I

magine 
you 
are, 
in 

the 
words 
of 
forensic 

psychiatrist Park Dietz, 

one of the “small number of 
people 
sitting 
at 

home, with guns on 
their lap and a hit 
list in their mind.” 
You turn on the news 
and hear countless 
details of the latest 
mass shooter’s life 
— 
describing 
him 

as a quiet guy, a 
loser, someone who 
just always avoided 
others. This strikes 
a chord. Dietz says, 
“It only takes one or two of 
them to say — ‘that guy is just 
like me, that’s the solution to 
my problem, that’s what I’ll 
do tomorrow.’” 

You are flush with envy, 

excitement and purpose. You 
run out your front door the 
next day with that infamous 
smirk we’ve all seen on TV. 
Tomorrow, you tell yourself, 
you’ll be on millions of people’s 
screens, but even better, on 
the minds of millions who will 
learn everything about you. 

The two dominant camps 

on the mass shooting debate 
— those who chalk it up to 
mental health or those who 
chalk it up to the availability 
of guns — fail to recognize this 
issue of fame that captivates 
so 
many 
mass 
shooters. 

This is convenient from a 
political perspective: It gives 
Democrats and Republicans a 
clear boogeyman to draw on 
whenever they are asked to 
comment on the latest mass 
shooting. Yet these stances fail 
to consider a novel solution to 
surge of shootings: ending the 
reporting of a mass shooter’s 
name, face and identity.

The idea behind such a ban 

is simple: Mass shooters crave 
a spotlight, and denying their 
recognition 
would 
greatly 

reduce the number of random 
killings in the country. A 
growing number of researchers 
have dived into the psyche 
of copycat killers, those who 
commit an attack similar to 
ones just before, and concluded 
the presence of sensational 
coverage of violent murders 
leads to more of the same.

Take the 1999 Columbine 

shooting, for example, where a 
report by Mother Jones found 
14 separate cases of suspects 
plotting to launch attacks on 
the anniversary of Columbine. 
The report discovered that 
in at least 10 of these cases 
the suspects referred to the 
Columbine 
shooters, 
Eric 

Harris and Dylan Klebold, 
as idols, martyrs or gods. 
The 
idolization 
indicates 

a growing obsession of the 
violently disturbed to seek 
out inspiration from others 
rather than coming to their 

violent conclusions 
on their own.

The problem with 

the 
mass 
media’s 

coverage of these 
attacks is everyone 
except the victims 
wins. 
Viewers 

get 
entertained, 

the 
media 
enjoys 

massive viewership 
spikes and the killer 
gets his 10 seconds 
of fame.

“Entertained” 
may 
not 

seem like the best word, but 
that’s exactly how the media 
presents its content and how 
viewers consume it. Interviews 
with 
the 
shooter’s 
family, 

body 
count 
graphics 
and 

“investigative” reporting on 
the killer’s lifelong history are 
all unnecessary bits of fluff 
designed to suck all the juice 
possible out of a story to retain 
views and shares.

Stopping this sensationalized 

coverage doesn’t mean the 
media would have to cease 
its duty to inform the public. 
Dietz recommends the media 
“localize (these stories) to the 
affected community and make 
it as boring as possible to every 
other market.” Though it may 
seem painful to “normalize” 
these 
shootings, 
it 
doesn’t 

mean we have to stop fighting 
for other solutions, such as 
comprehensive gun control or 
investments in mental health.

So far, the advice from 

many advocates of changing 
media 
coverage 
is 
to 

encourage the news and their 
consumers to stop producing or 
consuming this content. This is 
hardly sufficient.

The 
media 
faces 

overwhelming 
incentives 
to 

keep producing this coverage 
if their competitors do so — 
and why wouldn’t they? They 
are for-profit businesses with 
no legal or moral obligation 
outside 
of 
filling 
their 

directors’ 
pockets. 
On 
the 

other side of the equation, we 
as consumers indirectly feel 
a sense of moral obligation 
to continue watching and are 

largely unwilling to constantly 
share political attacks on the 
mainstream media’s content.

A much more drastic and 

sweeping measure would be 
to lobby Congress to introduce 
a 
bill 
altering 
the 
First 

Amendment of the Constitution 
to include a measure limiting 
for-profit media companies’ 
coverage 
of 
these 
attacks. 

Passing something as sweeping 
as a constitutional amendment 
sounds like a political pipe 
dream in our era of gridlock, 
but it is actually an example of 
a rare solution that transcends 
party lines.

Constitutional amendments 

themselves may seem like a 
relic; there hasn’t been a ratified 
proposal in over 20 years. 
This doesn’t mean, however, 
that calling for a proposal is 
by any means a crazy idea. 
There is still an active effort 
among many in Congress to 
keep it relevant — over 70 
amendments were proposed 
last year alone, and 11,699 
measures have been proposed 
over our nation’s history.

The 
revision 
would 
be 

irrelevant to the gun lobby 
— meaning it would untie 
the 
handcuffs 
Republican 

politicians have to the lobby 
and give them an opportunity 
to take action on an emotional 
issue. It also frees Democrats 
from 
the 
illogical, 
but 

widely held, concern among 
conservative voters that they 
are taking advantage of mass 
shootings 
to 
destroy 
the 

Second Amendment.

With sufficient grassroots 

organizing, states would be 
put under a pressure that 
transcends party lines and 
has significant backing from 
researchers. 
Conservatives 

may be wary of limiting free 
speech, but they are also the 
most likely group to deem the 
news “fake” and would likely 
welcome a process that limits 
its power for distortion.

This ban, if passed, would 

still fail to address the issue 
of underground reporting that 
would certainly pop up on 
online blogs and forums, but 
it would deny the true fame 
that many of these killers 
are after. They seek national 
recognition and revel in the 
kind of mass fear that only 
nationally 
syndicated 
news 

channels can provide as they 
stream in public places like 
airports or bars. Denying them 
this main avenue for infamy 
is a solution all sides of our 
fractured political spectrum 
should entertain.

M

ost people grow up 
watching 
football 

or basketball, but I 

grew up on comic books. My 
dad spent most of his time 
reading comic books, and I 
grew up learning about the 
characters in them.

When I was little, my dad 

read comics at the kitchen 
table and constantly warned 
me not to touch them. He 
still reads them today; there’s 
always at least one in the 
kitchen or living room, and 
he’s always sure to bring one 
on car rides. In elementary 
school, my family would sit 
down together to watch the 
newest 
superhero 
cartoon 

movie or TV show. Some of 
my favorite shows were “The 
Batman,” “Justice League” and 
“Justice League Unlimited.”

Shows and movies like this 

formed my childhood but 
unfortunately only included 
a few female superheroes. So, 
when I did get to see a woman 
fighting bad guys and saving 
the world in the movie, I held 
onto that image. As much as I 
liked Batman and as much as I 
saw him in movies and shows, 
Wonder Woman was always 
the superhero I looked up to 
most. Any cartoon featuring 
her was my go-to whenever 
my family tried to make a 
decision on a movie night. 
Movies in which she was the 
main character, like 2009’s 
cartoon 
movie 
“Wonder 

Woman,” were played over 
and over again at my house.

She stood out; whenever 

you saw her, she was in a space 
dominated by men. The idea 
of “hero” seems to link itself 
with masculinity — there are 
only a handful of women who 
have a seat at the table. This 
is constant in most comic 
books, cartoons and movies, 
including “Justice League.”

We constantly see figures 

like Batman, Spider-Man and 
Superman in major movie roles 
and in the toy section, but only 
recently have we seen Black 
Widow or Wonder Woman on 

screen and in the media. I’m 
especially angry with Marvel. 
Is Marvel going to make and 
remake movies about each 
male hero (like with the 
Spider-Man franchise), then 
eventually film a movie with 
Black Widow as the main 
character instead of one of the 
supporting 
characters? 
It’s 

made Wolverine movie after 
Wolverine 
movie; 
I’m 
left 

wondering when it’s finally 
going to make a movie about 
Storm and her origin.

Producers seem to prioritize 

recycling 
narratives 
about 

male 
superheroes 
instead 

of creating films about the 
backstory of strong female 
superheroes. Superheroes like 
Storm, Vixen and Hawkgirl 
have biographies that are just 
as interesting as Superman and 
Spider-Man (their backstories 
may actually be more interesting 
because they aren’t as well-
known), but we never get the 
chance to learn about these 
characters in movies.

With the release of this 

year’s “Wonder Woman” and 
“Justice League,” I finally 
got what I’ve wanted for 
over a decade, and a female 
superhero finally got some 
credit. I say some because 
while “Justice League” and 
“Wonder Woman” included 
Themyscira, Wonder Woman’s 
birth place, the movies don’t 
include other shots of women 
fighting and of women in 
positions of power.

Women 
in 
these 
movies 

are 
still 
mainly 
supporting 

characters, while men continue 
to 
be 
some 
of 
the 
main 

characters. Besides seeing the 
Amazons in Themyscira in 
the beginning of the film and 
Etta Candy (Steve Trevor’s 
secretary), Wonder Woman is 
the only woman who speaks 
in the film. “Justice League” 
features female characters 
(Hippolyta, 
Martha 
Kent, 

Lois Lane and Mera), but very 
few conversations involving 
these characters pass the 
final part of the Bechdel test.

The 
lack 
of 
women 
in 

influential positions and the 
constant ignoring of them is 
not specific to comic books 
or action movies. We can 
see it play out in the modern 
world 
in 
Congress, 
where 

women comprise less than 25 
percent of either house, and 
globally on corporate boards. 
Unlike in “Justice League,” 
women are not seen as a force 
to be reckoned with, but just 
something people think they 
can put their hands on when 
the mood hits them — take the 
stream of sexual harassment 
and assault allegations against 
writers, directors and even an 
editor at DC Comics.

But in “Justice League” 

and “Wonder Woman,” unlike 
reality, people took women 
seriously. The characters saw 
Wonder Woman as someone 
who is strong, intelligent and 
played a pivotal role in the 
groups she worked with. She 
often acted as a peacemaker, 
cooling tensions within the 
group. Unlike Batman, who 
was ready to jump to a decision 
without adequately evaluating 
the 
risks, 
she 
exercised 

caution when making difficult 
decisions and considered how 
her 
actions 
and 
decisions 

would affect others.

Near the end of the movie, 

when the fighting was tense 
and I stared wide-eyed at 
the screen, Wonder Woman 
says, “On my lead.” With this 
statement, she makes it clear 
that she is in charge, that she’s 
someone the characters look 
to for guidance and that she 
has the strength of character 
to call the shots. She gives 
herself 
permission 
to 
be 

“bossy,” to be assertive, an 
action that is both subversive 
and 
inspiring 
considering 

our society constantly tries 
to push women into the 
background and as far from 
any position of influence or 
power as possible.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, December 7, 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

COREY DULIN | COLUMN

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

Corey Dulin can be reached at 

cydulin@umich.edu. 

Stop sensationalizing shooters

Luke Jacobs can be reached 

at lejacobs@umich.edu.

LUKE JACOBS | COLUMN

LUKE 

JACOBS

MICHELLE SHENG | CONTACT MICHELLE AT SHENGMI@UMICH.EDU

On my lead

M

any 
people 
who 

have known me for 
a long time were 

shocked when I decided to 
join a sorority. People told 
me that joining a sorority did 
not seem to align with my 
values — I always prioritize 
school, I don’t love partying 
and I am not a “girly-girl.” 
But 
most 
importantly, 
I 

value gender equality. It was 
implied to me that being a 
feminist and joining a sorority 
were mutually exclusive. But to 
me, joining a sorority was the 
embodiment of feminism — it 
meant being a member of an all-
female organization of strong, 
passionate leaders on campus. 

My 
sorority 
experience 

has overall been positive. I 
certainly joined the sorority 
that was the best fit for me 
and 
have 
become 
friends 

with women from all over 
the country whom I likely 
wouldn’t have otherwise met.

Yet being a feminist has led 

me to identify problematic 
aspects of Greek life, most 
of which are due to the stark 
gender 
roles 
embedded 
in 

the Greek community. I hate 
getting 
emails 
about 
our 

social 
schedule 
each 
week 

encouraging us to be “fun and 
flirty” for fraternity boys. I 
hate the gendered themes of 
parties, like “Army Hoes and 
GI Joes.” I squirmed at the 
emails we received during rush 
detailing the specific shoes and 
makeup we needed to wear. I 
was constantly aware that the 
men in Greek life were never 
subject to any of these social 
pressures to act or dress a 
certain way for girls’ benefits.

The most blatant gendered 

difference 
in 
Greek 
life 

involves the alcohol policies 
in fraternities and sororities. 
Parties 
are 
only 
held 
at 

fraternity houses, where men 
provide the alcohol and control 
who is able to attend the parties 
— a “home-turf” advantage of 
sorts. Fraternities do not have 
adults living in their houses 

and are not subject to frequent 
checks for alcohol and drugs. 
Walking 
into 
a 
fraternity 

member’s room, one is likely to 
see a bottle of alcohol or a bong 
sitting out in the open.

Sororities, 
on 
the 
other 

hand, are not allowed to host 
parties. Sorority members are 
not allowed to have alcohol in 
their houses and have “house 
moms” who live with them 
to make sure the women 
are on their best behavior 
and who often dig around 
in girls’ drawers to look for 
illicit 
substances. 
While 
I 

am not encouraging either 
organization to bend the rules 
on underage drinking, I would 
like to see some equality. 
Women should not be held to 
a different standard from men, 
and if it is acceptable for men 
to drink underage, women 
should be able to as well.

Sorority women are taught 

they should never accept drinks 
given to them at fraternities, 
yet they are punished if they 
are caught with alcohol in 
their houses. The implied logic 
is that sorority women should 
not drink. However, this is 
an unrealistic aspiration and 
certainly not one that is thrust 
on fraternity men. Instead, 
men are able to patronizingly 
provide alcohol to sorority 
women 
at 
parties, 
since 

fraternities are allowed to have 
alcohol. 
Not 
coincidentally, 

sorority 
women 
are 
more 

likely to be sexually assaulted 
than other college women. 
This fact alone should indicate 
that Greek life is problematic.

There is a case to be made 

that women would be safer if 
they were implicitly allowed 
to 
have 
alcohol 
in 
their 

sororities, just as men are 
implicitly allowed to have 
alcohol in fraternities. For 
one, women should be allowed 
to drink alcohol they have 
purchased and measure the 
number of drinks they intend 
to consume. This is infinitely 
safer than taking drinks from 

strangers at fraternities, who 
could add a drug to the drink or 
simply pour more alcohol than 
the recipient can safely handle.

The recent Interfraternity 

Council 
ban 
on 
fraternity 

social activity provides an 
opportunity to sit back and 
reconsider what Greek life 
is 
really 
about. 
We 
must 

remember why we decided 
to 
join 
this 
community 

and make changes that are 
representative of our values. 
The ban on fraternity parties 
is absolutely pointless unless 
we use it as a catalyst for 
long 
overdue 
changes. 
As 

women, we do not need to be 
complacent in a system that 
creates a power imbalance 
between men and women. We 
should stand up for ourselves, 
instead of encouraging the 
perpetuation of harmful and 
unnecessary 
differences 
in 

policies based solely on gender 
for fraternities and sororities.

Fraternities allow men to 

occupy a space that makes 
taking advantage of women 
easy, and it is time to recognize 
the need for change in this 
patriarchal system. It is time to 
start treating sorority women 
the same as fraternity men. 
Maybe part of the answer is 
allowing women to have their 
own alcohol and throw parties 
— which includes managing 
who is let in and out of the 
house, rather than attending 
parties in an environment that 
puts them in danger. These 
are valid changes we must 
consider as we recognize the 
problems in our community.

At the moment, I am not 

proud to be affiliated with 
Greek life at the University 
of Michigan. I would be 
prouder of this community 
if 
we 
made 
changes 
to 

promote gender equality and 
encourage women’s safety in 
a conventionally patriarchal 
institution.

HANNAH CHOSID | OP-ED
On being a feminist in a sorority

Everyone except 

the victims 

wins.

Hannah Chosid is an LSA 

sophomore.

