NHL Chicago Blackhawks

Andrew Shaw’s Innocuous Comments Spark Hypocritical Controversy

Fresh Videos

By @seansarcu

Andrew Shaw Chicago Blackhawks

Getty Images

Allegations of sexism and misogyny abound. Chicago Blackhawks center Andrew Shaw made some comments on Friday that have drawn the ire of hockey fans, many of whom have taken to social media to express their distaste. Heading into a matchup with Brooks Orpik‘s Washington Capitals, Shaw was asked if the Blackhawks were still upset about the defenseman’s dirty hit on Jonathan Toews last season. He responded, “I don’t think anyone’s happy. [Toews] went down. But those things are going to happen in the game. That’s why it’s a dangerous game. That’s why men play it, right?”

Yes, NHL hockey is a dangerous game, and that is why men — and not boys — play it. The “men versus boys” comparative colloquialism is used with regularity in sports circles, particularly in more stereotypically masculine sports such as hockey and football. That Shaw was invoking this innocuous comparison is fairly obvious, particularly when one considers the context. There was no disrespect to women being hinted at, no misogyny hiding in the weeds, no sexism hanging out beneath the surface.

Of course, a basic review of the facts was not in the cards for everybody. Outrage spawned on Twitter and tumblr, with slews of hockey fans calling Shaw out for allegedly sexist comments.

https://twitter.com/laurel_foster/status/530957937196675073

This is but one of many functionally identical comments. Quite a few can’t be reproduced here for various reasons.

Why is “Andrew Shaw is a misogynist” the first conclusion to jump to? Why is context ignored?

Are we to believe that Shaw spontaneously decided that (after several years of zero controversy in the media) Friday would be a good day to spout sexist rhetoric? One would think that a player who would so carelessly flaunt presumably deep-seated prejudiced beliefs would have let them slip before. The far more likely scenario has already been outlined. The important part of this discussion, then, isn’t about what Shaw meant to say versus what he didn’t; the correct answer to that is unmistakable if one takes a step back and appraises the matter with genuine thought.

Make no mistake about it, though — there is undeniably sexism on display here. It isn’t coming from Shaw, however. What would you call the reactions of those who cried foul to the Blackhawks center’s words? They certainly weren’t sensible; reason and understanding of context were entirely abandoned in favor of emotionally-driven accusations devoid of logic. While we’re here, actually, let’s consider that last bit.

“Emotionally-driven accusations devoid of logic.”

What does that sound like?

It sounds to me like the basis of stereotyping. Racism, sexism, prejudice — all three have the same cognitive basis. The people guilty of sexism here are the same people accusing Shaw of it. Those who actively read stereotypes into the innocuous words of others are the stereotypers, the sexists, the racists… not the person who originally spoke those words.

This isn’t an uncommon occurrence in American society today. In a culture where prejudice is (quite rightly) viewed with scorn at a societal level, people are quick to point fingers at others for perceived slip-ups. Nobody likes a sexist.

A parasitic side-effect of this otherwise positive reality, however, is a tendency to see evil where it does not exist… to see “nothing” and nevertheless label it “something.” There was no sexism in Shaw’s statements until fans began insisting that there was. There was no prejudice present until the social media mobs brought it into the mix themselves. The result is some distinctly non-amusing irony; the purported anti-sexists are themselves perpetuating the very sexism they wish to decry.

Reactions devolved into the downright hypocritical, as (sadly) can be expected when too many keyboard warriors enter into the throngs of a debate. As some sort of bizarre counter-insult to Shaw’s words, a number of people sardonically suggested that he must be a virgin. Are (odd and misplaced) sexual jokes the solution in combating sexism? Certainly not — they likely serve only to exacerbate the problem further — but that hardly stopped those wielding the pitchforks from implicitly approving the message.

Human beings are so ready to vilify others for perceived prejudice. Perhaps some should take a look inside their own heads first.

Sean Sarcu is a Chicago Blackhawks writer for www.RantSports.com. Follow him on Twitter or add him to your network on Google.

Share Tweet
Trending Now on