Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, February 13, 2019
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
Erin White
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
“
Brokeback
Mountain”
is probably my favorite
movie. Not only are Heath
Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal
phenomenal actors, but the film
is also moving in a way that
isn’t overly theatrical. The plot
itself is quite simple, and there
are no cliché scenes dramatized
by overpowering music and
overdone camerawork that are
present in so many other films
today.
Ledger
and
Gyllenhaal
received accolades for their roles
at the time of the film’s release,
including Gyllenhaal’s British
Academy Film and Television
Arts award for Best Actor in a
Supporting Role and Ledger’s
New York Film Critics Circle
award for Best Actor. Both
actors also received praise for
their willingness to be a part of a
movie that was controversial for
depicting a love story between
two men at a time when movies
featuring
heterosexual
love
stories such as “Mr. and Mrs.
Smith,” “A Cinderella Story” and
“The Notebook” were popular.
At the time of the film’s
release,
no
one
seemed
to
question why two straight men
were chosen to play the roles of
two decidedly not straight men.
This was most likely because
there were few movies being
produced at the time that did
feature gay characters or love
stories. Either no one thought
to say anything — or they chose
not to.
However, in 2019, celebrities
are
being
held
accountable
for
their
past
problematic
productions
and
roles.
In
particular, white actors who
played non-white roles and non-
queer actors who played gender
queer
characters
are
being
heavily criticized for choosing to
play a role that was never theirs
to take. Yet no straight actor
who chose to play, or is currently
playing, a non-straight character
receives public backlash. In fact,
many of these actors are loved
by the LGBTQ+ community for
their roles: Darren Criss’ Blaine
in “Glee” and Shay Mitchell’s
Emily in “Pretty Little Liars”
are both well loved. Neither
actor has received backlash
for portraying gay characters.
Neither
have
Ledger
and
Gyllenhaal for their portrayals
of Ennis Del Mar and Jack
Twist,
respectively,
in
“Brokeback Mountain.” Why
is that?
Perhaps people have chosen
to
refrain
from
attacking
Ledger’s portrayal of Del Mar
out of respect for his death. Yet
Gyllenhaal, Criss and Mitchell
have
all
escaped
criticism
for
their
characters
and
performances while other actors
who have played roles that don’t
align with their identity, such
as Emma Stone, who played an
Asian-American character in
“Aloha,” and Scarlett Johansson,
who also played a traditionally
Asian character in “Ghost in
the Shell” – both who have
been heavily rebuked for their
roles. Eddie Redmayne has
also been criticized by the
transgender
community
for
playing
transgender
woman
Lili
Elbe
in
“The
Danish
Girl” and Johansson recently
dropped her role in the movie
“Rub & Tug,” where she would
have played a transgender man,
after heavy backlash from the
transgender community.
These actors have also been
the butt of some jokes: Sandra
Oh made a joke about Johansson
and Stone’s roles as characters of
Asian descent during her Emmys
monologue, quipping, “(Crazy
Rich Asians) is the first studio
film with an Asian-American
lead since ‘Ghost in the Shell’
and
‘Aloha.’”
Stone
could
then be heard yelling, “I’m
sorry!” over the sounds of the
audience laughing.
While Redmayne has been
mostly lauded by cis people for
his role in “The Danish Girl,”
even
snagging
an
Academy
Award
nomination
for
his
work, he has been put under
scrutiny by members of the trans
community. Carol Grant, a trans
female writer, explained her
ire with Redmayne’s role in the
movie in an IndieWire article,
commenting, “For a film that’s
being touted as a progressive
step
up
for
‘transgender
visibility’,
everything
about
its view of trans women and
women in general is regressive,
reductive,
and
contributes
to harmful stereotypes: the
cisnormative
idea
that
a
trans woman is simply a man
performing faux-femininity, as
Redmayne twirls and vogues
his way into womanhood.” She
also criticizes the way in which
the movie portrays Elbe as
being weak, condemning “the
reductive portrait of a trans
woman as a figure of pity whose
tragedy stems from being a man
unable to ‘practice womanhood’,
rather
than
accepting
her
womanhood as natural fact;
the
arguments
that
TERFs
(trans-exclusionary
radical
feminists) love to perpetuate
that trans women only reinforce
outdated gender stereotypes;
the leering at a trans woman’s
body as something unnatural
and abnormal instead of inviting
the audience to understand our
dysphoria.”
Grant’s
argument
about
the problematic nature of “The
Danish Girl” suggests the reason
that so many people have a
problem
with
whitewashing
and cisgender actors playing
trans characters, while they
don’t often have a problem with
straight characters playing gay
characters, is because of the
stark difference between the
accuracy in which the characters
are portrayed. Grant does not
approve of Redmayne’s casting
and performance because he,
as a cisgender man, cannot
accurately portray a transgender
woman. This is true not only
because he is a man playing
a woman but also because he
perpetuates false cisnormative
beliefs about trans-ness. People
take umbrage with Johansson
and Stone’s portrayals of Asian-
American characters because
white people cannot accurately
portray characters of Asian
descent. This is a visibility
issue: Being white automatically
disqualifies an actor for playing
a character of Asian descent,
since they don’t look Asian.
With gay characters, most
performances have not been
marred by stereotypes and
instead have allowed members
of the LGBTQ+ community
to
feel
authentically
represented in popular culture.
Furthermore,
there
is
no
visibility issue. “Pretty Little
Liars” Emily isn’t portrayed
as a masculine character who
chops her hair and makes
unwanted passes on straight
girls;
Glee’s
Blaine
isn’t
portrayed
as
an
extremely
effeminate
character
who
loves shopping or tokenized
as the “gay best friend.” Del
Mar and Twist of “Brokeback
Mountain,”
similarly,
aren’t
portrayed as feminine, and
are
actually
portrayed
as
being quite masculine, which
combats
stereotypes
about
gay men. Furthermore, people
who are not straight don’t have
an obvious “look” to them, as
people of different races do.
I wonder, then, if this
permission from the LGBTQ+
community for straight actors
to play queer characters is
at all contextual: If a movie
centered around the life of
a
gay
activist
is
released
and the activist is played
by a straight actor, is that
still acceptable? Regardless,
representation
in
media
continues to be a multifaceted
topic
and
the
LGBTQ+
community’s willingness to
allow
non-straight
actors
to
play
gay
characters
shouldn’t
be
exploited
to
argue
against
problematic
aspects of Hollywood, such as
whitewashing. This selective
outrage is not reflective of
irrational anger or pettiness.
Rather, it is because in an
industry where representation
is iffy at best, Hollywood may
have gotten it right.
Krystal Hur can be reached at
kryshur@umich.edu.
SAMANTHA SZUHAJ | COLUMN
What of a woman’s strength?
W
atching Justice Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg,
played by Felicity
Jones, climb the steps
of the Supreme Court
moments
before
the
credits
rolled
elicited not only an
emotional
reaction
from
the
theater’s
crowd,
but
also
spurred my thinking
on the emphasis on
the recent portrayals
of strong women in
the media.
Looking
back,
the
2016
presidential
election
cycle
brought this conversation to
the forefront in a re-energized
way. With a female candidate
as the presidential nominee on
a major party ticket for the first
time, the conversation in the
unending news cycle created
a constant critique of what it
meant to be a female leader.
Hillary Clinton was under the
media
microscope
—
facing
gender-related commentary on
her political approaches and
decisions. After the elections
came to a close, there was a
tangible
energy
increase
in
American women and, since
then, our media have sought to
capture it.
Strong women have come to
the forefront of television news,
shows and movies. From two
films coming out within the year
about a Supreme Court justice
who has championed gender
equality on the legal front, to
numerous
female
politicians
announcing
their
candidacy
for 2020, to actor Regina King
vowing
that
everything
she
produces moving forward will
be at least 50 percent female,
being powerful and female is
now, more than ever, a hot topic.
This leads me to wonder: How
can I be strong in my own
right
and
what
constitutes
being strong according to this
popular narrative?
According
to
Comedy
Central’s satirical cartoon South
Park, in which they have a
character duly named
the
Vice
Principal
Strong
Woman,
this
feminine
persona is rooted in
stubbornness
and
having
qualities
equal
to
that
of
a
man.
This
interpretation, albeit
very hyperbolic, of
powerful
women
in
society
does
hold a grain of truth. Women
in
positions
of
power
are
portrayed and evaluated on
these characteristics and are
generally, though not always,
expected to comport in this
limiting way.
So how do I as a college
student fit into this narrative?
What do strong women look like
as young adults, still searching
for their passions and places,
instead
of
as
professionals?
Can we dare to break free from
this mold, or has society in its
championing of women already
tried to do this?
I believe the idea of strength
is entirely subjective and to be
powerful can mean so many
different things to people. The
ability to perform equally to
male peers can be approached
in numerous ways, instead of
the stereotypical way media
presents it to us. Being strong
can take form in silence, in
being outgoing, in spearheading
initiatives or in being a good
team member. One does not have
to embody the “Vice Principal
Strong Woman” aura to be taken
seriously.
So, as we move forward
into 2019, I intend to answer
Regina King’s call to lift up
other women. Let’s encourage
others to be comfortable in
their own definitions of what
strong is, instead of trying
to emulate a societal meta-
narrative. Let us rally behind
female politicians as we move
into
the
upcoming
election
cycle, not solely because they
are women, but because they
are individuals who deserve a
candidacy without the white
noise of subtle gender-based
remarks and outfit critiques.
Let
us
stand
together
and
continue to contribute to the
energizing wave of championing
each other, instead of turning
our backs.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
established
herself
as
an
independent,
strong-willed
woman in the 1950s. Today, she
sits on the bench of the highest
court in the land. The fight
that she represents is not over,
but rather renewed. We find
ourselves riding on this new
momentum of outspokenness for
women’s rights and recognition,
but must take note as to how to
best contribute to this. Let us
be aware of this expected mold
that media urges female leaders
and personalities to be and
implore others to break free of
these restraints. I am strong in
my own right, and it may not be
because I am stubborn or need
to prove my capabilities. And
all of those around me equally
share this strength, regardless
of their qualities — we just need
to get rid of the narrative trying
to tell us otherwise.
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.
KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN
On selective outrage
L
ast semester, I had to take
Space 101: Rocket Science
as a requirement for my
minor in space engineering. I am
majoring in engineering physics
and computer science, so I went
into the class with a relatively
high level of comfort with the
topics that would be discussed.
On the first day of class, I quickly
realized
the
course
would
satisfy the LSA natural science
requirement and only required
a working knowledge of algebra.
Given the average historical
grade was an A-, the lecture hall
was packed with humanities and
social science majors looking
for a class that would satisfy the
requirement and involve as little
math as possible.
Was I a little frustrated most
students had no interest in a
subject near and dear to my
heart? Yes. Do I think courses
like Space 101 should be limited
to engineering students? Of
course not.
Intellectual
breadth
requirements
vary
for
each
major, but their purpose remains
the same: to expose students to
subjects and skills not taught in
their major’s core curriculum.
Those
classes
help
make
students
more
well-rounded
and allow them to interact with
students from whom they may
not normally get to learn. For
engineers, they can also serve a
different purpose and teach us
skills we may not learn in our
structured,
problem-solving
based curriculum.
Engineers
taking
upper-
level humanities classes have
frustrated
engineers
and
LSA students alike, but the
importance of this requirement
can’t be overlooked. Generalizing
the average engineering student
as someone who only watches
lecture recordings or has to
submit all assignments to a harsh
autograder (something only the
Program in Computer Science
employs, as far as I know) is
stereotypical
and
somewhat
demeaning to the entire college.
Engineering students frequently
are required to work in groups
on projects, discuss the merits
of
various
problem-solving
techniques and teach each other
material when office hours are
busy. We aren’t all introverts
who can’t communicate well
enough to take a discussion-
based course. In fact, many
required engineering courses
also have required discussion
sections, not to mention the
other 13 liberal arts credits we
have to take.
Engineering
students
are
required to take a minimum of
16 credits of liberal arts courses,
which
include
humanities,
professional development and
intellectual breadth courses from
a wide range of departments.
Only three credits must be
300-level or higher. Implying
that engineering students are
only required to take one non-
engineering course in the entire
four years they spend at the
University is flat-out wrong.
Admittedly,
engineering
degrees are often structured
differently than social science
or
humanities
degrees.
To
reach upper-level core classes
in a subject, students must take
several enforced prerequisites
in a sequence to even be able to
register. When looking at upper-
level humanities courses, almost
none of the classes (taught in
English) even have advisory
prerequisites. This implies that
these courses can be taken by
any student, regardless of major
or academic background. The
difference between upper-level
and introductory classes in the
humanities is that the classes
become
more
specialized.
The classes still have the same
structure of learning material
during lectures and analyzing the
content in discussion sections.
These
discussion-based
courses allow everyone to be on
the same playing field. As there
are no prerequisites, students
who pay attention in class and
learn the material should all be
able to contribute. Engineers
may
have
a
disadvantage
of
being
used
to
learning
environments where there is
only one correct answer, but
there can be hundreds of ways
to reach that answer and find a
working solution. We do often
have a different perspective
from our LSA peers, with a
relatively weaker background
in humanities, but that doesn’t
mean
valuable
contributions
from engineering students “tend
to be the exception, not the
rule.” In fact, that statement is
somewhat insulting.
To be fair, there are many
engineering students who don’t
have the same enthusiasm for
humanities as they do for their
major core classes. However, there
are always going to be students
who have no interest in the subject
being taught. That subject just
varies from person to person,
major to major. I am sure many
LSA students majoring in math or
a science feel the same way about
humanities. Should there be a
limit on how many non-majors are
allowed in a class? What about a
limit on how many underclassmen
take
upper-level
humanities?
Both of those options would let
upper-level humanities students
enjoy their classes more, but I
think that would end up hurting
everyone. The whole purpose of
a discussion is to have students
analyze material and compare
their insights with their peers.
Nowhere does it say that every
student in a 300-level philosophy
class should have already read all
of Kant and Nietzsche’s works in
order to be able to “elevate” the
class discussion.
So the main question here
is this: Who gets to determine
what contributions to a class-
wide discussion are valuable?
Assuming
the
only
valid
contribution is something we
would’ve thought of ourselves
seems
somewhat
narrow
minded. Some of the most
interesting
perspectives
I’ve
heard have come from people
in other majors and other
colleges. Isolating each major
in their own echo chamber
of
students
who
take
the
same classes, learn the same
information and are interested
in the same things is not how
college should work. We pursue
higher education to learn about
different things, to meet people
from a variety of backgrounds
and to discover new interests
we may have never considered.
Those are the things that create
a positive, supportive learning
environment.
ROSIE VAN ALSBURG | OP-ED
Who decides what contributions are valuable?
Rosie Van Alsburg is a junior
majoring in Engineering Physics with a
concentration in Computer Science and
can be reached at roseva@umich.edu.
Samantha Szuhaj can be reached at
szuhajs@umich.edu.
How can I be
strong in my own
right?
In 2019, celebrities
are being held
accountable
for their past
problematic
productions and
roles
SAMANTHA
SZUHAJ