Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

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.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 19, 2015

B

eing a contestant on “The 
Bachelor” isn’t so different 
from being a recent gradu-

ate. Before you roll 
your eyes, hear 
me out. Sure, it’s 
easy to poke fun 
at the 30 women 
on the show who 
cry when the one 
man they’re all 
simultaneously 
dating sends them 
home (those odds 
are never in your 
favor, girlfriend). 
And yeah, our tenure at most of our 
first jobs will be longer than most 
engagements resulting from “The 
Bachelor.” That being said, the simi-
larities between the show and the 
process almost every student goes 
through while looking for a job are 
fairly significant.

When we send in job applications, 

sometimes hundreds of other people 
are applying for the one position that’s 
open. Even though we know the num-
bers are working against us, we feel 
rejected when we don’t make it to the 
final round of interviews or — worse 
— when we lose the job to someone 
else in the last leg of the hiring pro-
cess. Simply substitute “The Bachelor” 
prize of a relationship with a 30-some-
thing farmer/doctor/athlete for a job 
with Goldman Sachs or an entry-level 
position at a consulting firm and we’ve 
put the “reality” in “reality TV.” “The 
Recent Grad” is a show we unani-
mously sign up for when looking for 
employment, and it’s helpful to know 
what we’re getting ourselves into 
before we join the contest.

Hiring managers are our own 

personal Bachelor Brads, and we do 
everything we can to stand out from 
the other contestants. We dress to 
impress when we meet them. We 
practice our answers to typical 
recruiting questions over and over. 
We send out tailored resumes and 
cover letters, hoping to make it to the 
next round of casting and land a cov-
eted spot to audition for the role of 
fiancée, er, financial advisor.

The connections between the 

standard job hunt and this televised 
husband hunt don’t end there. The 
first night’s cocktail party on “The 
Bachelor” weirdly reminds me of 
career fairs – basically, they’re a 

hot mess. Even though they lack 
limo service and free wine, people 
still nervously wait to deliver their 
elevator pitch to recruiters, cut-
ting others off if need be. Trade in 
“Whitney, Fertility Nurse, Chicago” 
for “Whitney, History Major, Uni-
versity of Michigan” and you have 
the bullet points from most con-
versations that happen during this 
stressful experience.

If you make it past basic introduc-

tions with a recruiter and actually 
get your foot in the door, there are 
still a bunch of tests to pass before 
the recruiter pops the question, “Do 
you want to work here?” These chal-
lenges could come in the form of 
cases, one-on-one interviews or on-
site consultations.

Case interview questions will 

show the employer how you might 
perform if given the job. On “The 
Bachelor,” contestants are forced to 
write songs or play paintball to show 
their 
potential 

husband 
what 

they’re made of. 
On “The Recent 
Grad,” 
young 

professionals 
have to solve a 
problem or com-
plete a task, often 
in a group set-
ting. Contestants 
who 
underper-

form or try to dominate the conversa-
tion may be eliminated, while those 
who innovate and succeed will often 
move onto the next round.

This 
success 
is 
short-lived, 

though, because the group interview 
is just the beginning, and a recent 
grad may be chosen for many of these 
before they end up getting a coveted 
one-on-one interview. If you make 
it to this round, be prepared for oth-
ers to resent you for this opportunity 
(job hunting is a tough sport). Also, 
be aware that some people may try to 
come back into the competition after 
they were eliminated. Don’t worry, 
though, history shows us these peo-
ple usually don’t last long if they’re 
allowed back in the race. Let the 
other contestants ice them out until 
they’re forced to leave and just keep 
your eyes on the prize.

One-on-ones are scary because 

they’re pretty much make-it-or-
break-it moments. In order to get 

asked to move onto the next round 
(usually a rose isn’t included, but 
hey, a recent grad can dream, right?) 
you have to impress the interviewer. 
Bond over common ties, like Michi-
gan alumni status or a shared love 
of biking. Go along with whatever 
they have planned for the one-on-
one, answering their questions about 
your goals and past. Ask them ques-
tions, too, because it’s important they 
know you’re interested in them … as 
an organization.

If you survive your group inter-

views and one-on-ones, give yourself 
a round of applause, because you’re 
headed for an on-site interview. 
While you may be nervous about 
going to the organization, seeing the 
office and meeting the hiring man-
ager’s co-workers, knowing they 
like you enough to invite you to their 
hometown can give you a bit of peace. 
The best advice I can give you? Be 
honest and be yourself. That’s what 

they’ve appreci-
ated about you 
all along and that 
is what’s gotten 
you to this stage 
in the game.

If you end up 

getting hired at 
the end of all of 
this, congratu-
lations! 
You’ll 

probably 
stay 

with the company for about a year 
and then part ways, blaming the 
separation on bad timing or leav-
ing the job for something better. 
If you don’t end up getting the job, 
don’t feel badly about that sting of 
rejection you feel. Even though you 
are just one of many candidates 
the hiring manager is looking at, 
you’re still human and tears have 
been shed over much less. Seri-
ously, just watch women cry about 
losing the love of their life when 
they are kicked off “The Bachelor” 
after talking to the guy for maybe 
12 minutes total. Throw a little 
pity party, pick yourself back up 
and start sending out more applica-
tions. You’ll win the contest before 
you know it and then you’ll be set 
for life (or at least until you break 
up with your first job).

 
— Katie Koziara can be reached 

at kkoziara@umich.edu.

The recent grad

O

ver the past weekend, the film “Fifty 
Shades of Grey” shattered records 
by grossing more than $94.4 million 

dollars over the four-day 
holiday weekend. Though 
Universal Studios had orig-
inally planned on releasing 
the film in October of 2014, 
the movement of the pre-
miere to Valentine’s Day 
proved advantageous. Over 
the course of the weekend, 
one that is typically spent 
celebrating the longevity of 
healthy relationships, thou-
sands of women — 68 per-
cent of ticket sales — instead crowded into 
movie theaters.

Opposed to contributing to the fiscal suc-

cess of the film, I instead committed myself 
to reading the first installment of E. L. James’ 
trilogy, “Fifty Shades of Grey.” The novel tells 
the story of Anastasia Steele, a young woman 
who — like myself — is no more than 22 years 
old, in the final moments of her undergradu-
ate education and completing a degree in Eng-
lish literature. From there, the plot unravels.

The relationship maintained between 

Christian Grey — a disturbed young busi-
ness magnate with supposedly out-of-this-
world good looks — and 
Anastasia is overbearing, 
if not suffocating. After 
being 
interviewed 
by 

Anastasia for the school 
newspaper, Grey begins 
stalking her and tracking 
her phone, claiming his 
“affection” for her. And 
by affection, he means 
he desperately wants to 
physically assault her and 
chain her to all four posts 
of his bed. He determines that she should be 
his 16th submissive relationship, the terms 
and conditions of which grant him com-
plete control over her sexually, as well as 
her eating and exercise habits, schedule and 
 

clothing choices.

I do not understand how it’s not blatantly 

clear that the relationship between Anasta-
sia Steele and Christian Grey is not one to be 
lusted after, and Christian Grey is not a man 
to be desired or fantasized about. The most 
antagonizing element of the novel, and pre-
sumably the film, is Ana’s insistence that she 
loves him. Though this adoration is almost 
entirely unrequited, Ana’s internal dialogue 
reads, “This is a man in need. His fear is 
naked and obvious, but he’s lost somewhere 
in the darkness … I can sooth him, join him 
briefly in the darkness and bring him into 
 

the light.”

No, Ana, you cannot bring him into the 

light, and this plot is as tiresome and repeti-

tive as E. L. James’ attempts at dialogue. 
The storyline of “Fifty Shades of Grey” sug-
gests to women that despite how dark or 
tortured a man is, if you endure his violence 
and abuse, you may have a shot at changing 
him. And if he’s rich, handsome and able to 
fly a helicopter? All the more reason to stay, 
because degradation is a small price to pay 
for material wealth. It suggests to men that 
continuously pushing a woman’s limits may 
ultimately yield in your favor, either once 
you’ve exhausted her with your badgering 
or poured her enough glasses of Prosecco. It 
suggests that sex is an act entirely intended 
for pleasure, and it need not be compli-
cated by strong emotions or backed by a 
 

meaningful relationship.

When was being stalked, bullied and 

bribed into a domineering and physically 
violent relationship deemed a fantasy? This 
is not a fantasy. This is an example of behav-
ior following which you call the police and 
request a restraining order. Sure, there are 
books two and three, in which Ana pre-
sumably has a positive effect on Christian, 
unearths his emotions and they engage in 
a “vanilla” relationship (one that Grey still 
obsessively controls) — but the damage of this 
first installment has been done. Even if the 
film adaptation tones down some of the more 

concerning elements, its 
production still perpetu-
ates a subscription to the 
entire franchise.

Granted, the intrigue 

of the series is — no pun 
intended 
— 
seductive, 

and in a warped sense, E. 
L. James’ work could be 
considered groundbreak-
ing. By all means, I’m an 
advocate for consensual 
and emotionally healthy 

sexual exploration, but as a woman who 
respects herself and her independence, I can-
not in good conscience contribute my meager 
finances to the success of this film. Buying 
a ticket to the film would serve as a valida-
tion of the messages it sends — and as women 
lust after Christian Grey, I’m concerned that 
men may want to emulate his behavior. While 
some argue that the dramatic arc eventually 
criticizes the one-sided, emotionless behav-
ior exhibited in “Fifty Shades of Grey,” the 
commercialization of the trilogy into a line of 
sex toys and bondage kits is chilling.

In essence, “Fifty Shades of Grey” is a 

poorly written, sexually explicit repeat of 
“Beauty and the Beast” that projects an out-
dated adage. Fix the beast and you can have 
the castle? Forget the beast, and buy your 
own castle.

 
— Lauren McCarthy can be 

reached at laurmc@umich.edu.

Throwing shade at grey

LARUEN
MCCARTHY

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Payton Luokkala, 

Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, 

Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael 

Schramm, Matthew Seligman, Linh Vu, Mary 

Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

S

aturday was Valentine’s Day. 
The day gets a bad rap, often 
deemed the Hallmarkiest of 

Hallmark holidays 
(see too: Mother’s 
day, Father’s day). 
Well first of all, 
fuck the haters. It’s 
my birthday. And 
now that that’s out 
of the way: it’s only 
a “holiday” if you 
only plan on buying 
gifts for those you 
love on one single 
institutionally pre-
ordained day of the year. Boom. Now 
you feel guilty.

But the claim isn’t exactly inaccu-

rate. A recent survey by the National 
Retail Federation (NRF) reveals 
some fascinating points, least of all 
that spending this year on Valentine’s 
Day is projected to be the highest 
ever, at $18.9 billion. That is, in other 
words, 11 basis points (hundredths of 
a percent) of U.S. GDP. All exchanged 
in chalky hearts (candy makes up 
of 53.2 percent of purchases), roses 
(flowers are 37.8 percent), anything 
the color red (clothing is 16.3 percent) 
and mandrake roots (OK, not really).

Perhaps more interestingly, the 

survey reveals some behavioral 
trends that have taken place. Indeed, 
since 2007, 13 percent fewer people 
are celebrating the holiday. Of those 
celebrating, 18 percent fewer are 
buying cards for their loved ones, 
and 23 percent fewer are going 
“for an evening out.” Well that just 
doesn’t seem very romantic. Instead, 
31 percent more Romeos are buying 
gift cards. And funny enough, it’s 
not actually a terrible strategy — for 
these hunks, it may be the case that 
Amazon’s recommendation engine 
legitimately knows what their beaus 
want more than they do. Bezos, you 
stallion! Finally, the last piece of 
data worth considering is one I just 
find sad: that 56 percent of women 
plan to celebrate the day, while 53.7 
percent of men plan to. Assuming 
that the numbers of homosexual 
couples of both genders celebrating 
are the same, I am so sorry for that 
2.3 percent of ladies…

But if we cut the jokes and take a 

deeper dive into this data, the trends 
observed really aren’t that shocking. 
Lovers are more risk-averse since the 

financial crisis. Millennials seem to 
be particularly traumatized.

Arthur C. Brooks wrote a wonder-

ful qualitative piece in The New York 
Times Friday, titled “Taking Risks 
in Love.” In it, he tells the anecdote 
of his own hot pursuit of his Spanish 
wife. The story bears much in com-
mon with a rom-com that a Natalie 
Portman-Ashton Kutcher or Mila 
Kunis-Justin Timberlake duo might 
act in, with a little bit of Woody Allen 
mixed in for good measure. Brooks 
quit his job, left his family, learned 
Spanish, moved to Barcelona, got the 
girl and lives happily ever after. But 
the point of the article is not patting 
himself on the back, but rather ask-
ing why he would never be able to pat 
on his younger colleagues’ backs (or 
Facebook walls) for doing the same 
thing. “That’s crazy,” they say, after 
he tells the fai-
rytale. Cupid got 
him good. He’s 
just an old-fash-
ioned, 
smitten 

nut. To parse out 
the intergenera-
tional language 
barrier — what 
risks he took for 
love.

Yet, 
Brooks’ 

confusion is a justified (and much 
publicized) one: why are millennial 
lovebirds such wimps?

A ton has been written on the 

subject of love in a digital era. The 
topic du jour, of course, is Tinder. 
The headline of another New York 
Times Valentine’s Day op-ed pretty 
much sums it up: “On Tinder, Tak-
ing a Swipe at Love, or Sex, or Some-
thing, in New York.” The popularity 
of Tinder seems to prove the fact that 
the extent of “risk” young adults feel 
comfortable taking, in love (or sex, 
or something), is limited to four pic-
tures, a name and an age on a profile. 
If you match, great. If you don’t, who 
cares; you really only “met” the girl 
in the time it took to send a motor 
impulse down to your thumb. It’s 
certainly a lot less painful than get-
ting rejected on the phone, or in per-
son, or after a flight to Barcelona.

This same sort of “love hedg-

ing” exists to a lesser extent with 
EHarmony, or OKCupid or Farmers 
Only, or any of the others. Clearly, 
risk aversion pervades the romantic 

marketplace as much as it does the 
financial. Potential pain, anxiety and 
stress are managed by maintaining a 
well-diversified portfolio of uncorre-
lated romantic investments. Eggs are 
spread between baskets.

It’s prospect theory all over again: 

losses hurt a whole lot more than 
gains heal. Loss avoidance is pri-
oritized over the pursuit of gain. Per 
the survey: a gift card and a movie at 
home provide a lot more wiggle room 
during 
conversational 
awkward 

pauses than does the time between 
appetizer and entrée at a restaurant. 
Calamity avoided.

Now back to Brooks’ question: 

why are we such wimps? Well, in 
retrospect, it seems pretty obvious 
— it’s actually far more rational to 
be wimpy. Shells are the best form 
of protection, particularly when 

we have enough 
stresses 
and 

strains on our 
plates 
already. 

Especially 
fol-

lowing what we 
witnessed hap-
pen to the coun-
try during the 
financial crisis. 
Vulnerability 
and its symp-

toms are, amidst overworked lives 
in school and in the office, insensi-
bly risky. The means of desire are far 
less desirable than the ends.

From 
personal 
experience, 

though, love is far from rational 
(believe me, I’ve tried to “under-
stand” why some things have hap-
pened the way they have). So is this 
rational approach really a way to find 
love, rather than satisfy lust? As Sam 
Smith laments in the best song of the 
year: “Guess it’s true I’m not good at a 
one night stand / but I still need love 
‘cause I’m just a man / Deep down I 
know this never works / But you can 
lay with me so it doesn’t hurt.”

Apparently, people feel that.
But what to do about it? Who 

knows. Keep bumping uglies, and 
maybe one of these nights we’ll run 
into dates for next Valentine’s Day. 
Or maybe we won’t.

In either case, keep swiping right. 

It’s only rational, after all.

 
— Eli Cahan can be reached 

at emcahan@umich.edu.

Rational relations

ELI
CAHAN

KATIE
KOZIARA

“Relative wealth” responses 

are digusting

 TO THE DAILY:

Upon reading Jesse Klein’s article, “Rela-

tive Wealth,” I was completely disgusted 
— but not by her article. Instead, I became 
mortified by the overwhelming number 
of callous responses. I do understand that 
income and wealth are sensitive topics, and 
therefore it’s not surprising that these topics 
evoked heavy emotion. Many comments on 
the article didn’t simply target Klein’s under-
standing of wealth and income, they target-
ed her and her intelligence. Was it anyone’s 
intention to discount her experiences, or is 
targeting someone the result of challenging 

her depth of knowledge on socioeconomic 
status?

As University of Michigan students, I 

believe it’s our obligation to teach each other 
and learn from each other, in every medium. 
The Daily’s presence on the Internet should 
not encourage us to mock each other, because 
we simply do not feel or see a human pres-
ence. Somewhere in the last decade, human-
ity lost motivation to listen and respect one 
another, and found self-satisfaction through 
spitting out vast amounts of knowledge on 
the Internet. I’m getting tired of all of this 
ego-driven commentary, and I hope I am not 
the only one.

Elise Jayakar
LSA senior

Send letterS to: tothedaily@michigandaily.com
LETTER TO THE EDITOR 

The connections 

between the standard 

job hunt and this 

televised husband hunt 

are numerous. 

Is this rational 

approach really a way 

to find love, rather 
than satisfy lust? 

When was being stalked, 
bullied and bribed into 

a domineering and 
violent relationship 
deemed a fantasy? 

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. 

Letters should be fewer than 300 words while viewpoints 

should be 550 to 850 words. 

Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

