100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

January 28, 2019 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, January 28, 2019

W

ith
our stomachs

full of popcorn and
Buncha Crunch (the

best movie snack combination),
my brother and I drove home
after seeing “On the Basis of
Sex,” the story of now-Supreme
Court
Justice
Ruth
Bader

Ginsburg
and
her
history-

changing
case
on
gender

discrimination
as
a
young

attorney. We began our usual
movie debrief and analysis,
discussing how the characters
were depicted, what we loved,
what we would have changed
and how the film made us feel.
It was everything we could have
asked for in a film about RBG
(besides the fact that Felicity
Jones, who plays her, isn’t
Jewish — but that is for another
column).

We could not get over how

strong, soft and confident RBG
was depicted in the film. We
were so fired up and empowered
by watching her story. So I
asked my brother where he
thought she got her sense of
security and confidence. He
thought it had to be from her
supportive husband Marty, who
believed in her, was her equal
and stood beside her always. I
thought she learned it from her
mother, because, in the film,
they gave us some background
about her teaching Ruth to
question everything. But then
I thought her confidence could
have come from a secureness in
her skills, knowledge or talent.
And if she didn’t believe in
herself, was she just channeling
the classic lesson: Fake it until
you make it?

Regardless of how RBG

gained her confidence, she
was a key leader in change and
challenged the status quo in her
own way. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

harnesses soft energy, a type
of spirit that is thoughtful and
nurturing yet still comamands
people’s attention. She is soft-
spoken,
thoughtful,
detail-

oriented and sensitive. With all
of these soft traits she holds,
she also has the confidence to
implement them into her work.
When picking the series of
cases that made discrimination
of gender illegal, she looked at
the details and knew how to
frame it to the Supreme Court.
She knows the power of her
skills, knowledge and gifts and
uses them to create change. As
of late, I have been trying to
channel my soft energy because
I, too, am one big softie.

I have always been pretty

self-aware of my emotional
intelligence,
sensitivity,

nurturing
abilities
and

relationship skills. I thought
this
skill
set
could
only

be really beneficial in my
personal life and caretaking
for children or older adults.
This past year, I became the
president of my cooperative
house without holding the
stereotypical
characteristics

of a president. I didn’t have
the intention of being a leader
in my house, but by building
strong relationships with my
housemates over time, being

passionate about the future
of our house and being my
authentic soft self, I was able
to gain this position. Being the
president continues to show me
how my soft traits positively
impact my leadership style and
power.

So, if I am aware of my

strengths, how do I gain the
confidence to apply these traits
and put myself out there to
work toward positions that
scare me or are further out of
reach? How can I harness my
soft energy the way RBG did
in law school and continues to
do today as a Supreme Court
justice? RBG never changed
herself or her style to gain a
position in power. She is a great
example of how feminine, soft
people can lead without having
an iron fist or hard, masculine
energy. I’m lucky to have
someone in power with whom
I share identities: being a white
Jewish woman and setting the
path which she did not have
before her. Perhaps due to her
position in the world — the
privileges she holds and her
intersecting role as one of the
few woman in a field dominated
by men — she has been able to
cultivate her confidence.

From now on, I am going

to continue harnessing my
soft energy and remember
that it can positively impact
my leadership and power,
even if I have to fake it until
I make it. I think that when
we are confident in our own
abilities, even if they challenge
the
stereotypical
image
of

power, we can create change
and lead those around us in our
own way.

Soft energy is power

Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at

erosenz@umich.edu.

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

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

The first step to fighting climate change is thinking small
T

he summer of 2018 saw

a
popular
collective

movement
from

companies and consumers alike

as they rallied against the use of

plastic straws. Companies such

as Starbucks began to announce

the
eradication
of
plastic

straws from their practices. In

large part, this movement was

in response to a viral video

depicting a sea turtle with a

plastic straw caught in its nose

that sparked a conversation

between
many
online.
This

video (thats original upload

amassed over 30 million views)

provided the perfect spark that

triggered a movement leading to

the plastic straw apocalypse.

This is in large part because

it is easy to enact change when

the dilemma has a tangible (and

cute) icon, like sea turtles, and

puts a real face on the thing

doing them harm: straws. In

our country alone, we learned

Americans
use
500
million

straws every single day. And so

the story wrote itself — if you

want to be environmentally

conscious and do your part, all

you need to do is forgo the straw

and save a turtle! However, the

sobering reality is that plastic

straws only account for about

0.02 percent of total ocean

plastic — a quite literal drop in

the ocean of plastic.

I don’t want to say this is a

bad thing — quite the contrary.

I am all for ditching the straw

and “saving the turtle” at every

opportunity. In fact, this is

a good example of how non-

environmentally-minded people

can
support
environmental

causes when given the proper

motivation. As great as this

moment is, imagine if we could

take the momentum generated

surrounding
plastic
straws

and apply it to other, larger

environmental causes such as

climate change — one of the

biggest economic threats of

our generation.

Truthfully, this tactic has

already been tried to no avail.

Growing up as a kid, I remember

watching the documentary “An

Inconvenient Truth” for the

first time. Controversial for

the era, the 2006 documentary

highlighted and explained the

problem of global warming and

called its viewers to action to do

something about it. Of the many

stories and facts given during

the film, the images that stuck

with me the most were of polar

bears swimming around, unable

to find stable ice. The narration

explained the melting of arctic

ice was destroying these bears’

homes, and if global warming

continued uninhibited, there

would be no more polar bears.

This is the exact same kind

of situation that led to the

plastic straw craze over the

summer: an innocent animal

being harmed by the unintended

consequences of human activity.

Yet the campaign to save the

polar bears failed to reach

a more general audience in

the same way. Perhaps that is

because it was pre-social media,

or that our generation is more

motivated
by
environmental

concerns
than
previous

generations (both of which are

reasonable, plausible answers

to why there was not the same

kind of movement then as there

is today).

I would offer a third possible

answer.
The
main
reason

everyday people are willing

to forgo straws in the name of

saving the environment is not

due to some newfound respect

for nature but rather a result

of the ease of changing actions.

Saving the polar bears implies

drastically
changing
our

lifestyle — mainly the reduction

of fossil fuel consumption. And

regardless if you hate fossil

fuels, every single American

benefits from how cheap and

convenient these fuels are. Even

as clean, renewable alternatives

are rapidly becoming cheaper

and more efficient, we are still

rely heavily on fossil fuels.

Plastic
straws
and
sea

turtles, on the other hand,

require a much simpler response.

After all, unless you need them

for medical reasons, refusing

straws has little impact on our

everyday lives. It’s much easier

than trading in your gas guzzler

and installing solar panels in

order to save a polar bear. So the

question arises: How can we get

people motivated about climate

change in the same way?

The
answer
to
fighting

climate change lies in breaking

down a seemingly impossible

monumental
problem
into

everyday, small-scale decisions.

Take
meat
consumption,

for example. According to the

Environmental
Protection

Agency, livestock production

results
in
greenhouse
gas

emissions, primarily through

the
natural
production
of

methane. In order to make a dent

in reducing carbon emissions,

we are going to need to reduce

the amount of meat we consume.

When most people hear that,

they scoff and make a claim

about how we are natural meat

eaters, and how they would

never go vegan. As frustrating

as it is to hear people be so

dismissive
immediately,
I

cannot blame them. I consider

myself an environmentalist, yet

I still consume meat (I mean,

Chick-fil-A
nuggets
are
too

good to pass up, right?).

The
misconception
here

is
that
changing
our
food

consumption needs to be a

drastic,
life-altering
vow.

Instead
of
trying
to
get

everyone
to
go
completely

vegan, we should start by trying

to make conscious, modest yet

impactful choices to reduce our

consumption. The aggregation

of these small choices will result

in a huge impact on climate

change. For instance, if every

American simply forwent meat

just one day a week, it would

be the equivalent of taking 7.6

million cars off the road.

When
framed
this
way,

suddenly the impossible seems

conceivably possible. After all,

how much would it really cost

us to drop the steak dinner once

a week?

Even more exciting news

is
the
development
of
the

alternative
meat
industry.

Products such as the Impossible

Burger
or
Beyond
Meat

offer a meat alternative that

tastes, feels and is otherwise

interchangeable
with

traditional beef at a fraction

of the environmental impact.

Prices for these alternatives

are already competing with the

real thing. Pretty soon we will

be able to save the environment

while still getting our beef fix.

If we are going to make a

serious dent in climate change,

and
save
the
polar
bears,

Americans will seriously need

to reconsider their consumptive

habits. Partaking in “Meatless

Mondays,”
while
a
great

beginning, is not the be-all,

end-all of climate solutions. Not

to mention, fighting climate

change is not solely a consumer-

responsible task (indeed, we

will need larger institutional

support as well). Changing a

culture takes time, but we need

to start somewhere, and if we

focus on it there can be real,

tangible change.

Timothy Spurlin can be reached at

timrspur@umich.edu

TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN

ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | COLUMN

MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN

U-M needs an all-female work space

G

rowing up as a young
woman means that you
are constantly on display.

Everywhere you go — at school,
at the grocery store, at volleyball
practice, at church, at the pool,
even at home — you are always
open to critique, comments or
questions related to your body.

If it’s not, “Smile honey,” it’s,

“Those pants are NOT flattering”
or “Your bra strap is showing”
or “Why do you have a ‘lesbian’
haircut?” And especially after
the transition to young adulthood
— though some girls experience
this even before puberty — people
view you through the lens of
attractiveness. Whether it’s the
creepy guy scanning you up
and down at the gas station
or the “I bet boys are all over
you” comment at large family
gatherings,
your
existence

is always in proximity to the
male gaze.

It’s not just men who do this

to women, though. One of the
biggest scams of the patriarchy
is the system in which women
are punished for breaking gender
norms. Some women feel it is
their duty to police other women
according to those patriarchal
norms. For many young women,
it is often older (and more
conservative, by way of their age)
women who push notions of what
is and is not “acceptable” in public.
This creates an environment
where women — young women
especially — experience criticism
from all angles, doubly so if you
are a woman of color, LGBTQIA+,
differently abled, etc.

It
can
be
maddening,

heartbreaking and downright
rage-inducing to constantly field
gendered and often sexist ridicule.
Of course, the real solution to
sexism is to dismantle the white
supremacist
heteropatriarchy,

but what about right now?

In Fall 2016, The Wing, a

community and co-working space
designated for women, opened
in New York City. Founder of
The Wing, Audrey Gelman,
developed the idea for a space
just for women after spending
her birthday at a girls-only party,
realizing the importance of
“ladies’ nights” for women.

Eventually,
Gelman

partnered with Lauren Kassan to
open The Wing after finding that
other co-working spaces couldn’t
offer what they were looking for.
Though they take inspiration

from early women’s clubs in the
19th and 20th centuries, Gelman
and Kassen make inclusivity a
priority by encouraging trans
and non-binary folks, people of
color and low-income women
to apply for membership, even
offering a scholarship to ensure
it is accessible for everyone.

Partly for socializing and

partly for working, The Wing
offers much more than a typical
work space, including events
with speakers like politician
Hillary
Clinton
or
actress

Kerry
Washington,
blowouts,

showers, lactation rooms, a cafe
and a daycare for women with
children. Since the success of the
first space in Soho, New York,
the company has expanded to
six other locations, including
Washington,
D.C.
and
San

Francisco, and plans to open
in five other cities including
Chicago, London and Toronto,
making a total of eleven Wings.

More than the amenities and

chic decor, the Wing offers a
space for women to exist outside
all the ways in which women are
marginalized. It’s not just about
making a safe space for women,
though. It’s about making a space
where women are celebrated
and can celebrate each other. A
space for women allows women
to create community through
socializing with and supporting
one another.

Gelman
told
business

magazine Fast Company, “The
air feels different when it’s
only women. The atmosphere
is incredibly warm, there’s an
absence of competition or snark
or cattiness. Everyone is just
really excited to be here and to
meet new people.”

I know the feeling, especially

at the University of Michigan. I
am a double major in Political
Science and Women’s Studies,
and I’m sure you can guess
which
classes
are
mostly

women and which are not. In
contrast to my male-dominated
political science classes, my
women’s studies classes are
not just different in content but
different in atmosphere. There
is less tension in the air. People
are friendly, understanding and
supportive. No one interrupts
you or mansplains to you. No
one invades your personal space
while pretending to be clueless
about the whole thing. Everyone
is considerate and professional.

It is less a matter of social
bonding and more a matter
of just being treated like a
human being.

It is difficult to articulate

in words, like really any feeling
is, but I feel a sense of comfort,
a sense of ease in my bones
when I am learning surrounded
by women. I am no longer
on display. I am no longer
expected to perform — or risk
punishment for breaking —
social norms that cater to men.
I can relax — opening myself up
to new possibilities for learning,
understanding and engaging.

There
are
also
concrete

learning benefits for women
in all-female spaces. Nilanjana
Dasgupta, a Psychological and
Brain Sciences professor at the
University of Massachusetts at
Amherst, found that first-year
women engineering students,
“participate more actively” and
“feel less anxious” when they are
in mostly female or gender-equal
groups.

An all-female work space

would not be disrupting the
many
benefits
of
a
co-ed

university, such as a wider
range of perspectives and the
opportunity to learn to work
in teams with other genders.
An all-female work space at
the University, inclusive of any
female-identifying
person,

would
simply,
but
notably,

allow female students in a work
environment free from gendered
pressures and expectations, a
place they can be re-energized in
their academic pursuits by other
women. Specifically, this space
might take inspiration from The
Wing by holding events centered
around celebrating women and
their
achievements
through

hosting speakers or educational
and social events, which would
elevate the space from just being
a refuge to being a space for
empowerment.

College
life
outside
of

academic pursuits can be a soup
of young people riddled with
freedom, hormones and alcohol
who are looking for hookups. A
place for young female students
to escape, to live even for just a
few hours outside of the world
that constantly undermines and
undervalues
their
existence,

would be transformative.

Marisa Wright can be reached at

marisadw@umich.edu.

She knows the
power of her

skills, knowledge
and gifts and uses

them to create

change

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

tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 7:00-8:30 PM at our
newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All are welcome to come discuss

national, state and campus affairs.

The aggregation

of these small

choices will result
in a huge impact
on climate change

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan