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.