 to be true is for men to have some lack of knowledge, as if men are literally less than capable or incapable of understanding or admitting when they are being misogynistic, which is nothing but a purely sexist stance.


September 11th, 2017 at 10:56 AM ^

It's not a sexist stance. Your opinion is utter nonsense. 

Oppression is defined by the oppressed, not the oppressors. So it's not sexist to say that men have less of a point of view into what's misogynistic. We DO have less of an understanding, because we're not oppressed. In fact, we're the oppressors, so it's really easy for us to lose sight of what is sexist. 

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. 



September 11th, 2017 at 11:32 AM ^

Telling a man that he is incapable of interpreting fact because he is a man is sexist. Period. Facts don't care who the oppressor or the oppressed is. Facts don't care what gender you are. 

By your logic anyone claiming to be a victim of a situation has exlusive right to determine that stance and noone else does which creates the logical issue of something being literally unproveable to anyone but the victim and thus implies that we should all just "take their word for it" rather than having rational discourse based on facts.

The Mad Hatter

September 11th, 2017 at 11:47 AM ^

I don't agree with much of what the guy is saying, but it's a little weird that you would waste the time to send an email to the admins asking them to ban someone because you don't like their opinions.

I guess that's just the world we live in now.  You have to agree with me or STFU.

Honestly, this whole thread should be deleted for violating the no-politics rule.


September 11th, 2017 at 12:14 PM ^

You think he's the first person to make any of these arguments? You think I'm the first person to call them out as sexist? 

It's "recognizing" in this instance because it's already been determined that the stuff he's spouting is sexist/misogynist. It's also pretty easy to look at something you've seen before and identify it as the same thing. 

I don't see the issue. 



September 11th, 2017 at 12:33 PM ^

Mad Hatter, what is even worse is that there are many people in society who think this way. Silence anyone whose opinion you disagree with, and they find ways to rationalize that their opinions are "hateful" (which, anything can be labeled hateful nowadays) and that makes it okay.


September 11th, 2017 at 12:57 PM ^

Well what you have is a full on display of the rationality being used. If you arent a part of the disparaged group then your statements are less valid, or the statements of memebrs of the disparaged groups are more valid. This is because the disparaged groups are in a unique position to interpret facts in a way that you are incapable of. If you disagree with my facts then you are racist/sexist/w.e.'ist and my facts are "true" because I'm disparaged and you aren't.

Many college campuses are pushing that posting counter arguments, no matter how factual, to a disparaged group, no matter how factless the disparaged groups arguments are, is considered "microagression" and is the equivalent of assault.

The Mad Hatter

September 11th, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^

I'm a free speech absolutist.  It's honestly the best thing about this country.  I don't know if the founders intended it, but our freedom of speech serves as a pressure relief valve.  Take away that right, or start restricting it, and bad things are going to happen.

The old saying used to be "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Now it seems to be "I hate what you're saying and that makes you an awful person who should just shut the fuck up / go to your safe space / back to your own country, etc"


September 11th, 2017 at 11:47 AM ^

"Facts don't care" is nonsense. In the case of oppression, the "fact" is determined by the oppressed. 

Oppression is a construct of a society, and isn't about an individual. It's about cultural norms and an establishment of what's acceptable and what's not. When a society has been built to oppress a group of people, it ceases to be about an individual. However, individuals within oppressed groups can point out what constitutes oppression.

That's how "the facts" are built. Facts are determined by the most qualified group to make the assertion. In the case of science, for example, it's scientists. In the case of racism, it's victims of racism. And in the case of misogyny, it's women. 

Facts don't exist in a vacuum. To assume otherwise is willfully ignorant.


September 11th, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^

You appear to be saying that "facts" are merely the impression  - or feelings - of the "victim".  The better choice of word then should  be "feelings", rather than "facts".  If I tell a woman that I know that I like her shirt - with utterly no other intention than paying her a compliment, and she receives that intentded compliment instead as act of misogyny, I am not a misogynist.  She is merely overly sensitve, and irrrationally so.  Use of the word "victim" immediately presumes that these people are in fact "victims" of some act, and are the sole arbiter of what constitutes that act.  

If we reduce the judgment of every act to the feelings of the recipient of that act, we have no standards at all for behavior.  There are overly sensitive people of every gender, and we can't turn over all moral authority to them.  There have to be some objective standards.   


September 11th, 2017 at 12:25 PM ^

This statement is rooted so far into nonsense that I can't even come up with a logical counter argument.

Best I can tell is that you think that certain groups have some ability to discern fact that isn't available to the remainder of the population and as a result of that should just be "trusted" as being correct. As a result you've set up the logical premise that literally anyone is capable of claiming oppression or victimhood and anyone not part of that group is capable of claiming otherwise.


Here, lets put your logic to work.


ChiTownWolv is opressing me, as the one being oppressed I have special insight which allows me to determine that this is a factual situation. No one else gets to say otherwise because they do not have the special insight of being oppressed. Since I'm the "oppressed" in this situation I'm capable of poinging out the oppression as I'm the "most qualified group" therefore it is now factually accurate that ChiTownWolv is oppressing me.


September 11th, 2017 at 12:38 PM ^

That isn't putting my logic to work. I said it wasn't about an individual. It would be more like this: 

There are 50,000 ChiTownWolvs and 48,000 PapabearBlues. The ChiTownWolvs have developed a series of norms and cultural constructs that have rendered the PapabearBlues as second-class. A number of the PapabearBlues have noticed this system of oppression, and have begun calling it out. 

The ChiTownWolvs, though, they say the PapabearBlues who are telling them that they're being oppressed are wrong, and everything is fine. 


September 11th, 2017 at 12:51 PM ^

So here's the deal. In your circumstance we have an outside view. The outside view being that Papabearblues are factually second class citizens. It isn't their position as second class citizens to be able to identify this, as many Papabearblues would undoubtedly fail to recognize this. Just like ChiTownWolvs are not incapable of recognizing the facts of the oppression merely because they happen to be a part of the oppressing group.

If a ChiTownWolv says that PapabearBlues are oppressed second class citizens then he isn't wrong, and if PapabearBlues say they aren't second class citizens then he isn't right. The reason for those statements being true is because fact doesn't care about your opinion and it doesnt care whether or not you are in one group or the other. Facts are facts irrelevant to personal opinion and experience.


September 11th, 2017 at 12:59 PM ^

But the PapabearBlues *aren't* second-class citizens. There are just fewer of them. 

If the ChiTownWolvs have a system in place to keep PapabearBlues as second-class, then it is the job of the ChiTownWolvs to dismantle that system. However, they won't want to, because 1) it's ingrained in their reality, and 2) they're regularly benefitting from it.

A ChiTownWolv is going to see calls of oppression as a threat to his sovereignty, while the facts say what's actually happening is that the PapabearBlues are trying to level the playing field. 

Facts are great, and you're right: they don't care who you are. But what changes is our ability to interpret the facts. They exist in a vacuum, but they rely on humans to analyze and apply them. In a landscape where that's the case, I trust those who are oppressed more than those who are part of the oppressing culture. 


September 11th, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^

In your original argument you did say that the Papabear blues are second class citizens. Literally your words.

You are making a pretty big assumption in that you inhererntly believe every victim over every assailant on the assumption that the assailant has a reason to lie while blatantly ignoring that the "victim" is equally capable of lying.

I want to take this one step further. If the PapabearBlues all claimed that they weren't Oppressed, but the ChiTownWolvs all claimed the PapabearBlues were oppressed would that make the oppression any less factual?

If there is a law that says that all PPB's should make 5% less than all CTW's, and that No PPB should be hired before a CTW regardless of qualification. Would it not be factual oppression if the PPB's all said that it wasn't oppression? Are the CTW's incapable of discerning this as factual oppression?


September 11th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^

No, my words were that a system was in place to *render* the PBBs as second class. That doesn't mean they should be. 

And again, you are making this about individuals. This isn't an individual thing. It's cultural. Breaking it down to "one victim" and "one assailant" is missing the point. Example: you can do something sexist without *being* sexist. That's the nature of unconscious bias. 

You don't intend for it to be a sexist act, necessarily, but it's part of the culture that demeans and subjugates women. It's not about what you thought you were doing. Rather, it's about its societal context that you may or may not believe in. 


September 11th, 2017 at 2:23 PM ^

One can not be rendered to that thing and not be that thing. If you are rendered to something you are the something you've been rendered to.


This is the issue with identity politics right here. You keep wanting to make it about groups when life is never about groups. What happens when you play to groups is that you inadvertantly apply guilt to the innocent and innocence to the guilty.


You are effectively arguing that all men are incapable of perceiving facts because the majority of men are incapable of perceiving facts -OR- that all women are capable of perceiving facts because the majority of women are capable of perceiving facts. Which is absolutely the definition of sexism and absolutely not rooted in any sort of factual reality. It's also why you absolutely HAVE to view things at the individual level.


September 11th, 2017 at 2:42 PM ^

That's not what I'm arguing at all. 

There are cultural tropes and norms that are, at their core, oppressive to women. Women are disproportionately affected by them, so they can easily identify them. Men are participants in a society that has its roots in oppressing women through no fault of their own. However, men can't identify these problems as well as women, because women are the ones affected by them. 

A man can do something that's consistent with oppressive culture without meaning it. I view women as equals and I'm regularly guilty of it. I'm sure you also view women as equals. But what you're doing is denying the point of view of an oppressed group. 

There are TONS of studies about unconscious bias. It's a real thing. So what does it mean? It means we do things that are based in cultural norms that serve to further oppress marginalized groups. 

So, to your point: the majority of women are capable of perceiving facts about the oppression of women, because they are the ones affected by it. 

As far as "rendered," I was trying to say they have rendered them as *being treated as* second class, despite their equal value. But I'll concede the semantic point.


September 11th, 2017 at 3:00 PM ^

You seem to think that facts have bias. They don't. Facts are facts. If you think that we should ignore facts because they weren't stated by the majority, or rather because the ARE stated by the majority then I'm not really sure this discussion can go any further.

There's danger in both behaviours but at least mine attempts to find truth from all sides rather than silence truth from the "majority" by claiming that it can't be truth because it comes form the majority.


September 11th, 2017 at 3:06 PM ^

No, facts don't have bias. Our interpretations of facts, however, DO. Also, I don't think what I stated here are majority opinions, especially based on the downvotes.

I don't disagree that facts are facts. What I believe, though, is that people are less likely to interpret facts correctly if they believe it says something negative about them. If it casts them as the "villain" (not the actual villain, but the perceived one), then people are not going to accept the results of those facts. 

That's why women are better equipped to say what constitutes oppression. They are the ones who it affects, and men are the ones who have created the culture. Individual men within the culture need to listen to women when it comes to sexism, because it's not about what men are TRYING to do. It's about the way the culture has implanted itself in public consciousness. 

Objective, black-and-white facts are great, but there aren't enough of them in this world. Hell, people get Nobel Prizes just for establishing a fact.