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.