Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, January 16, 2020
Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
ERIN WHITE
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.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
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
OWEN STECCO | COLUMN
Our need for labels underscores our discomfort with the LGBTQ+
W
ith the release of his
newest album and a
stark gender-bending
fashion
sense,
musician
Harry
Styles became the latest victim of
intense questioning and pressure to
label “what” he was. We frequently
see this labeling game take place
when a gay, lesbian or bisexual
person marks their “coming out.”
But what does a formal statement
translate to when it comes to
everyday interactions with LGBTQ+
individuals? It seems to be a way for
people to compare that person to a
stereotype they already have formed
in their heads for their own comfort
and understanding. The labels we
rely on to describe members of the
LGBTQ+ community serve to limit
them and reflect our need to stick to
what we already understand, rather
than challenging our preconceived
notions of sexual identity and gender
expression.
Many of the labels slapped on
members of the community dictate
the way others perceive a person,
rather than relying on personal
connections formed. Referring to
your friends as your “gay best friend”
or “trans friend” limits them and
often puts them in an uncomfortable
or vulnerable position before they
even have a chance to speak. In
addition, it reflects a need for straight
individuals to prove something of
themselves as if having a gay friend
is an accessory to wear. With these
labels branded on the community’s
forehead,
individuals
feel
as
though they’re filling a role and
satisfying
someone’s
stereotype
of how members of the LGBTQ+
community are supposed to be
presenting
themselves.
This
pressure to satisfy stereotypes and
be understood is reflected across
popular culture.
Recently, Styles was interviewed
by The Guardian, where he was
pushed to define his sexuality after
they accused him of pandering to
the LGBTQ+ community. To the
question of sexuality, he responded,
“Who cares?” The theories spread
across social media and the influx
of articles pinpointing his sexuality
based on clues reflect society’s need
to label and place individuals into
palatable and comfortable boxes.
Styles went on to add that he dresses
“not because it makes me look gay,
or it makes me look straight or it
makes me look bisexual,” but rather
without
labeled
boundaries
of
feminine or masculine. His general
indifference to the question and
desire for ambiguity in his identity
are reflective of the approach society
should strive for.
The societal desire to label
someone or something as “gay” or
“lesbian” emulates a sense of power
over the community by deciding
what their identity says about them
and how they are to be viewed
within the confines of a stereotype.
Furthermore, the boxes individuals
are placed in allows for society’s
perception of that identity to confine
someone and steer them towards
traditional paths or be deterred from
activities, based on the way they’ll be
perceived. These labels historically
carry negative connotations and
can be oppressive, thus leading
to a second-class status for the
community. Straight people already
understand the malice in these labels
when they are offended by someone
who mistakenly refers to them
as LGBTQ+, as seen with Shawn
Mendes’ case of feeling pressured to
prove that he’s not gay.
“Coming out” is a held practice
in which those in the LGBTQ+
community
publically
define
themselves in an effort to distinguish
themselves and begin the cycle of
labeling. The process ostracizes those
who hold these identities because
straight individuals feel no pressure
to announce their sexuality to others,
rather it is presumed. By “coming
out” we seemingly make the process
of
labeling
and
understanding
easier for straight individuals who
otherwise would not have known
what to refer to us as.
This societal desire to label
becomes even more complicated for
those who fit multiple categories or
fall into a gray area, such as those
who are bisexual or pansexual.
With less available stereotypes
and a need to pin a person down,
the idea of “percentages” arises,
which is a common practice of
determining how gay or straight
a bisexual or pansexual person is
based on what gender they prefer
more or less. With this confinement
of sexual expression, people often
perpetuate bisexual erasure by
limiting their sexuality to a category
more comfortable to them instead of
embracing their fluidity and actual
orientation.
Bisexual erasure and the need
for labeling are not limited to
the straight community, rather
it is perpetuated through the
LGBTQ+ community by an added
pressure of categorizing yourself
within your overarching label.
This is especially prevalent in the
dating scene as many LGBTQ+-
identifying individuals present
themselves in “tribes” and express
their preferred label, leading to
hierarchies
and
perpetuating
the toxic behavior exhibited by
oppressors.
The
systemic
desire
to
label and limit others reflects
society’s discomfort with the
LGBTQ+
community
because
it demonstrates the need for
us to fit a stereotype to be
understood. This practice of
labeling stretches from simple
“coming outs” to chart-topping
musicians when someone strays
from society’s expectation of
expression. Instead of using
labels
for
individuals,
rely
instead on similarities, passions
and connections to humanize
a person rather than belittling
them to a comfortable stereotype.
Assigning labels to members of
the community perpetuates the
less-than-understanding
that
comes along with stereotypes
and limits rather than liberates.
Owen Stecco can be reached at
ostecco@umich.edu.
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
Campus carbon neutrality efforts should prioritize reevaluation
S
ince the spring of 2019, the
University
of
Michigan
campus
has
experienced
several major events regarding how
we — the city of Ann Arbor and
University campus — are responding
to the current global climate crisis.
Some of the major events include
two climate strikes and one recent
incident in which civil protesters
were arrested. At the same time,
the
University’s
administration
took its first major strides toward
reducing the detrimental effects of
our campus on the climate. Since
the launching of the President’s
Commission on Carbon Neutrality
in February 2019, we can certainly
consider the action taken by the
University thus far as satisfactory
and
progressive.
However,
going forward, it’s important to
recognize that some aspects of
the commission’s plan should be
adjusted to better serve the public
opinion toward how the climate
crisis should be addressed in our city.
The President’s Commission
on
Carbon
Neutrality
is
composed of faculty, students,
local administrators and other
local partners. It was formed to
address
several
responsibilities
and a timeline for creating a final
recommendation
to
University
President Mark Schlissel for how
administrative action should be
taken to achieve carbon neutrality.
The timeline — beginning in Fall
2018 and ending in Fall 2020
— is divided into three phases,
throughout which the commission
is expected to achieve specific
goals. Given the actions currently
outlined in the timeline, there
should be a general designated
effort to reevaluate this process of
composing a final plan for Schlissel
in order to consider implementable
improvements
to
the
process
along the way. This would allow
the commission to improve the
execution of its purpose: to evaluate
the ways in which the University
can achieve carbon neutrality and
sustain it for the future.
The first phase of the PCCN
plan, spanning from February
2019 to November 2019, deals with
creating plans to address the major
challenges of achieving carbon
neutrality and establishing a shared
understanding among commission
members of these major challenges
going forward. Specifically, the
commission is set to define a plan to
address the complexities of carbon
neutrality,
educate
community
members on their work, secure
the expertise necessary to evaluate
complexities, create a unanimous
outlook on these complexities
and compose an interim progress
report.
During these months of the
first phase, the commission has
successfully begun to evaluate
forthcoming
challenges
and
establish
an
all-encompassing
perspective of which areas on
campus need adjustments and
which
subsequent
areas
will
be affected by the predicted
adjustments.
However,
the
commission
lacks
prioritizing
a
mentality
of
reevaluation
as they engage in the process
of determining the best way
to approach the challenges of
achieving carbon neutrality. In
that way, this commission should
constantly reevaluate whether or
not their approach to addressing
these
challenges
continues
to
be successful. This allows the
commission to make alterations
necessary
for
improving
the
process.
The second phase of the PCCN
plan, spanning from November
2019 to May 2020, deals with
evaluating
options
shown
by
analyses teams and continuing to
establish a shared understanding
among commission members of
the major challenges in achieving
carbon neutrality. Specifically, the
commission is set to engage experts
in
informing
analyses
teams,
evaluate recommendations made
by analyses teams, further define
aspects of the challenges, create
a unanimous outlook on these
challenges and compose another
interim progress report.
During the months of this next
phase, I find that the commission
could benefit more by establishing
permanent
staff
positions
in
analysis teams in addition to
the faculty advisors that lead
them. More importantly, I find it
imperative that the commission
works to expand both staff and
student involvement in the social
justice sub-group because of the
important
correlation
between
poor
environmental
conditions
and
significant
socioeconomic
disparities. In that way, this
commission
should
continue
building their staff and other
administrative personnel involved
in their analysis teams and sub-
groups in order to create the
most informed and well-versed
evaluations of the challenges as
possible.
The third phase of the PCCN
plan, spanning from May 2020
to December 2020, deals with
making final consultations and
creating a final report for achieving
carbon neutrality to Schlissel.
Specifically, the commission is set
to allow stakeholders to evaluate
final
recommendations,
draft
a final list of recommendations
for public input and deliver a
final revised report to Schlissel.
During the months of this final
phase — and realistically for each
of the phases — the outcome of
the commission could be most
satisfactory if public engagement
is prioritized during the process.
In that way, this commission
should work to promote public
involvement further and continue
to emphasize the importance of
discussing actions taken for our
campus and our city to become
carbon neutral.
Above
all,
I
encourage
everyone — as a community and
as a public student body — to
involve yourself more in the plans
and
developments
currently
being made in our city in order
to have an influence on this
system that is made to serve us.
The President’s Commission on
Carbon Neutrality exhibits great
intentions that our campus should
be proud of, but that they could
benefit from the feedback and
input we give about the policies
they materialize in their report
to Schlissel on how to approach
achieving carbon neutrality. In
the end, this effort will take
the involvement of everyone
in order to be successful, and
we ought to feel concerned
about our future whether we
want to work for it or not.
Kianna Marquez can be reached
at kmarquez@umich.edu.
MARY ROLFES | COLUMN
Minding the orgasm gap
W
hile the 1989 rom-
com
classic
“When
Harry Met Sally” may
seem a little too old to be relevant
on the modern college campus,
one of the movie’s most climactic
moments has become a cultural
icon. Whether they’ve seen the film
or not, most people would likely
recognize the scene in which Sally
challenges Harry’s ability to tell a
real orgasm from a fake one, giving
a loud demonstration of the latter in
a crowded café and producing the
often-repeated line, “I’ll have what
she’s having.” This scene serves as
one of the most pervasive on-screen
portrayals of the female orgasm —
quite telling, then, that the orgasm
depicted is unambiguously fake.
To the film’s credit, the scene
probably wouldn’t have had the
chance to become so iconic if the
orgasm was not explicitly fake. While
the film did receive an R-rating for
profanity and vulgarity, it almost
certainly would have been hit with
a highly restrictive NC-17 rating had
they shown Sally sincerely enjoying
sex — especially oral sex. That’s right
— the MPAA considers both drug
abuse and intense violence more
appropriate for viewing by children
than the explicit female orgasm,
despite the fact that women are
often highly sexualized in popular
films. Simultaneously portraying
women as sexual while refusing
to acknowledge their pleasure
contributes to the prevalence of
female objectification. Even the
theoretically
equivalent
male
orgasm is widely viewed as more
acceptable to show in movies.
This
orgasm
inequality
is
certainly not limited to the silver
screen. The existence of a gender pay
gap is established and well-known,
but women are consistently shorted
fair compensation in many measures
beyond their salary, including the
frequency of achieving the Big O.
Female college students consistently
report having an orgasm during
intimate encounters — both within
hookups and relationships — less
than their male counterparts, with
the largest difference being an
astounding 32 percent. As I’ve said
previously, emotional and mental
factors are just as crucial to safe,
healthy sex as physical factors.
This includes the recognition and
fulfillment of desires and pleasures.
It’s about time we come to widely
acknowledge closing the orgasm
gap as part of the fight for gender
equality. We need to get comfortable
talking about it, too, as open
discussion is often an important step
in the path toward reconciliation. We
have a lot of catching up to do, but
improving our personal and cultural
understanding of the female orgasm
gives us a good place to start.
While the term ‘orgasm gap’
is fairly new, gender inequality in
terms of sexuality is not a recent
development. Women have been
receiving the short end of the stick
when it comes to sexual pleasure
for centuries. In fact, female sexual
desire was so misunderstood it used
to be pathologized as hysteria, a
diagnosable illness in need of a cure
which — somewhat ironically —
led to the invention of the vibrator.
Hysteria remained in the American
Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders until 1980, and while it
has since been removed, gender
inequalities when it comes to the
understanding
and
acceptance
of pleasure and desire remain an
issue. The statistics about orgasm
frequency demonstrate the results
of this misunderstanding. According
to a 2017 article from the Archives of
Sexual Behavior, heterosexual men
are most likely to orgasm from sexual
intimacy, while landing in last place
is — you guessed it — heterosexual
women. It’s not even close, either,
with 95 percent of heterosexual
men reporting they usually orgasm
during sex, compared with just 65
percent of heterosexual women. This
already significant difference widens
to 52 percent when the population is
narrowed down to college students,
with just 39 percent of female
respondents reporting they usually
or always experience orgasm during
partnered sex in one survey. These
numbers make it clear that the issue
of orgasm inequality is undeniable,
especially on college campuses.
Obviously, this massive gap isn’t
going to close itself, and in order to
realize
statistical
improvements,
we need to recognize the factors
leading to inequality. Laurie Mintz,
a psychology professor at the
University of Florida, cites cultural
misunderstandings
and
myths
surrounding female anatomy as
the “number one reason for the
orgasm gap,” along with inaccurate
media depictions of sex and the
under-valuing of female sexuality
— especially when compared to the
over-privileging of male sexuality.
This over-privileging includes the
cultural definition of penetrative
sex as the primary form of sexual
behavior — it’s widely considered
the “main event” in any intimate
encounter, with other behaviors
being secondary supporters of
penetration rather than independent
and equally valid forms of sex. In
fact, many people don’t even believe
sex without a penetrative element to
truly be ‘sex.’ This creates issues for
people of varying gender and sexual
identities (for example, the cultural
question of “How do lesbians have
sex?”)
including
heterosexual
women. Their desires, pleasures
and,
yes,
their
orgasms,
are
neglected and reduced as a result of
the heteronormative prioritization
of penetrative sex.
With the scale of the orgasm
gap established and the factors
that create it laid out, we can
work to mitigate, and possibly
eliminate, this inequality.
First, we’re going to need to
do a bit of brushing up on our
anatomy. Ideally, American sex
education should be improved
to include a more comprehensive
understanding
of
sexual
desires and pleasures and their
connection to anatomy. But for
those of us beyond high school
sex-ed, our learning likely is
of our own initiative. Luckily
enough, the Internet provides
a vast number of resources for
learning more about female
anatomy.
The
University
of
Michigan offers some resources,
as well, and if you have time
between
double
majors
and
distribution
requirements,
consider using a few credits to
take a course on women’s health.
On a macro-level, we need to
reassess our cultural agreement
on
what
constitutes
“real”
sex. Instead of heterosexual
penetration being considered the
ultimate form of sex, we must
begin to see it as one of many
equally valid forms of intimacy.
This societal reconsideration of
sex will be a continuous progress,
as will closing the orgasm gap.
But a dedicated progression
toward
improvement
should
certainly be seen as a form of
success. The day when we can
all “have what she’s having” — in
equal proportions, of course —
can’t come soon enough.
Mary Rolfes can be reached at
morolfes@umich.edu.
KEVIN MOORE JR. | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT KEVJR@UMICH.EDU