Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, September 6, 2019
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
VARNA KODOTH | COLUMN
What we can learn from early-age feminism
I
n
today’s
world,
the
word
“feminism”
is
further removed from
its purpose than ever before.
Jessa Crispin’s “Why I am
Not a Feminist: A Feminist
Manifesto,”
accurately
dismantles the definition of
feminism today and mandates
that the reader trace the
origins
of
the
feminist
movement
to
identify
at
what point in the fight for
gender equity we strayed
off-course. Crispin writes,
“Much
of
contemporary
feminism uses the language
of ‘power.’ Girls need to be
‘empowered,’
‘girl
power,’
etc.”
And
while
scrolling
past Instagram posts that
aestheticize feminist ideals
and
undoubtedly
evoke
a
facade of female solidarity,
the reality is they’re just
words. Words do not equate
to action. Though liking and
sharing
stories
on
social
media are excellent ways to
educate, support one another
and
increase
awareness,
doing so does not inherently
make you a feminist.
It’s
especially
important
to
recognize
the
social
ramifications
of
being
a
“feminist” in the modern day.
The
societal
understanding
of
feminism
often
wrongly
associates it with completely
radical ideas, such as women
“hating” men or wanting to
surpass and put down men.
This negative rhetoric does
not lend itself to progress.
It’s unfortunate, because the
feminist movement is a fight
for equal rights and equal
opportunity.
Recently,
the
feminist
agenda
has
been
heavily
rooted
in
singular
acts that focus on individual
encounters related to sexual
assault,
sexual
harassment,
sexist comments and jokes at
the expense of women.
Of
course,
these
acts
demand
consequences
and
should not go unnoticed or be
swept under the rug, because
this
action
perpetuates
patriarchal
ideologies.
That being said, it’s equally
essential to not allow these
issues to become the sole
focus of feminism.
As the late author Toni
Morrison
once
brilliantly
stated, “I tell my students,
‘When you get these jobs that
you have been so brilliantly
trained for, just remember
that your real job is that if
you are free, you need to free
somebody else. If you have
some power, then your job is
to empower somebody else.”
Feminism is meant to facilitate
a space in which women, men
and non-binary people alike
advocate for women to attain
equal opportunity, equal pay
and equal rights. Feminism
is meant to reframe the way
women are viewed in all
fields, whether that be the
arts, STEM or business, and
in doing so, to discourage
society from adhering to the
gender
norms
established
during the earliest periods of
civilization. It’s important to
stand up for women around
the world, encourage women
to pursue higher executive
positions and support women
in career-related endeavors,
which, in its process, will
change oppressive rhetoric.
Let’s take, for example, the
start of the so-called “first-
wave
feminist
movement.”
During this time, the feminist
fight focused on suffrage.
Fast-forward a hundred years
and the feminist movement
is
heavily
dominated
by
opinions
and
personal
narratives, which have their
time and place, but do not
address the root causes of
sexism. The problem with
letting personal narratives
dictate the conversation is
that they are not sufficient
on their own to elicit a strong
response
from
the
whole
community. The ugly truth is
that society is most tangibly
influenced by numbers, data
and statistics. The feminist
movement appears fractured
rather than a united front,
as if each woman is pursuing
her own agenda rather than
looking at this as a societal
issue.
A few years ago, one of the
biggest feminine care product
companies, Always, ran a
Super Bowl ad as a part of
their “Like A Girl” campaign.
This ad featured young boys
and girls who were asked
what it meant to “run like a
girl” or “fight like a girl.” This
may seem trivial, however,
I consider this a major step
forward.
It
was
beyond
refreshing to see young girls
reclaim what it means to do
things “like a girl.” This ad
started a dialogue in which
adults
and
adolescents
alike
confronted
a
sexist
concept and prompted a self-
reflection: When did we start
using “like a girl” as an insult?
Do I feed into this growing
problem? This is what the
feminist movement originally
set out to do: mitigate gender
biases by questioning their
validity and reframe their
role in society.
I am a feminist. However,
much like I refuse to be a
“single-policy” voter, I refuse
to be a “bandwagon” feminist.
I refuse to be a feminist only
when it is most convenient. I
refuse to let feminism become
just
a
women’s
problem.
It’s 2019, and it’s time we
respect
the
trailblazers
of our past and push for
feminism to be a community
initiative. It’s essential to
realize the purpose of the
“bra-burning feminists” of
our past is not to inspire
radical
uprisings
today.
Rather, it is a call to action to
confront and resolve gender
discrimination.
Protesting
gender discrimination and
injustice to women ranges
from
addressing
day-to-
day
microaggressions
to
tackling restrictive policies.
Look around you, support
on-campus
advocacy
and
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion initiatives, attend
events produced by female-
run organizations and speak
up to stand in solidarity
with women. With the 2020
election upon us, prioritize
electing policymakers who
have women’s health care and
the gender pay gap as a part of
their agenda. What we need
right now is to smash the
glass ceiling, not just crack it.
T
hree mass shootings
received
major
media
attention
at
the end of July and
the
beginning
of
August.
On
July
28, in Gilroy, Calif.,
a
terrorist
killed
three
people
and
injured 13 others.
On
August
3,
in
El
Paso,
Texas,
another
terrorist
killed
22
people
and
injured
24
others. On August
4, in Dayton, Ohio, a gunman
killed
nine
people
and
injured 27 others. Though the
first two terrorists were also
motivated by racist ideology,
the
connection
between
these mass shooters, and an
overwhelming
number
of
mass shooters in general, is
misogyny.
While sexism involves sex
discrimination in individual
cases, misogyny is systemic
sex discrimination wherein
societal structures of power
are built to inflict harm on
women due to sexist beliefs
and vice versa – sexist beliefs
form
to
justify
systemic
injustice.
The
shooter
in
Dayton
was described as “hateful to
women because they didn’t
want to date him” and created
a kill and rape list for women
who rejected him. The El Paso
terrorist often posted white
supremacist content on the
website 8chan, where many
men are radicalized. And
the Gilroy terrorist posted a
recommendation for a neo-
Nazi
manifesto
—
which
is filled with misogynistic
and racist ideology — on
Instagram the day of the
shooting.
It doesn’t stop there.
In
2017,
a
man
killed
26
people
in
Sutherland
Springs,
Texas.
He
had
been convicted of domestic
violence
and
repeatedly
beat
and
threatened
his
first wife. The shooter at
Orlando’s Pulse nightclub in
2016 beat his wife while she
was pregnant. The man who
killed 17 students at Marjory
Stoneman
Douglas
High
School threatened, abused
and stalked multiple women.
The shooter at a yoga studio
in Tallahassee, Fla., was a
self-described
misogynist
and was arrested multiple
times for assaulting young
women. A man who shot his
ex-fiancée and two others
at a hospital in Chicago
was
repeatedly
reported
to authorities for multiple
instances
of
domestic
violence. To add to the ever-
growing
list,
one
of
the
shooters of Columbine High
School wrote about resenting
women, blaming them for
his
romantic
alienation.
More than just
an anecdote, this
phenomenon
was
confirmed
in
an
analysis
by
Everytown
for
Gun
Safety,
which found that
“the majority of
mass
shootings”
between
2009
and 2017 were “related to
domestic or family violence.”
According
to
experts
studying control and fear,
domestic violence is “often
a way for male abusers to
impose their view of the
‘traditional’
gender
roles
… such ‘traditions’ in the
United States were rooted
in the idea of men having
control over women.”
Shannon Watts, the founder
of Moms Demand Action for
Gun Sense in America, said,
“Most mass shootings are
rooted in domestic violence.”
Gun regulation is needed
to end gun violence, and it is
essential for gun regulation
to include provisions that
bar
people
who
exhibit
misogynistic tendencies —
such as domestic violence or
assault — from gaining access
to guns.
While
it
is
true
that
federal law prohibits people
convicted of certain cases
of domestic violence from
buying
or
owning
guns,
there are many loopholes
that enable domestic abusers
and
virulent
misogynists
to obtain guns, including
assault
weapons.
Also,
federal law does not actually
remove
guns
from
such
abusers because it does not
lay out a removal procedure,
so abusers who already have
guns continue to own them.
Notably,
when
the
reauthorization
for
the
Violence Against Women Act
passed in the U.S. House of
Representatives in April, the
N.R.A. opposed it in the U.S.
Senate because the VAWA
has red-flag provisions that
increase
protections
for
victims of domestic violence
and abuse.
Obviously,
the
United
States is not the only country
with rampant misogyny and
a patriarchy. Easy access to
guns allows mass shooters
and terrorists to carry out
their plans, but misogyny,
often paired with racism,
anti-Semitism, Islamaphobia
and
xenophobia,
is
what
radicalizes these men in the
first place.
In the long history of
mass shootings, a professed
hatred of women is extremely
prevalent. With the rise of
the internet, recent mass
shooters
have
identified
as “incels,”or “involuntary
celibates.” Incels form an
online subculture on sites like
Reddit and 4chan. These men
declare generalized hatred
toward all women for denying
them sex and blame them for
their own lack of romantic
relationships.
Incels
also
frequently fantasize about
violence
towards
women
in order to punish them for
rejecting them and celebrate
mass shooters with similar
ideology.
The
men
who
call
themselves
incels
revere
Elliot Rodger as the original
incel-killer. One of Rodger’s
followers called for an “Incel
Rebellion” on Facebook before
killing
10
and
wounding
14
in
Toronto.
Rodger
himself
posted
disturbing
messages on Youtube before
killing six people in 2014
because he blamed female
students at the University
of California, Santa Barbara
for his isolation. He wrote,
“I’ve been forced to endure
an existence of loneliness,
rejection
and
unfulfilled
desires,
all
because
girls
have never been attracted to
me. … I will have my revenge
against
humanity.
I
will
punish all of you for it.”
Like
Rodger,
men
who
identify as incels feel entitled
to women, their attention
and their bodies. They do not
view women as human beings
who
have
autonomy
over
their decisions and bodies
independent
from
men.
Instead, they believe women
exist to serve their needs, to
quench their self-inflicted
loneliness with sex, concern
and love. And when these
men, with their resentment
and hatred of women, have
access to guns, it is no wonder
there is mass shooting after
mass shooting.
Connecting misogyny and mass shooters
Marisa Wright can be reached at
marisadw@umich.edu.
Zack Blumberg
Joel Danilewitz
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ethan Kessler
Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Max Mittleman
Krystal Hur
Miles Stephenson
Emily Considine
MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN
I
n 2010, the United States
Supreme
Court
held
in
Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission that it was
unconstitutional for the federal
government to impose any type of
restriction on corporate spending
for
political
communications,
provided it is not directly in
cooperation with a candidate or
campaign. Nine years after the
Supreme Court’s ruling, fervent
opposition to the landmark decision
has yet to subside. In fact, earlier
this summer, Democrats in the U.S.
Senate presented a constitutional
amendment
to
overturn
the
Supreme
Court’s
decision
in
Citizens United.
Why does the decision of
Citizens
United
remain
so
controversial today? The most
prevalent concern among the
American electorate regarding
the decision is the fear of
corporations holding unfettered
power and influence on elections.
This would essentially dwarf the
voice of the ordinary individual
through super PACs or political
action
committees
that
have
the ability to raise and spend
unlimited funds to advocate for
or against candidates publicly.
However, this claim is naive
and unsubstantiated. The true
concern Citizens United presents
is one regarding other means of
corporate influence, particularly
lobbying.
Despite enormous backlash,
the Supreme Court was certainly
warranted in its decision. The
First Amendment underscores
the freedom of assembly, implying
that the right to freedom of speech
is guaranteed, even when citizens
join together. Any attempt to
curtail the independent political
spending of any organization
would violate this fundamental
right.
Many
would
agree
that
nonprofits
like
Planned
Parenthood should be free to
independently spend funds on
advertisements. So what should
limit other corporations such as
Microsoft or Verizon?
Anyone
skeptical
of
this
argument should also take into
account that studies have shown
that PAC spending has little
effect on vote shares and voter
turnout. Additionally, research
has
signaled
the
possibility
that money isn’t likely to decide
election success, especially taking
into account other factors such
as incumbency and partisanship.
In fact, three of the top five most
funded super PACs of 2016 were in
support of the candidate who did
not win the presidential election.
After some deep digging, it is
evident the relationship between
PAC spending and elections is
much more complex than initially
thought. But before one takes a
sigh of relief, a greater problem
must be acknowledged: lobbying.
Lobbying has long been seen
as a disease afflicting American
democracy. Public perception of
lobbying is the belief that lobbyists
intend to dominate policymaking
through
their
persuasion
of
legislators. But in reality, lobbyists
are much more intricately unified
with legislators than many believe.
It is no secret that legislators
are extremely limited in their
ability to pay their congressional
staffers. As a result, congressional
offices experience high turnover
rates, with employees quick to
accept opportunities to make
more money elsewhere. As a
result, staffers often have little
experience or knowledge, leaving
them
heavily
dependent
on
lobbyists to assemble the research
necessary to develop their policies.
As a result, lobbying can
more accurately be described
as a legislative subsidy, a term
coined by University of Michigan
professors Richard Hall and Alan
Deardorff. A legislative subsidy
can be defined as “a matching
grant of costly policy information,
political intelligence, and labor
to the enterprises of strategically
selected legislators.”
With 95 of the 100 highest-
spending lobbying organizations
representing
business,
a
large
number
of
business
representatives act as legislative
subsidies.
These
business
representatives
often
provide
expertise on policy issues that
affect them, playing a large role
in the overall decision-making
process
of
legislators.
Public
officials and certain industries,
like that of education, remain
outshined. Therefore, it is no
surprise
that
companies
can
exert excessive influence over
policymaking
with
business
interests so highly represented. In
fact, one study shows that business
interests are disproportionately
represented compared to the
interests of the general public.
With
Citizens
United
still
sparking discussion about the
role of money in politics today, the
American public should be aware
that
restricting
independent
corporate expenditures is not a
solution to political corruption;
business interests in lobbying are
far more problematic. This issue
has yet to be met with a realistic
and tangible resolution and may
well be just another inherent flaw
of our nation’s capitalistic
society. But for the sake of true
democracy, we should not give
up on finding ways to lessen
the impact of wealthy special
interests.
The threat to our democracy is not Citizens United
YASMEEN DOHAN | COLUMN
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.
Yasmeen Dohan can be reached at
yasmeend@umich.edu.
In the long history
of mass shootings,
a professed
hatred of women
is extremely
prevalent
MARISA
WRIGHT
The feminist
movement
appears fractured
rather than a
united front
Varna Kodoth can be reached at
vkodoth@umich.edu.