HANNAH HARSHE | COLUMN
I
’m standing in the doorway
of Shannon’s room. She’s
sitting on her bed, her laptop
on her lap with an
episode of “New Girl”
paused on the screen.
We’re yelling at each
other, over each other,
really. Our voices are
growing
increasingly
loud and angry, and
people walking down
the street outside our
apartment are probably
wondering
whether
we’re safe.
For the record, yes,
we’re safe, but I’m pissed
and so is she. We’re arguing over
what is probably the most trivial
thing a person could possibly
argue over and we know it, but we
also both know that we’re right,
so the conversation isn’t going
to end anytime soon. Shannon
mentions most girls are pretty
and very few girls are average-
looking. I counter that according
to the definition of the word
“average,” most girls are average-
looking, even if that means that
average-looking girls are also
pretty. From there, we begin
arguing. I pull out my laptop to
look up the dictionary definition
of
“average,”
we’re
holding
whiteboards and plotting what
we believe are the distributions
of various levels of attractiveness.
I thought it’s definitely a bell
curve, but Shannon’s adamant
that it’s skewed to the left, and,
yep, we’re yelling.
After about 15 minutes of
arguing, I walk out of the room
and
say
she’s
annoying
me
and I don’t want to talk to her
anymore. She asks if I want to go
to Starbucks. I say yes, and we
put on our shoes and go. Neither
of us ever concedes or apologizes,
but later that afternoon, Shannon
says to me, “I’m thankful that
I have a roommate I can get in
yelling matches with.”
Unfortunately, not everyone is
so appreciative of situations in
which women loudly voice their
opinions. In her study “Who
Takes the Floor and Why,” Yale
researcher Victoria L. Brescoll
determined that when a male CEO
speaks more often than his peers,
professional men and women
consider him to be 10 percent
more competent than his peers.
However, when a female CEO
speaks more often than her peers,
she’s perceived to be 14 percent less
competent than her peers.
Seemingly
confirming
this
viewpoint, in a board
meeting
for
Uber
last June, Arianna
Huffington
spoke
of
the
importance
of
increasing
the
number
of
women
on the board, saying
when more women
join, it shows other
women
that
they
can feel comfortable
joining.
“Actually,
what
it
shows
is
that it’s much more
likely to be more talking,” David
Bonderman, who was on the board
at the time, infamously replied.
He
resigned
after
receiving
pushback for this comment.
This is a pervasive attitude in
the workplace: When men talk a
lot it’s because they’re smart, but
when women talk a lot it’s simply
because
they’re
opinionated.
Further, anger is typically seen
as a positive quality in a man but
a negative quality in a woman.
Brescoll elaborates on this in a
New York Times article, stating,
“Men are less often punished
for (showing anger), but they are
actually seen as more deserving
of power, status and higher
salaries. By contrast, women who
show even mild forms of anger are
often viewed as emotionally ‘out
of control’ and are less likely to
be hired and advanced to higher
positions within their firms.”
So how do people respond to
women who have strong opinions
and anger? They interrupt these
women. A study found that male
Supreme Court justices interrupt
their female colleagues more,
ignore their ideas and ultimately
hinder them from moving up in
the workplace.
In a few short years, Shannon
and I will be moving out of our
apartment
at
the
University
of Michigan and starting our
careers. The days of our yelling
matches will be behind us and
we’ll no longer stand in her
bedroom
growing
genuinely
angry, desperate to prove who’s
right. We’ll still be the same
people, just as adamant and
bold and strong in our beliefs
as we are now, but we’ll hold
those qualities in our workplaces
instead. If we were men, this
would be perceived as a good
thing; we’d be seen as smart
and confident. But because we
happen to be women, we’ll likely
be punished for those qualities.
So, I guess, this is my formal
promise: In two years, or five
years or 10 years or however long
it takes me to get a real job, I
will not give up the tenacity that
keeps me standing in Shannon’s
bedroom, determined to prove
that I’m right. Never in a million
years would I let Shannon talk
over me or let her imply my
opinions are wrong. When I’m in
the workplace, I refuse to give up
that adamant, determined spirit.
I hope Shannon doesn’t give up
hers either.
It’s easier said than done,
I’m sure. Women face so much
backlash for being angry and
opinionated, and retaining those
qualities
into
the
workplace
puts your career at risk and is
not realistic for everyone who
needs to keep their job. But I
know who I am: I’m the girl who
can engage random strangers in
debates about Michigan football,
and I’m the girl who always
finds herself in a yelling match
with Shannon over something as
shallow as what constitutes an
“average-looking girl.” If I were a
man, this confidence would be a
career asset. To my fellow college
women, let’s make a pact: When
we enter the workplace, let’s
refuse to let anyone turn our bold
spirits into liabilities.
5
OPINION
Thursday, May 10, 2018
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Furthermore, the nature
of employment in America
has
become
part-time;
6
million Americans have part-
time jobs but want full-time
employment.
Twenty-five
percent of part-time workers
live in poverty and would
likely qualify for Medicaid.
Part-time
work
and
the
associated job insecurity also
leads to worse mental health.
Imagine adding the potential
of losing Medicaid coverage
or a family’s coverage to
the mix. Chronic stress is
linked
to
many
physical
health
problems
including
cardiovascular
disease.
Conditions
like
diabetes
can also worsen with stress.
Programs like Medicaid are
meant to improve health, not
make people sick.
Even if work requirements
did have a positive impact
on
people,
how
many
people would be affected?
According
to
the
Kaiser
Family Foundation, only 7
percent of Medicaid enrollees
are not working for a reason
other than disability, school
attendance
or
caregiving.
Furthermore, 25 percent of
workers, such as seasonal
workers, who would meet
the
29
hours
per
week
requirement on average would
risk losing their Medicaid
because they cannot meet the
requirement
every
month.
In another cruel twist to the
already toxic bill, there is no
exemption for caregivers of
children up to thirteen years
old despite the efforts of state
Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann
Arbor, to amend S.B. 897.
But perhaps the biggest,
reddest
flag
concerning
S.B. 897 is the clearly racist
provision that would exempt
residents in rural, mostly
white
counties
from
the
requirements. The provision
states
that
counties
with
unemployment greater than
8.5 percent would be exempt
from the work requirements.
Sounds fine and not-racist,
right? Well, let us conduct
a comparison. Lake County
is in western Michigan and
is 87 percent white. In this
county, the unemployment
rate as of March was 9.2
percent,
well
within
the
range for exemption. On
the other hand, in Detroit,
which is 80 percent Black,
unemployed people would
not be graced with the same
exemption because Wayne
County writ large has an
unemployment rate of only 5
percent. Same goes for other
majority-minority cities like
Flint, Saginaw and Benton
Harbor. While I do not think
that this provision to S.B.
897 was meant to be racist, it
certainly is.
In summary, S.B. 897 will
lead to poorer health for
disadvantaged Michiganders
who rely on Medicaid with
particularly harsh impacts
on seasonal workers, parents
or guardians of children, and
urban people of color. It is
racist and classist.
I understand the need to cut
down on Medicaid spending
in Michigan but there are
better alternatives. It is clear
from the push for Medicaid
work requirements and the
earlier fiasco to repeal the
Affordable
Care
Act
that
Republicans do not believe
health care is a basic human
right. It is up to vigilant
voters to defend the health of
our fellow Michiganders. S.B.
897 must be opposed.
College women, let’s make a pact
Hannah Harshe can be reached at
hharshe@umich.edu.
Ali Safawi can be reached at
asafawi@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters
to the editor and op-eds. Letters should
be fewer than 300 words while op-eds
should be 550 to 850 words. Send the
writer’s full name and University affiliation to
emmacha@umich.edu
HANNAH
HARSHE
Republicans’ Medicaid madness by Ali Safawi continued below:
This is a pervasive
attitude in the
workplace: when
men talk a lot, it’ s
because they’re
smart, but when
women talk a
lot, it’s simply
because they’re
opinionated.