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.”

