“No one cares about misogyny, bring on the biddies”

Hey everyone,

Firstly, for those who identify as Christian, happy Easter. For everyone else, happy Sunday!

For those of you however who are women, love women, are feminist, have mothers, sisters, etc. AND go to/support JMU today isn’t really such a happy day. As most of you, I’m sure, know, there is a video on youtube entitled “Bitty City: The JMU Anthem” which essentially says, all girls at JMU are whores/sluts/only here for the pleasure of men.

I’ve placed the video here for those of you who haven’t seen it.

(also for those of you not planning to read on, please read the comment section of the video and form and voice your thoughts on the comments the video have received.)

After watching this video I became enraged because I know, as I’m sure most of you do, that the girls at JMU are far more than “biddies”. We are strong educated women who have made the University proud. Unfortunately, the video, instead of highlighting any of these qualities about the talented women at JMU, lumps ALL 70% OF THE UNIVERSITY into the category of a “plethora of drunken whores”. The video advocates the 70/30 ratio of females to males at the university because they believe that that is more helpful for men…who want to have sex…every night. So really, according to the video, the only reason for any of the girls to be at JMU (yes even the lesbians) is to be objectified and used by men for sex.

There are two identifiable problems with this issue, the first being that the two guys who made this song adopt the archaic stereotype that women should be chaste. While singing about the sexual freedom, they are at the same time singing about the sexual repression of the “sluts” “whores” and “biddies” at JMU. The men can have sex with as many “biddies” as they want, but each and every girl at JMU who has sex is a “drunken whore”.

The next, and probably most crucial issue, is that of misogyny. The video in question advocates sex with “drunken whores” which for those of you who aren’t familiar with the law, is rape. Anyone with an altered state of mind (i.e. drunk) cannot legally consent to have sex. The guys sing “jokingly” about how all the drunk girls are grinding on guys and walls etc., but fail to mention all of the guys standing in the corners scoping out the drunkest girl at the party to try and take home. We’ve all seen them too. They are a far bigger issue then “biddies”.  The guys in this video sing right around date rape as if it doesn’t exist at JMU, which I hate to tell you, is NOT TRUE. 1/4 women at EVERY college campus will experience sexual assault. That means that 1/4 of the 70% of the population you’re singing about gentlemen (ha ha) has been a victim of guys with your same mentality.

As those still reading have noticed, I can not keep my opinions to myself, and therefore I created an account at youtube so write a comment against this video. What I found when I got to the comment section was shocking:

  • Only here at JMU could “plethora” and “drunken whores” be used in the same sentence. You guys rock, keep it up.

    TheAlbertoknox 1 week ago 6
  • no one gives a fuck about misogyny. bring on the bitties!

    BKMaverick1990 15 hours ago

@BKMaverick1990 lots of people care about misogyny, like rape victims, women killed by abusive husbands, and their families, etc.

  • smith3kl21 minutes ago
  • 1. Its biddie not bitty.

    2. Though I do not deny there is a relatively large number of biddies, JMU is not a Biddie City.

    3. It is songs like this and men like the both of you, that lead the majority of female students, UGGs and all, to claim there are no good guys at JMU.

    D0cm00n 16 hours ago
  • This comment has received too many negative votes :

    my problem with this song, besides the obvious misogyny, is that you say “they’re all the same” my guess is that there are far more girls kicking your ass in the scholastic arena then sucking your dicks or being “hoes”. just a guess.

    smith3kl 19 hours ago
  • There is so much truth in this song. But its so good.

    UrSideKickisEMO 2 days ago
  • so so true and so fucking awesome

    oldestsis18 4 days ago
  • loooved it and it’s so true.

    bursonkm 1 week ago
  • Love this!

    TheTeamAM 1 week ago

So there you go folks, people who “love this” and don’t care about misogyny are hailed while those of us who see this video for what it is, get “voted down”.

Every woman at JMU should take offense to this video. It doesn’t matter if all those thing sound “true”, they’re not. We are not all “biddies”, we make this university what it is. Without us they are left with only 30% of their students, most of which, from the sound of the video, are only here to get “laid”, meaning that many of them will leave too once the girls are gone (though an entirely gay population at JMU WOULD BE AWESOME!). Women are an integral majority of the population here at JMU and the fact that we are still experiencing this level of oppression is staggering. If you know a woman at JMU who does not fit the stereotype purveyed in this video, post a comment opposing it.

18 thoughts on ““No one cares about misogyny, bring on the biddies”

  1. I found the song to be quite funny with a host of social commentary. I find it obvious that they are criticizing the “bro” stereotype (rather mercilessly, I might add), which I think is good. The fact that several of the commenters express misogynistic sentiments doesn’t detract from the fact that it is quite satirical. In fact, I think the joke is on the moron bros who think it’s some sort of anthem for them.

    I must admit, a lot of students at JMU seem to take pleasure in being un-intellectual or even anti-intellectual. As JMU is a place of higher learning, I am concerned that this kind of nihilistic hedonism (yes, I said it) will have bad effects on our generation. “Bros” and “biddies” are simply stereotypical exponents of this troublesome anti-movement. Who hasn’t heard someone talking about some sexual encounter when walking around or someone bragging about how drunk he got at a party?

    Just as Jonathan Swift did not actually intend for the English to eat babies, I am certain the authors of this song do not advocate the behavior they describe. The fact that YouTube commentators don’t see the satire shouldn’t take away from the humor; after all, a bunch of feminists are too blinded by ideology to see the humor, either.

    Like

  2. Mark,

    Though the “artists”, and I use that term rather lightly, may be trying to hide behind satire both you and they seem to misconstrue the meaning of satire. The example you cite from Swift’s A Modern Proposal is indeed a work of satire which is clearly indicated by the extremity of the situation he uses. The problem with this video is that it portrays a situation that CLEARLY is not presented in a fashion that can be identified by anyone as satirical. Your argument is that the video is supposed to satirize “bros” at JMU, however, the video does even address the “bros” it focuses all of its attention and energy on the “hoes” (as is obvious considering the title is “Bitty City” not “Bro Central” or something along those lines). The video is at best a horrific attempt at satire that marginalizes the majority of the students at JMU. After watching the video no one comes away saying, “my aren’t those bros silly and misogynistic” they come away thinking “damn I want to bag me a biddie”. This is the problem with the video. The additional issue I take with the video is the fact that it denotes itself the “Anthem of JMU”. If this is in fact the anthem of JMU I’d like to transfer, and since you clearly seem to be an intelligent guy I would suggest you do the same. Oh and as for being blinded by ideology, I think it would be who of you to look at yourself and see whether or not you think you’ve internalized any of the ideologies that are set forth by society about women.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Congratulations. You are attempting to extrapolate views from a comedic song that have no bearing on what the creators had in mind. I hope you understand that the accusation of discrimination only serves to perpetuate it, especially when it is undeserved. I am extremely disappointed that THIS is the issue you choose to tackle as a feminist supporter, rather than deal with the recent speaker Kate Obenshain, who, like you, I sadly note, uses straw man arguments to make erroneous points. The difference is, while hers create a false definition of modern feminism and then proceeds to lambaste it easily (as it is defined in a way that is so blatantly negative and easily torn apart, hence straw man), you create a false definition of discrimination within a CLEARLY comedic song (there is no question, how the hell can you take this song seriously? These are the same people who parodied Friday for JMU. Grow up) and then proceed to base you arguments around that.

    Way to represent your views with integrity. I’m disappointed.

    Like

  4. Dan,

    I’m very confused about your comment. You make multiple blanket statements about my lack of integrity and lack of understanding of both the video and feminism, but your arguments lack any grounding for an adequate rebuttal. As you can clearly see from the comments posted on the video most people are taking this video seriously. Regardless of their intentions, the “artists” have created something that has solicited an incredibly negative response. I also believe that you are a tad hypocritical in accusing me of a straw-man error in argumentation when you are very clearly using Kate Obenshain and her recent visit as a distraction from your argument against this post. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend her event because I have class on MW until 9pm, so it would have been unfair and unfounded for me to comment on her presentation. However, if you would like to write a post about it I would be thrilled to give you the contact information of the administrator of the blog. I would be very interested in hearing your views on feminism and specifically on Ms. Obenshain’s appearance.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Dan,

    I wonder then if you find racist jokes funny? Would you be defending “jokes” that are clearly racist because “they’re just joking so chill out.” I don’t think so. So why is it okay when “hoes” are made fun of? Because that’s the norm and you’re too brainwashed to see how this negatively effects women on our campus.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I believe this video, and maybe even this exchange, highlights the problem that Dr. Susan Douglas was criticizing with her lecture on embedded feminism and enlightened sexism. Irony or satire are not effective in these circumstances precisely because of their ambiguity. The wink-wink, nudge-nudge allows one to back-door sexist, patriarchal or otherwise bigoted perspectives under the guise of humor; hence the ENLIGHTENED in enlightened sexism.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I question the “1 in 4” statistic, particularly at JMU. According to the college board, JMU has 17,657 undergraduates – 62% of which are women and 38% of which are men. That means that there are 12,007 Women at JMU. if 1/4 of the women at JMU have been sexually assaulted, that means that there have been at least 3002 cases of sexual assault. That being said, using the above data, there must be 5650 men at JMU. How can there be 5650 men at JMU, and only 3002 cases of sexual assault? That fraction of assaulted women must be a lot higher – at least 1/3 or even 3/7.

    Like

    1. Actually, according to a friend of mine at CARE (Campus Assault Response), their official statistic for instances of sexual assault on specifically our campus is 1 in 4 women.

      Like

    2. Simple answer: the statistic is made up. The surveys that come up with the 1:4 statistics are ambiguous in what they consider sexual assault and rape, and thus count women as victims who are not victims. For example, the way the questions are worded allow for women to be flagged as rape victims if they had a one night stand and later regretted it. In the early days of these surveys, they asked women if they thought they had been raped, and very few said they thought so. (Naturally, the feminists assumed that this was evidence of “the patriarchy” having brainwashed women about rape, and thus concluded that the vast majority of what they considered rape victims were simply unaware of their victimhood.) The actual statistics for actual rape are much closer to between 1:48 and 1:50. Still, if we were to assume that the 1:4 statistic was actually correct (which it isn’t), then it’s very likely that 20% of the rapists are doing 80% of the rape (see the Pareto Principle), which should answer your question.

      Like

      1. Mark,

        Please refrain from posting these types of comments without proper documentation of your facts. Everyone else has cited credible sources for their information. Your statistics are also faulty considering the large number of women who experience sexual assault and fail to report it and also the large number of sexual assaults that never make it to court because they are settled privately.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I didn’t have time to deeply analyze the article you cited, but the main problem with her argument is that she is misconstruing the 1 in 4 statistic. The 1 in 4 statistic is for sexual assault which includes but is not limited to rape. Her definition has to do with penetration and the study she cites deals with women and their willingness to identify as a victim. There are many kinds of sexual assault that do not have to include penetration (grab assing, threats of sexual assault, coerced or forced hand-jobs, etc.). Additionally, whether or not women will personally identify as a victim of rape has no bearing on whether or not they were actually raped. Not every woman wants that stigma attached to them.

        These were just the problems I found at a first glance.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php

    And also

    http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault

    **Both of the above listed sites are credible sources on sexual abuse statistics.

    I am a little confused as to what you are referring to when you say “That being said, using the above data, there must be 5650 men at JMU”. Do you mean that using the same statistic there would be 5,650 men who are sexually assaulted at JMU, or that there are 5,650 men who commit sexual assaults at JMU? If it is the former, the statistic for men being sexually assaulted is 1/11. If it is the latter, that doesn’t leave room for repeat offenders. If I misread your comment I apologize, please feel free to clarify.

    Like

  9. I think Paul’s comment is on target here. The intention of the producers of the video is only one aspect of the message and in my view, not as important as how the video is used by viewers. Poorly crafted satire or irony meant as social commentary (even well-crafted satire) is often interpreted and promoted as speaking some truth to be celebrated – highlighted by the rounds of comments on YouTube that this song is “so true” – allowing audiences to repost the message free from accountability of its content, because “it’s all just a joke,” I mean really, “grow up”. . . diminishing and silencing the possibility of any type of critique or alternative read that others might have. This is emerging in the discussion comments here, in attempts to characterize the song as not worthy of feminist critique – because really, it’s “CLEARLY just a comedic song” – pointing to more worthwhile subject matter like Kate Obenshain’s talk, thus crafting a fallacious argument that comedy isn’t up for grabs to interrogate. One possible interpretation of this video is that viewers/producers are cheering on and celebrating the misogyny of the lyrics – as Paul said, ‘winking’ at the opportunity to celebrate (enlightened) sexism in the guise that they are above it all. Or, perhaps the video is just really poorly crafted comedy and simple hyperbole that miserably failed at offering any type of thoughtful social commentary (thus the disconnect between the intention of the producers and the viewers). Whether we read it from either frame, or adopt another interpretation altogether, the song/video is definitely game for critique.

    Like

  10. EC,

    First, thanks for complimenting my intelligence. I think anyone who is willing to discuss these kinds of issues are probably intelligent (the exception to the anti-intellectual current I mentioned in my first post). I think we all need to be open-minded, though, myself included. Coming from a science background (both natural and social), I find a lot of the feminist stuff very hard to take. Feminist claims tend to be very, very unscientific and often little more than untestable or unfalsifiable assumptions.

    Second, I looked up the Merriam-Webster definition of satire: “a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn” or “trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.” The humor is admittedly rather vulgar, but nonetheless fits the definition as written.

    Third, how are the authors of this song responsible for how other people (mis)interpret their work? Lots of people misinterpret things all the time. That a minority people justify their immoral beliefs and behavior based on a YouTube satire should not be a criticism of the satire itself.

    Like

  11. Mark,

    I would urge you to refer to Paul’s comment for clarification on what I am trying to say about the issue with the video’s use of satire. Additionally, the problem with trying to use authorial intention as a defense for any kind of media is that the way in which the art is interpreted has far more effect that the author’s initial intentions. The fact that a large number of people are now singing this song and agreeing that it is the “Anthem of JMU” is unchanged by the author’s intent for the video. There are still men and women who are being very negatively influenced by this video. The authors may have intended satire but as you saw with the comments being posted, no one interpreted it as such. Taken seriously this video is a problem, and as the vast majority of viewers ARE taking it seriously, it should be treated as such. The views expressed in video are close enough to the “truth” (or the way that men view the female population at JMU and the way that women at JMU are seeing themselves) that, instead of “holding up human follies for VICE OR SCORN” they are holding them up for approval. Being someone of science I will try (probably badly considering science is not my field of study) to give you a scientific example of what I’m talking about. Hypothetically, let’s say that I (being the poor science student that I am) combine two chemicals intending for a particular kind of reaction to occur, and instead I mix two volatile chemicals that create an explosion. The JMU science department will still make me pay for the lab I blew up despite my good intentions. I’m not saying of course that I am trying to make the authors pay for their video,but I am saying that they have to deal with the consequences that arise because of them. It was their experiment, and their explosion. I really appreciate your engagement with these issues, especially as someone who thinks rationally and scientifically. Hopefully that analogy wasn’t too crude.

    Like

  12. I finally watched it… both my roommate and I think it’s gross. Here’s the comment I posted on the YouTube video… I give it less than 24 hours before it’s deleted, especially because it’s finals week. I’m sure these guys have nothing better to do than check the number of hits on their video…

    “True that this is the stereotypical “bro” viewpoint, but where are the videos making fun of the ridiculous number of airheaded, daddy’s-fraternity bros at this school? Next time I’m in Ehall I’ll be watching out for the “creeping” behaviors you advocate. If the point of the video is to be a satirical response to the biddie population, do more than ridicule it — embrace the women who make JMU an institution, not a “city” of “drunken whores.” “

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s