Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, January 19, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
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
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
N
early two weeks ago,
Oprah Winfrey gave
an
unquestionably
moving speech, calling on
leaders — especially those in
Hollywood— to end a culture
of
sexual
harassment
and
assault. Out of this rose the
#Oprah2020
hashtag
along
with a debate we shouldn’t be
having: Should Winfrey run
for president?
The critical thing, though,
is that celebrities are prepared
to
market
themselves,
and
billionaires are prepared to
ensure their own advantage.
Barack Obama and George W.
Bush (that is, Dick Cheney)
were savvy presidents, to be
sure, but their early lives and
careers still weren’t altogether
different from those of most
Americans.
They
entered
politics from the (relative)
ground up, moving from state
to national politics in a familiar
pattern — we’re used to leaders
like them.
I understand that electing
an “Average American™” is the
most tired campaign slogan in
American politics, and beyond
that, I wouldn’t actually want
a completely average person
running the country. That said,
I think there is a fundamental
difference
of
worldview
between being a privileged
child (Bush) or a politician (
Hillary Clinton, Obama) and
being
fantastically
wealthy
and the focus of the media.
American culture so deifies
the rich and famous that —
naturally — their personalities
change to fit the role.
On the other hand, it’s
definitely tempting to meet
Trump with his antithesis:
resentment
with
inclusion,
ineptitude in business with
legitimate
success,
erratic
egoism
with
a
ruthlessly
managed image. Winfrey is
everything
effective
about
Trump as a marketer, but
with additional patience and
a basic level of empathy for
other people.
She’s
not,
however,
a
politician. We have no idea
what her specific policy goals
are or would be; we don’t
know how she would act with
regard to her wealth or the
wealth of her peer group.
Any campaign promises and
candidate
platforms
would
be created in the moment,
without
the
weight
of
legislative accomplishments or
prior lobbying to back them up.
Winfrey would lack the unique
political
savvy
developed
by
many
other
candidates
through
congressional
or
governing experience.
Journalist Derrick Clifton
wrote in a Vox article last
week that “(e)ven Winfrey
isn’t safe from being called on
to carry America’s burdens.
Black women are seen as long-
suffering laborers who can
(be) counted on to carry heavy
political baggage, despite often
having the fruits of their labor
stolen.” We’ve seen similar
behavior following the election
of Doug Jones in Alabama,
where
Black
women
voted
overwhelmingly in his favor.
If speculation about a run
from Winfrey continues —
even though it’s been denied
by third parties — it’s likely
because she’s embraced the
possibility, not because we’ve
forced her to accept the burden
of “most powerful person in
the world.” Winfrey’s status
as a businesswoman, media
power and billionaire cloud
the lens (as described by
Clifton) used to evaluate the
way liberals treat Black women
as a voting bloc.
As part of a discussion over
whether or not Winfrey should
run for president, though, I’m
not sure whether the cultural
tendency
Clifton
indicated
plays as large a role as some
would suggest. Billionaires and
celebrities seem to increasingly
consider the presidency as part
of their career trajectories, even
more so than the entitlement to
wealth. This is because of our
collective entertainment with
a presidential system in which
brand recognition trumps all
other factors.
I don’t have a problem with
Winfrey specifically — she’s
made comments that should be
part of our discourse but which
classic politicians would never
(rationally) say. This, though,
is the same justification I get
when people defend Trump to
me: He says what he wants, and
that’s enough. As refreshing as
it is to watch someone shove
aside the frustrating traditions
and
decorum
of
normal
politics,
these
traditions
do
serve
a
purpose.
The
opposition to tradition seen
in the election of Trump isn’t
justification enough to discard
them entirely.
#Oprah2020 is an alluring
idea because she, in a way, is
more popular than Hillary
Clinton, Kamala Harris or
Bernie Sanders could ever
be. Furthermore, I’m sure
she’d perform exceptionally
well in a campaign against
Trump — not that this is some
superhuman feat of strategy
— because of the eloquence of
her past speeches, interviews
and
public
performance.
It’s important to remember,
though, that campaigning and
governing are two entirely
different things, and we need
candidates that can transition
between
the
roles.
The
candidate who opposes Trump
in 2020 will ultimately have
to govern, and govern well, if
they want to win.
The question of #Oprah2020
HANK MINOR | COLUMN
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu.
M
y boyfriend asked me
recently, “Is there a
word like ‘bromance’
for girls?” And I said, “No, boys are
the ones who aren’t
allowed to just have
friends.”
I said this as a
thoughtless
retort,
and then the truth
of it sank in. Though
I’d heard the word
around me on social
media, on TV and in
conversations with
peers, I had never
given much thought
to its implications.
The
word
“bromance”
shows up time and time again
in headlines. In an article by
Medical News Today (which
studies a small, homogenous
group of men), the author
argues that bromances are
making a comeback because
of a decline in the prevalence
of homophobia. A bromance
is supposedly different from
a regular friendship between
two men because of a few
factors,
namely
emotional
intimacy and comfortability
with
physical,
affectionate
closeness. Both this article
and one published by Time
warn that the reemergence
of
close
male
friendships
could
threaten
romantic,
heterosexual relationships.
My concern with these articles
is not (for these purposes, at least)
the
wholly
unrepresentative
samples
surveyed
or
the
responses of participants to the
idea of a bromance. My concern
is that these articles exist at all.
Treating male friendships as if
they are anomalous perpetuates
the societal mindset that there
is something wrong with men
outwardly expressing emotion
or affection, or finding joy in
platonic companionships.
Consider
the
movie
genre
dedicated to telling the stories of
male friendships, the category
that produced films like “I Love
You, Man” or “The Wedding
Ringer”. The very existence of
a genre dedicated to portraying
male friendships as out of the
ordinary, notable relationships
takes a normal dynamic and twists
it. Even in the depiction of close
male friendships, the jokes are
often tinged with barbed hints at
homosexual relationships, which
use queerness as a punchline;
in order to encourage male
friendships,
it
seems,
the genre cannot allow
same-sex
romantic
relationships outside the
confines of a joke. This
portrayal enforces the
idea that awareness of
the relationship must
remain at the front of the
mind and there are lines
that cannot be crossed.
Thus the existence of the
iconically
problematic
“no homo.”
Regardless of whether the
term “bromance” is expressly
used, what seems to be emerging
is the idea that it is in some way
abnormal or progressive for men
to have close friendships with
other men. In movies, there is a
spotlight on the fact that the men
have an emotional connection.
The existence of the film is
predicated on the idea that there
is amusement to be found in the
novel notion that men want to talk
with other men and that they want
to share experiences and feelings
with close friends.
Another common theme in
“bromance” movies is the pitting
of men against women. The male
friend must exist for emotional
support because the woman —
girlfriend, fiancé or wife — turns
out to be cruel or have ulterior
motives. Apparently, as suggested
by the genre, men get only one
intimate, emotional relationship;
they
must
choose
between
romantic or platonic, between
woman or man.
I don’t mean to imply that
I
think
there’s
something
wrong with representing male
friendship or that the movie genre
shouldn’t exist. Representation
is important; one way to fight
back against the stigma of close
male bonds is to show them and
normalize them — I think there
are a few programs that do this
well and allow for sensitivity,
vulnerability
and
genuine
affection in male friendships (see
“Scrubs”, “The Flash”, “Stranger
Things”, among others that I’m
sure are out there). Treating them
as a novelty still enforces their
existence as outside the bounds
of ordinary relationships.
Representation
also
means
showing that friendships and
relationships can coexist; there’s
no reason to have to choose one
or the other. Male friendships
shouldn’t be a substitute for a
romantic
relationship
because
that implies the friendships will
be abandoned when a romantic
relationship is found. Rather, each
relationship should occupy its own
space and offer its own benefits to
an emotional well-being.
There isn’t a female equivalent
for “bromance” because it’s never
been a question that it’s positive
and healthy for women to have
other women to turn to. There
is no suggestion that intimate
female friendships undermine the
value of a romantic relationship.
Women are allowed their separate
spheres of relationships; they are
allowed to cultivate and maintain
a support group outside of a
romantic relationship that offers
meaningful interactions.
I don’t mean to fault men
for being part of a system. I’m
not even inherently against the
word “bromance.” But I think
it’s important to consider the
motivation
behind
labelling
male friendships with a word
other than “friendship.” It’s
important to consider what
happens when we treat male
friendships as unusual. Rather
than creating a space in which
men can turn to those with
similar life experiences and
perspectives, we create a space
in which men are expected
to keep emotions bottled up
and keep their relationships
an arm’s length away. Men
should be allowed to have their
friendships, untainted.
Breaking down bromance
DANIELLE COLBURN | COLUMN
Danielle Colburn can be reached at
decol@umich.edu
JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU
“Men get only
one intimate
emotional
relationship; they
must choose
between romantic
or platonic.”
“Celebrities
are prepared
to market
themselves,
and billionaires
are prepared to
ensure their own
advantage.”
DANIELLE
COLBURN
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.
CARLY BEHRENDT | CONTACT CARLY AT CARBEHR@UMICH.EDU