The Greyhound Editorial: Don't label me, Bro
Issue date: 2/2/10 Section: Opinion
If you've been clicking around the Internet this week, you might have come across a certain article by a Waffles McButter. Mr. McButter, who writes for BroBible.com, recently profiled the women of the Evergreen campus for his weekly College Chick Breakdowns column.
Noting that our campus is "filled with absolute stunners," McButter used the ever-reliable number system to further explain how Loyola is "chock-full of 8's, 9's, and 10's," and is, therefore, "the place for you and your c--." And how could it not be? According to McButter, our "chicks" might "seem innocent and pure to the naked eye, but … they are always ready to be naughty." Just give those girls "a few liters of booze" and - Catholicism and all - "inhibitions and morals fly out the window."
A number of words come to mind when first reading Waffles McButter's assessment of Loyola's women. Reprehensible. Repugnant. Childish. The labeling? Tacky. The delivery? Unoriginal. The blatant objectification? Its juvenility rests in its utter lack of subtlety.
But, then again, that's the point of McButter's BroBible article. And all students at Loyola, women and men alike, have a right to be - and ought to be - incensed and embarrassed at the claims McButter makes. But a deeper question, and quite possibly the question we need to be asking ourselves, is how much of McButter's article is true, not only for Loyola women, but for Loyola men as well?
To be sure, this is no defense by The Greyhound of McButter's College Chick Breakdowns column. But to what degree does McButter have a point? Everyone who attends Loyola knows what a typical Friday night is like for many students. The endless lines of cabs. The short dresses. Abercrombie button-downs and $2 Bud Light bottles. And then whatever happens after students retreat from the bar scene back to campus.
It is all material for McButter's column.
And so, as students, we certainly have a right to be angry at BroBible.com for explicitly labeling Loyola women and implicitly labeling Loyola men. But we ought to ask ourselves how much of this anger is faux anger, frustration at the fact that someone chose to criticize our behavior publicly, and how much of this anger is rooted in embarrassment, frustration at the fact that we know we can be better than McButter's article.
Walking into Humanities, there's a Latin phrase on the wall that translates in English to "deeds, not words." At the end of the day, McButter's lines - and our complaints about it - are just words. But our deeds - how we act - are what give credence to either McButter's assessment, or our objections to his piece.
Noting that our campus is "filled with absolute stunners," McButter used the ever-reliable number system to further explain how Loyola is "chock-full of 8's, 9's, and 10's," and is, therefore, "the place for you and your c--." And how could it not be? According to McButter, our "chicks" might "seem innocent and pure to the naked eye, but … they are always ready to be naughty." Just give those girls "a few liters of booze" and - Catholicism and all - "inhibitions and morals fly out the window."
A number of words come to mind when first reading Waffles McButter's assessment of Loyola's women. Reprehensible. Repugnant. Childish. The labeling? Tacky. The delivery? Unoriginal. The blatant objectification? Its juvenility rests in its utter lack of subtlety.
But, then again, that's the point of McButter's BroBible article. And all students at Loyola, women and men alike, have a right to be - and ought to be - incensed and embarrassed at the claims McButter makes. But a deeper question, and quite possibly the question we need to be asking ourselves, is how much of McButter's article is true, not only for Loyola women, but for Loyola men as well?
To be sure, this is no defense by The Greyhound of McButter's College Chick Breakdowns column. But to what degree does McButter have a point? Everyone who attends Loyola knows what a typical Friday night is like for many students. The endless lines of cabs. The short dresses. Abercrombie button-downs and $2 Bud Light bottles. And then whatever happens after students retreat from the bar scene back to campus.
It is all material for McButter's column.
And so, as students, we certainly have a right to be angry at BroBible.com for explicitly labeling Loyola women and implicitly labeling Loyola men. But we ought to ask ourselves how much of this anger is faux anger, frustration at the fact that someone chose to criticize our behavior publicly, and how much of this anger is rooted in embarrassment, frustration at the fact that we know we can be better than McButter's article.
Walking into Humanities, there's a Latin phrase on the wall that translates in English to "deeds, not words." At the end of the day, McButter's lines - and our complaints about it - are just words. But our deeds - how we act - are what give credence to either McButter's assessment, or our objections to his piece.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Mark Adams
posted 2/02/10 @ 7:55 AM EST
Before you become too indignant about Waffles McButter, you should think about the piece your own paper is running about the cast of Jersey Shore coming to Baltimore. (Continued…)
anonymous
posted 2/02/10 @ 11:01 AM EST
I thought this article was very well written. It not only highlighted the reaction to the brobible article, but it showed why we might react like this. (Continued…)
Post a Comment