I
t can be easy to feel
insulated from national
events on campus — the
demands of coursework, social
involvement and employment
create
a
barrier
between
our world, campus and the
larger country. The nature of
academia, though, means that
we must be more alert than
average;
our
responsibility
to be politically engaged is
enhanced, not diminished, by
our status as students.
But sometimes, important
pieces
of
legislation
often
remain ignored by students.
One
such
example
is
the
Sportsmen’s
Heritage
and
Recreational
Enhancement
Act, which House Republicans
have recently sent to the floor
for a vote after a brief, tasteful
pause on debate following the
shooting of Steve Scalise, R-La.,
House
of
Representatives
Majority Whip.
Among other things, the
bill would dramatically loosen
regulations pertaining to gun
silencers, making them much
easier to obtain. Ostensibly to
protect the hearing of hunters
and other responsible gun
owners, this bill — in serving
no benefit beyond alternatives
like
inexpensive
hearing
protection — exists to soothe
fears in the short term at the
cost
of
significant
human
damage in the long term.
Silencers, also referred to as
“suppressors,” were invented
in the early 20th century and
quickly put to use by the United
States’s military. Most states
allow for the purchase and use
of silencers, though federal
law seems to recognize their
criminal danger: Violent crimes
committed
with
a
silencer
carry a minimum sentence of
thirty years in prison.
Silencers,
as
of
today,
face somewhat burdensome
regulation — they require a
$200 transfer tax and have a
license waiting time of up to
nine months. In addition to
this, they can cost more than
$1,000. All of these factors
work to make silencers fairly
rare; there are fewer than one
million being used by civilians
in the United States, compared
to nearly 300 million guns.
SHARE would reverse this.
At
risk
of
being
controversial, I don’t believe
you need a silencer to hunt
deer, as is legal in 40 states.
At even greater risk, I don’t
believe you need a silencer
for self-defense (neither you
nor the person causing you to
fear for your life will be in a
position to mind the noise).
SHARE is opposed by many
police organizations and gun
control groups, and for good
reason. Silencers decrease a
weapon’s recoil, allowing for
greater accuracy. They also,
of course, disguise the gun’s
noise, potentially making it
harder for targets to identify
a shooter. It’s important to
remember we aren’t discussing
a toy to be used in gun clubs
or a novel alternative to ear
protection — these are devices
designed explicitly to increase
one’s ability to kill.
A
cynical
faction
of
Democrats
has
suggested
the gun debate is one the left
should retreat from — that
gun control must be sacrificed
to other political priorities.
This speculation, I think, fails
to consider the real point of
being — and voting — “pro-
gun.” This segment of the
electorate
doesn’t
comprise
constitutional
purists
who want to protect their
interpretation of the framers’
intent, it comprises people who
are afraid — afraid of inadequacy,
of the “other,” of being vulnerable
to
the
Democrats
and
government overreach.
I characterize them this
way because there were about
750,000 guns sold the month
following the Sept. 11 attacks,
but more than one million
the month following Barack
Obama’s first election and
roughly two million following
his
re-election.
Sales
rose
again toward the end of Hillary
Clinton’s
2016
presidential
campaign, when she seemed
guaranteed to win.
It
would
be
ridiculous
for the left to sacrifice this
issue because of an opposing
argument
based
in
fear,
especially a fear of them,
their
political
opposition.
Backtracking on gun control
thus fails to win votes and leaves
the country without a coalition
saying, “Perhaps we should
reign in the civilian ability to
cause massive loss of life, both
to themselves and to others.”
I
would
be
remiss
not
to mention the Democrats
actually supporting this bill.
I don’t understand what, even
with possible threats in 2018
and 2020, a Democrat has to
fear simply holding the line on
gun restrictions. Conservative
voters won’t remember or care
that you voted for SHARE,
and
your
left-wing
base
will see it as a betrayal. The
reward — whether measured
in votes gained or campaign
dollars from the National Rifle
Association — is minuscule
compared to the risk.
As Donald Trump decries
“bad dudes on both sides,” and
as Republicans warn of the
“militant left,” I would appeal
to
House
members’
self-
interest: if not for the safety
of your country and its people,
for your own.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, September 25, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
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
We all SHARE the risk
HANK MINOR | COLUMN
Straight men need safe spaces, too
BEN BUGAJSKI | OP-ED
S
pider-Man:
Homecoming” was not
a particularly important
nor
life-altering
must-see
movie of the summer. But when
I left the theater, something was
off. I couldn’t figure out why
I was so bothered by the edgy,
cynical character that Zendaya
plays; I agreed with everything
she was saying! When she
looked up at the Washington
Monument and refused to go
inside because it was built by
slaves, I was slow-clapping
along with her. The movie
mentions, but fails to unpack
or
address,
other
societal
problems through a liberal
lens, from the correcting of
“Indian” to “Native American”
to a visible demonstration of
the tension between white- and
blue-collar workers. I’m pretty
sure this is the first Marvel film
to open with a line shutting
down racism.
But at another point in the
film,
Zendaya’s
character
mentions that she’s going to
protest without detailing what
exactly she’s protesting. In
this, her “cool” revolutionary
attitude
transformed
into
something
reminiscent
of
the notorious Kendall Jenner
Pepsi commercial — idealizing
a purposeless gathering of
people who “protest” because
it’s
fun
and
hip,
not
as
substantial, tactical resistance
to state violence.
It
appears,
then,
that
Zendaya’s
character
was
written as an archetype — to
make the film seem “woke.”
We see this capitalization
on
radical
anti-capitalist
movements outside the movie
theater, too. Walk into any
shopping mall in the United
States and I bet you can find
five different blouses with the
word FEMINIST emblazoned
on them. Maybe in sequins.
I
wonder:
Do
the
people
purchasing these cute tees
that broadcast their liberal
beliefs realize that partaking
in this transaction supports
the
capitalist
pressures
of
fast
fashion,
an
industry
that often employs women in
underprivileged countries to
work in dangerous conditions?
Do they realize supporting
stores like H&M supports the
hyper-competitive
capitalist
system that breeds inequality,
not
only
socioeconomically
but amongst sexes, sexualities,
races, religions and ethnicities?
It raises these questions: Are
we bad people for buying these
shirts? Are we bad people for
paying $8 at Goodrich Quality
Theaters to watch Tom Holland
take his shirt off and Zendaya
recite carefully crafted lines
about
political
awareness?
How many elephants are your
elephant pants saving after
the cotton has been grown
and fertilized and processed
and dyed and packaged and
shipped to your house?
This is where the jury’s
still out. Because even though
there’s something inherently
antithetical to corporations
and businesses making money
off
our
anti-consumerist,
anti-capitalist,
pro-equity
mentality, perhaps there is
something to be said about how
proud people are to be radical,
liberal and feminist in 2017.
Maybe it’s a good thing that
we are wearing our identities
on our sleeves – literally – if
that means conversations are
starting and people are joining
the movement. Maybe some
people will walk away from this
Spider-Man
movie
inspired
by Zendaya’s character and
participate in the next protest
or vigil on campus. If you go
to a protest just to post about
it on social media, despite its
paid ads and sponsorships,
you still went, right? You were
counted just like everyone who
didn’t post about it. You might
have been less engaged, doing
it for liberal brownie points,
but you did go.
It’s impossible to tell what
the net impact of this marketing
technique is going to be. If
some
commercial
producer
thought that showing Kendall
Jenner in a protest would get
more people to buy Pepsi,
doesn’t that say something
wonderful about our political
landscape, even if the video
was crude and disingenuous?
It does signal that the exercise
of our First Amendment rights
of assembly and free speech
are important to young people.
We are getting political, and
we are demanding to be heard.
If these capitalist trends
are mere reflections of our
cultural values in the 21st
century, then it’s incredibly
exciting that feminist T-shirts
and elephant pants are flying
off shelves. Even if the wrong
entities
are
receiving
the
monetary benefits, at least
our children are growing up
in a world where it’s cool to
care about real issues in real
time. Perhaps the next step is
recognizing that our values are
being exploited and realizing
that we don’t need the Toms,
the FEMINIST tees or the
elephant pants to make our
point.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m
not preaching to be holier-
than-thou. I shop at these
malls. I pay for these movies.
I try my best, but I know that
in my everyday actions and
purchases I, too, am surely
supporting
and
upholding
power structures that I would
find morally unacceptable if I
looked a little closer. We live,
work and play in a capitalist
society, and it’s only fair that
we treat ourselves with some
patience
and
forgiveness
when we get sucked into its
ploys,
while
still
holding
industries
accountable
for
their paradoxical products and
marketing strategies.
Capitalizing on anti-capitalism
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Rachel Beglin is an LSA senior.
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu.
S
afe spaces have inspired
passionate
debate
in
higher
education:
They’re
either
necessary
to help students deal with
microaggressions and trigger
warnings, or they criticize a
university for coddling and
sheltering
students.
While
I
thankfully
have
never
experienced the need to enter
a safe space, I believe in the
premise of safe spaces to help
students process the painful
parts of becoming adults and
facing real challenges in the
world. That’s why, as a male
feminist, I believe that straight
men need safe spaces, too.
Safe spaces for men have
been described and defended
by
one
such
safe
space
moderator at the University of
British Columbia, Ryan Avola.
He argues that to combat toxic
masculinity, men need a space
to talk out their conceptions
of gender. Otherwise, they
force women and people of
color to have the conversation
for them. I agree with this;
however, I also think the
discourse surrounding gender
has been radicalized by both
feminists and conservatives,
creating a vicious feedback
loop of more and more extreme
positions. If the end goal is
to educate straight men on
the complexities of privilege,
insulating
them
among
themselves is the first step to
stopping this cycle.
Toxic
masculinity
is
a
form
of
masculinity
that
enforces
and
perpetuates
sexual conquest and violence.
Critics have argued toxic
masculinity leads to domestic
violence and gun violence,
and it imprisons men just as
much at it harms women.
Most
importantly,
toxic
masculinity reinforces itself
throughout a man’s life. From
an effeminate boy being called
a “faggot” to a sensitive teen
being told to “grow a pair”
to a cooperative man being
urged
to
“take
control,”
toxic
masculinity
breeds
competition and domination
among men. This creates a
system
where
competition,
loudly voicing your opinion
and
stoicism
are
valued
and “feminine” values like
cooperation, listening to others
and expressing your emotions
are, literally, defeated.
These “manly” values were
certainly useful at a time.
Back when we were hunter-
gatherers, it was important to
have someone who shot first
and listened after because we
faced so many bodily threats.
However, humanity has evolved
beyond our primitive roots, and
now traits like working in a team
and
communicating
verbally
are valued highly by none other
than
Forbes.
Guess
which
gender these are traditionally
associated with? Not maleness.
All
this
is
to
say that
masculinity must evolve to
adapt to a new world where
communication
conquers
competition, where listening
trounces
overpowering
opinions and where expressing
empathy edges out emotional
indifference. To overcome this,
straight men need spaces to talk
about gender without women.
As a Women’s Studies major,
I am comfortable talking about
gender and the pitfalls of
masculinity. However, I have
yet to encounter a Women’s
Studies class (and especially a
discussion section of a class) in
which men aren’t unilaterally
designated the problem of life.
I have often felt uncomfortable
expressing a more moderate
opinion
in
polarized,
radicalized spaces, which is
detrimental
to
educational
conversations in academia and
gender politics in general. This
implicit policing of discourse
perpetuates
the
idea
that
men themselves are the issue
when, in reality, the problem
is toxic masculinity.
Female feminists: Imagine
you’re told that something you
can’t control — your gender —
is everything wrong with the
world. The point of criticizing
men’s actions is to criticize the
toxic masculinity that inspired
them. However, this nuance
is
often
lost
in
one-sided
conversations that devolve into
a laundry list of (legitimate)
harms that toxic masculinity
has
inflicted
upon
women
and people of color. There is a
critical difference in criticizing
the dominant expression of
maleness and criticizing the
unknowing expresser of this
harmful masculinity.
If you were a man, would
you really listen to the rest of
the argument? Of course you’d
get defensive, because why the
hell wouldn’t you? After a few
class periods, you’d start to
hate all the “feminazis” and
zone out for all the discussions
of the perpetuation of gender
inequality.
There’s
probably
a 50-50 chance you’d start
beginning
sentences
with,
“Well, actually…”
This is exactly why straight
men need safe spaces to discuss
gender.
I
understand
and
identify with feminism, but
most men don’t understand
the difference between healthy
and toxic masculinity. They
don’t understand that their
behavior
is
perpetuating
gender
inequality
because
their
personal
experiences
don’t align with accounts of the
harm they cause. By acting as
straight men are supposed to
act, they’ve reaped the rewards
of oppressing others.
White men, in particular,
are primed to not understand
that their race and gender
advantage them, and having
women and people of color
seemingly
jump
down
their
throats
about
their
very existence makes them
defensive. It’s not necessarily
being privileged that stifles
them
from
accepting
the
gender and racial hierarchy,
it’s
the
feeling
of
being
attacked that stifles them from
listening. The very tactics
feminists have adopted to
become heard in a patriarchal
society have alienated men
and
stopped
them
from
listening. If in a patriarchal
society men overpower and
silence women, then let’s use
men to spread the message.
Straight men need a space
where they can accidentally
misgender someone or make
an inadvertent misogynistic
comment or admit that they
don’t
understand
structural
racism and won’t immediately
be pounced on. It’s all part
of
growing
pains.
If
we
understood these forces from
the get-go, then they wouldn’t
need explanation. This is not to
say these comments are okay.
However, undoing a lifetime of
socialization is a long, tedious
process and telling someone
to check their privilege only
exacerbates the hostility.
And, of course, the people
who
benefit
most
from
homophobic,
misogynistic,
racist systems are the last to
realize they’re stacked in their
favor. The problem is that this
won’t be fixed until these exact
people realize they are the
beneficiaries of the system,
and while the originally-female
gender theorists have done
their piece, at this point what
men really need are male role
models of healthy masculinity.
Straight
men
need
safe
spaces to discuss structural
inequalities without women
or people of color because,
like everyone, they feel most
comfortable
listening
to
people who share their social
identities
and
experiences,
which
is
what
a
safe
space provides. These are
uncomfortable conversations,
and instilling values of equity
takes time that women and
people of color understandably
don’t have the patience for.
However, until that point is
reached, then maybe straight
men need other straight men
to teach them the error of
their ways.
Ben Bugajski is an LSA senior.
Masculinity must
evolve to adapt to
a new world.
What men really
need are male role
models of healthy
masculinity.
To combat toxic
masculinity, men
need a space to
talk out their
conceptions of
gender.
RACHEL BEGLIN | OP-ED
It appears, then, that
Zendaya’s character
was written as an
archetype — to
make the film seem
“woke.”