Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 10, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin

Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White 

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

T

he 
We 
Company 
(formerly known as 
WeWork), a massive 
coworking 
and 
office 
space 
company, 
was 
once the honor of 
Softbank. Softbank 
is 
a 
Japanese 
conglomerate 
that 
has 
been 
making a name for 
itself via massive 
investments either 
directly 
or 
from 
its 
subsidiary, 
the 
Vision 
Fund. 
We 
represented years of work 
and development and was 
one of two shining jewels 
in Softbank’s crown — the 
other, of course, being Uber. 
All of the good press and 
positivity 
culminated 
in 
an eye-popping $47 billion 
valuation for We that recently 
fell so fast and hard that 
their IPO was temporarily 
pulled. Valuations are meant 
to be based on numbers and 
We shouldn’t have fallen 
as quickly as it did, but 
the 
downfall 
might 
have 
demonstrated that it was the 
end of an era.
We’s $47 billion valuation 
is big, but it is not out of the 
norm. In May 2019, Uber was 
valued at $82 billion at their 
IPO and in March 2019 Lyft 
was at $24.3 billion during 
their 
IPO. 
In 
addition, 
DoorDash is planning to go 
public with a valuation of 
$12.6 billion in 2020. Each 
of 
these 
four 
companies 
shares a few traits that made 
these valuations especially 
noteworthy. A big one is a 
lack of profitability. Uber 
reported a $5 billion dollar 
loss 
during 
their 
second 
earnings report, Lyft lost 
$644.2 million during that 
same 
period, 
DoorDash 
was still not profitable, and 
finally, We lost $900 million 
during the first six months of 
2019.
So why then were these 
companies’ 
valuations 
so 
high if not for their profit 
and loss statements? Could it 
be the assets they held? Not 
quite, since Uber, Lyft and 
DoorDash don’t really have 
many assets. People drive 

their own cars for Uber, Lyft 
and DoorDash — they do not 
drive cars owned by those 
companies. 
Along 
these 
lines, 
We 
does not own all of 
its real estate. 
The 
valuations 
were 
neither 
based 
on 
cash 
flow nor assets, so 
what 
then 
could 
it 
be? 
The 
real 
answer lies in a 
deeper issue with 
venture 
capital 
today 
— 
companies 
that 
primarily use software are 
getting treated as software 
companies, which is having 

incredible ramifications on 
their valuations. A similarity 
between these startups and 
software companies is that 
software 
companies 
often 
run big losses at the start but 
eventually 
turn 
profitable 
because the marginal cost is 
close to zero and products 
can scale very efficiently. 
This is not quite true with 
Uber, Lyft, DoorDash or We. 
None of these companies can 
scale like software. Nor can 
the cost be that low, because 
the constraints for them are 
fundamentally 
different. 
Uber, Lyft and DoorDash are 
constrained by the amount 
of people who can and want 
to perform the service, and 
We is constrained by the fact 
that they are unable to buy 
more buildings because the 
marginal cost for skyscrapers 
is not one that typically 
trends downwards — there 
is no two-for-three special 
on Empire State Buildings. 
We’s entire business model 
is based on acquiring real 
estate to turn into coworking 
spaces. That well eventually 

runs dry though, and the 
marginal cost never falls 
off. 
This problem has been 
compounded by the fact 
that a lot of successful 
startups 
(especially 
in 
Silicon Valley) have been 
software companies. As a 
result, when software is 
key to a company’s bottom 
line, 
investors 
are 
more 
interested 
in 
helping 
to 
secure 
funding 
because 
they feel that the valuation 
could rocket up. The crucial 
difference 
is 
that 
while 
all of these companies use 
software, some are actually 
companies 
whose 
bottom 
line is dependent on software 
(Snapchat 
App, 
Facebook 
Website and Instagram App) 
and some are companies that 
merely use software. They 
make their money off of car 
rides, deliveries or rentable 
office space.
So, where does We go 
from here and what does 
this mean for the wider field 
of startups? We is probably 
not a $47 billion company, 
and most startups are not 
either. In the future, more 
attention should be paid to 
these things prior to filing a 
security registry form, also 
known as an S-1. Does this 
mean that the idea behind 
We — coworking — is done? 
It’s doubtful. Coworking will 
still be a lucrative market as 
more and more companies 
eschew modern offices and 
embrace working from home. 
Regarding 
startups 
more 
broadly, this is a time for a 
conversation to understand 
why companies should be 
valued the way they are and 
what that value is really 
based on. If it is based 
on lots of growth, with a 
very 
slight 
potential 
for 
profitability, then obviously 
the system is in need of 
being reworked. If the We 
saga can lead to venture 
capitalists rethinking some 
of 
their 
strategies 
with 
regard 
to 
investing 
and 
valuation, perhaps We’re not 
so screwed after all. 

How did We get here and what’s next?

SAMANTHA SZUHAJ | COLUMN

Choosing yourself isn’t selfish

ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN

I 

constantly 
face 
this 
internal dilemma: Should 
I do what is easiest, or 
should I do what is 
best for me?
This school year 
has 
presented 
me 
with 
numerous 
situations 
of 
differing 
gravity 
with 
the 
common 
thread of internal 
conflict. 
Should 
I 
spend time with my 
friends that I have 
not seen recently, or 
should I take time to unwind 
alone? Should I say yes to 
something just because I know 
people will be disappointed if 
I don’t, or should I do what 
would be the more suitable 
option for myself? Should I 
act in the interests of others 
all of the time, or should I 
consider 
my 
own 
feelings 
more heavily?
I know some of the answers 
to these hypotheticals seem 
self-explanatory, 
but 
as 
someone who, like most, would 
rather entirely refrain from 
saying or doing something 
that upsets or disappoints 
someone, 
these 
situations 
pose genuine internal back-
and-forth.
If college has taught me 
anything, it’s that there is a 
beauty and a sense of maturity 
in determining that sometimes 
the decision that may not be 
popular or expected may be 
the best decision in the long 
run. I have and continue to 
struggle with accepting the 
fact that, sometimes, it is OK 
to put yourself first, even if 
it feels strange or will incur 
judgement.
An April Medium article 
critiques 
the 
construct 
of 
selfishness. 
It 
states 
that 
being selfish is conversely 
selfless. 
Putting 
yourself 
first, it argues, will in turn 
generate 
more 
positive 

personal 
outcomes, 
which 
will benefit the lives of those 
around you. This is a complete 
paradigm 
shift 
from everything we 
have been told. But 
is it true?
There 
is 
a 
societal 
stigma 
around 
putting 
yourself first that 
is synonymous with 
blatant 
disregard 
for others. Putting 
yourself first can 
be frowned upon, 
and we are socialized to 
think in this way early in 
life. I can vividly remember 
my 
parents 
and 
teachers 
reinforcing the concept that 
we should put others before 
ourselves and to put ourselves 

in someone else’s shoes before 
we make a decision, and I 
know this was not a unique 
experience. 
These 
are 
all 
poignant 
considerations, 
and I, by no means, want to 
disregard or devalue them. 
I believe each of us should 
go 
through 
these 
thought 
processes 
intentionally 
and thoughtfully. Yet I also 
believe that there is value in 
prioritizing your own well-
being.
It seems like an obvious 
conclusion to reach, but I know 
that so many of us struggle to 
make decisions that may be 
personally beneficial due to a 
variety of factors — including, 
but not limited to, appeasing 

other’s 
feelings, 
pressure 
from friends or family, or 
pressure from ourselves. I 
am guilty of this. I go places, 
watch speakers or attend 
events, just because I expect 
myself to, even if I genuinely 
have little interest in the 
matter.
With that, as this year 
ramps up, and I find myself 
running from one thing to 
the next, I am going to try 
and carve out more time for 
me. It could be as simple 
as giving myself a break to 
watch a show or go to bed 
an hour earlier one night. I 
think we could all do a little 
bit of the same.
It’s funny that the concept 
of 
prioritizing 
yourself 
can be seen as selfish, but 
picking to go to bed early 
over going to something that 
you feel obligated to attend 
just because, may make you 
overall just a happier human 
being. We have culturally 
shifted into a dialogue that 
sometimes 
neglects 
the 
importance 
of 
self-care 
and internal reflection so 
to ensure that others are 
appeased or that we are 
keeping 
up 
an 
image 
or 
persona that we have become 
accustomed to maintaining. I 
think we need to start moving 
away from those compulsions 
as a means to be a generally 
more fulfilled society. 
I am not advocating for 
cruelty or a general disregard 
toward others. Instead, I am 
advocating for your internal 
dialogue as a compass for 
your decision-making instead 
of what society expects or 
what those around you want. 
Start doing more for you, even 
if it may be tough. I know I am 
going to try.

Samantha Szuhaj can be reached 

at szuhajs@umich.edu.

Anik Joshi can be reached at

anikj@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the 
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 
300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 
words. Send the writer’s full name and University 
affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

JOIN EDITBOARD

Join The Michigan Daily! Come to Editboard meetings 
Monday and Wednesday from 7:15 to 8:45 at the 
Newsroom, 420 Maynard St. Engage in discourse about 
important issues and become a journalist!

MARY ROLFES | COLUMN

Saturdays aren’t just for the boys
W

hen 
I 
visited 
Boston 
during 
the 
2018 
World 
Series, I had one objective in 
mind: to celebrate. I had heard 
legendary stories of the city’s 
post-win celebrations and had 
sort of taken part in one after 
the Patriots’ 2017 Super Bowl 
comeback, being a freshman at a 
Boston-area college at the time. 
As the Red Sox came inning 
by inning closer to claiming 
the title, my excitement at the 
prospect of an after-party grew. 
But by paying attention to the 
game and only the game, I failed 
to notice the signs that this 
celebration wouldn’t be nearly as 
legendary as I was hoping — at 
least, not for me.
After the final out, my friends 
and I headed to Boston Common, 
the city’s central public park, in 
an effort to join the city-wide 
celebration. When I arrived, what 
I discovered was not a welcoming 
celebration but an overgrown 
boys’ club. The gathering was 
dominated by college-aged men 
chanting insults at one another, 
acting 
physically 
aggressive 
and vandalizing public property 
– and, of course, there was 
the 
unmissable 
presence 
of 
several red, white and blue flags 
proclaiming in all capital letters, 
“Saturdays are for the boys.” 
This was not a celebration for 
the Red Sox or even the city. 
This was a demonstration of 
hegemonic 
masculinity 
and 
its ability to dominate every 
possible public space and exclude 
those unwilling or unable to join 
in. And it was perpetuated, in 
part, by social media.
Fan groups have the potential 
to bring a community together. 
They can facilitate community 
initiatives, raise awareness and 
have even helped a city heal 
from tragedy. This unifying 
ability is certainly present at 
the 
University 
of 
Michigan, 
home to the biggest stadium in 
the U.S. Unfortunately, sports-
fan culture in the United States 
is entrenched in toxic ideas of 
masculinity. While this has been 
true for decades, the inception 
of social media has significantly 
increased the pervasiveness of 
misogyny by providing an outlet 
for the widespread manifestation 
of these aggressive and sexist 
practices. 
By 
utilizing 
their 
platforms 
to 
normalize 
and 
celebrate sexism, infighting and 
outright violence in athletics, 
sports social media tends to 
highlight the worst aspects of fan 
culture, dividing communities 

rather than uniting them. By 
reconsidering the impact these 
platforms have on our culture, 
and especially on our campus, we 
can support a more positive social 
media presence surrounding our 
teams and embrace fan culture 
as the welcoming, community-
building environment it has the 
potential to be.
Social media has given us the 
ability to connect with others, 
spread ideas and create a more 
connected global community. 
Unfortunately, its impacts do 
have some downsides, and many 
social media outlets have served 
as a platform for perpetuating 
toxic attitudes, including those 
surrounding college athletics. 
One culprit is especially relevant 
to our campus: Barstool Sports. 
Barstool was launched in 2003 
by U-M alum Dave Portnoy. 
Since its founding, the site 
and its many affiliates have 
gained significant social media 
influence, 
posting 
content 

related to sports and college 
culture 
with 
a 
consistently 
misogynistic undertone. Portnoy 
has been a controversial figure in 
sports media. While some have 
praised him for his dedication 
to “unabashed masculinity” and 
anti-politically correct comedy, 
these 
qualities 
have 
drawn 
heavy criticism from others. 
For many years, he has been 
the embodiment of problematic 
behaviors in sports fan culture. 
He is vocally anti-union, claiming 
on Twitter that he would fire any 
employee who dared to consider 
the possibility of unionizing. This 
statement caught the attention of 
U.S. Representative Alexandria 
Ocasio-Cortez, 
D-N.Y., 
as 
Portnoy’s anti-union threats are 
a violation of national labor laws. 
Not even two weeks later, he had 
a few choice words — well, one 
especially sexist choice word 
— in reaction to Andrew Luck’s 
retirement announcement. 
Portnoy’s 
problematic 
attitude is not isolated, either. 

This aggression and sexism 
pervades Barstool Sports and 
its affiliates. On the main site, 
Sex Scandal Teachers is a 
recurring segment in which 
women charged with sexually 
assaulting minors are “graded” 
based on their looks and morals, 
using language that blames 
victims and trivializes sexual 
abuse. Barstool’s affiliates — 
many of which are crafted 
for specific colleges — often 
engage in sharing similarly 
misogynistic 
content. 
This 
includes their “Smokeshow” 
series in which female college 
students are evaluated based on 
their adherence to traditional 
beauty standards, representing 
the prevalence of the male 
gaze in college sports culture 
and implying those who don’t 
meet 
their 
standards 
are 
not welcome. Their ethos of 
“Saturdays are for the boys” is 
a summation of real, dangerous 
attitudes about who does and 
who doesn’t belong on gameday.
As students at a university 
with 
a 
massive 
presence 
in collegiate athletics, it is 
important 
to 
consider 
the 
impacts these attitudes have 
on 
our 
campus 
community 
and on college sports. This 
isn’t necessarily a mandate to 
boycott Barstool — after all, 
what would we do without 
#GoodBoyFriday? But consider 
calling them out when they use 
their platform to spread hateful, 
demeaning messages. Barstool 
has a significant influence in 
college culture, including on 
our campus — Barstool Blue, 
U-M’s affiliate, has over 50,000 
followers on Instagram and 
another 
33,000 
on 
Twitter. 
By holding these outlets to 
higher standards, we can set 
an example for canceling out 
the aggressive, toxic aspects 
of the fan culture of collegiate 
sports in favor of creating an 
environment 
welcoming 
to 
everyone. While it may seem 
these 
masculine 
ideals 
are 
embedded within the institution 
of sport, they are perpetuated in 
large part by individual actions 
— which means individuals also 
have the capability to combat 
them. It’s almost impossible 
not to root for Michigan — The 
Killers themselves have even 
said so. When we belt out “Mr. 
Brightside,” let’s do it in a place 
where everyone feels welcome to 
join in.

Mary Rolfes can be reached at 

morolfes@umich.edu.

Sports-fan culture 
in the U.S. is 
entrenched in 
toxic ideas of 
masculinity

SAMANTHA 
SZUHAJ

What does this 
mean for the 
wider field of 
startups?

ANIK 
JOSHI

Sometimes, it is 
OK to put yourself 
first, even if it 
feels strange