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.

March 12, 2020 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

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

T

he Oscars 2020 reminded
me all too well of the
feeling you have when
your grandma gives you a
strange scarf for your birthday.
It’s not what you wanted, but
the gesture was nice. All you
can do is hope that next year
gets better, right?
While there have been a lot
of loud, feminist moments, the
Oscars
ultimately
continue
to snuff women out of many
categories, most notably “Best
Director.”
After
92
years,
only five women have been
nominated for the category and
only one, Kathryn Bigelow, has
won. Greta Gerwig, who is one
of these five women, did not
receive a nomination for her
Best Picture nominated movie,
“Little Women,” at the Oscars
2020. This was disappointing,
but not shocking. She and many
other creative female directors,
such as Lulu Wang and Lorene
Scafaria, were shut out from the
Academy’s nomination this year,
following suit with the majority
of previous Oscars. The most
vocalized discrepancy with the
Oscars nominations lies with
the Best Director category —
but the prioritization of men
does not stop there.
It’s not surprising that, in
general, the majority of movies
nominated for Best Picture
have
male-centered
themes
and storylines. Nominees for
this year, such as “1917,” “The
Irishman,” “Ford v Ferrari”
and “Once Upon a Time in
Hollywood,” follow suit as the
central ideas (war, cars, the
mafia and Quentin Tarantino)
are all male-dominated. Of the
92 Best Picture winners, only
14 winners have a story that
follows a female lead. The Oscar
nominations often portray the
subconscious values of viewers
and the sexist limitations in
Hollywood. It’s not that movies
such as “The Irishman” or “Ford

v Ferrari” weren’t noteworthy,
but it’s important to recognize
their advantage over movies like
“Little Women” due to the fact
that they follow the normative
style of a “winning” movie:
male-based with male leads.

In
a
recent
interview
with
Vanity
Fair,
Amy
Pascal,
producer
of
“Little
Women,” discussed the lack
of male presence in the public
screenings of “Little Women.”
“I don’t think that (men) came
to the screenings in droves,
let me put it that way,” Pascal
said. “...and I’m not sure when
they got their DVDs that they
watched them.” Obviously, this
was disconcerting considering
a majority of the Academy
of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences
voting
membership
is held by men, with only 32
percent of the members being
women in 2019. “It’s a different
bias,”
Pascal
said.
“(Voters
think), these kinds of stories are
important to me, and these kinds
of stories are less important to
me.” From this, it’s important to
note how the gender reference
within the title “Little Women”
alone would discourage a male
audience.
Instead of being viewed solely
as a good movie, the gender
reference in “Little Women”
transforms it into a “girl” movie.
For
most
movies,
without
knowing the plot, the sole fact
of having a female lead makes

it a “girl” movie. Typically,
when a movie has a male lead,
it is not labeled a “boy” movie.
It is simply a movie. The
distinction
between
movies
and “girl” movies originates
from centuries of patriarchal
influence and suppression of
female cultural works. I know I
can resonate with stories told by
men about men, so to my male
counterparts who refuse to see
movies like “Little Women”
because they are “girly,” I urge
you to give it a try. At heart, all
these movies are stories about
people, not just women or men,
and the human experience —
despite our differences — is
something we can all relate to.
Despite
the
lack
of
recognition
women
received
with regard to the awards, the
Oscars desperately tried to
display their support of women
and
feminist
movements.
From Brie Larson, Gal Gadot
and
Sigourney
Weaver
declaring
that
“all
women
are superheroes” to the first
female conductor leading the
Oscars orchestra for the Best
Original Score segment, the
Oscars seemed to be all about
women. While the gestures
were appreciated, recognizing
women are talented isn’t the
same as rewarding women for
their talent. Instead of just
recognizing that women aren’t
nominated for Best Director,
maybe it’s time to call out the
social and systematic reasons
for this and directly challenge
the Academy’s decisions. This is
not to diminish many beautiful
moments that occurred, such as
Hildur Guðnadóttir’s acceptance
speech or Natalie Portman’s
homage to female directors,
but only to encourage further
progress and not to forget the
work that needs to be done.

Camilla Munaco can be reached

at cmunaco@umich.edu.

H

ere
I
am,
typing
this
column
far
too
close
to
its
deadline, at 12:38 a.m. There
are numerous tabs open on
my laptop including Amazon,
the political science midterm
study guide I finished at
ungodly hours the previous
night and the Expedia tab for
the flight at the end of the
tunnel of this hellish exam
week. I am, as most students
would call it, #grinding.
Here
at
the
University
of Michigan, the collegiate
societal pressure to “grind” our
work out offsets a life balance
disproportionately focused on
social media engagement and
party culture. As I currently
partake in this social scheme,
I am in no position to speak
down to the other members
of this community of grind
worshippers.
The
large
iced coffee condensing on
the
Shapiro
Undergraduate
Library table beside me and I
have both endured many late-
night study sessions. However,
I’ve begun to wonder: When
did working hard come to
mean
procrastination
and
cramming? Hard work was
once attributed to committing
to
a
particular
task
or
challenge and exerting some
sort of mental, physical or
emotional effort toward a goal.
Now, I associate hard work
with bloodshot eyes at 3 a.m.
in the South Quad Residence
Hall study lounge.
While hard work is integral
to
success,
this
stressful
lifestyle is disorganized and
reinforces unhealthy concepts
of time management. It is not
cool to be exhausted. It doesn’t
make you more accomplished
to have slept four hours less
than the human body craves.
Yet in top-tier academia, we
exert so much effort into both
work and play and often fail to
efficiently organize this time
to allow for the maximum
amount of productivity and
therefore,
the
maximum
quality of life. During the
prime grind of midterms in
the UGLi, why are so many
phones
scrolling
through
TikTok instead of actually
studying? This inclination to
grind has spawned a culture
where
students’
schedules
become
a
hodgepodge
of
overlapping
engagements.
This disorganized chaos of
scheduling is a major factor in
reduced sleep and significantly
reduced productivity. I have
met two kinds of people in
college:
People
who,
like
me, do not sleep and run on
copious amounts of caffeine
and people who take naps
throughout their day. Neither
of these groups enjoys the
recommended eight hours of
sleep allotted at nighttime,

and instead, make use of
alternative methods to get by.
Perhaps instead of studying
when we should be sleeping,
sleeping when we should be
socializing
and
socializing
when we should be studying,
we could acknowledge our
faults and better manage our
bustling schedules.

It seems the true antagonist
in this story is distraction.
According to Forbes writer
Cheryl
Conner,
“a
survey
revealed sixty-four percent
of employees visit non-work
related websites every day of
the week.” As people in the
21st century, we are drawn to
our phones more than ever.
We lose track of time and
suddenly the three hours we
had planned to study for our
exam or write our Michigan
Daily columns were wasted
scrolling through the endless
cybersphere of constantly-
updating information. If the
phone had been neglected
for those three hours, then
maybe we could spend time
before
bed
engaging
in
social activities instead of
accomplishing
previously-
scheduled tasks at the hours
meant for sleeping.
How do we fix this? When
I say “we,” I genuinely mean
that. I am both guilty and
outspoken about what at this
point seems like an allergy to
an adequate night’s sleep and
a relaxing day. I’ve realized
that,
despite
my
endless
efforts to color code and
plan my life, the tendency
for my phone-usage study
break almost always expands
beyond the five or 10-minute
limit
I
try
to
establish.
The
idea
of
organizing
time
through
schedule
compartmentalization,
though
not
fool-proof,
is
useful in more ways than
one. There is psychological
research
that
shows
the
benefits
of
checking
off
tasks titled the “Zeigarnik
Effect.” By simply writing
these plans down as minute
missions instead of daunting
obstacles, accomplishing our
goals becomes less anxiety-
ridden
and
overwhelming.
The caveat, of course, is that
the
number
of
remaining
tasks on our lifelong to-do
list
can
further
impact

anxiety and result in more
procrastination.
Harry Guinness of The
New York Times offers an
instructional guide for how
“A (Former) Night Owl” can
become a “Morning Person.”
Guinness describes how any
person can adapt their sleep
and life schedule to increase
productivity and align with
a better “chronotype,” or
individual interpretation of
circadian rhythm. What is
important to clarify is that
this isn’t all about sleeping
more. There are plenty of
people
who
sleep
eight,
nine or even 10 hours and
still waste large amounts of
time throughout their day
dawdling on social media
sites
instead
of
working
through their daily tasks.
Beyond allowing your body
to rest at appropriate times,
you need to encourage and
challenge yourself to stick
to
an
efficient
regiment
throughout the day; pencil
in a time for leisure, exercise
and work or school goals.
Just doing one or the other
perpetuates imbalance.
A mantra I came to appreciate
more
upon
starting
my
freshman year at the University
is “work smarter, not harder.” It
is irrefutable that the students
at this school, not unlike other
schools, are dedicated to their
work and seek to get the best
education
possible
for
the
tuition they are paying to study
here. However, Forbes writer
Julian Mitchell suggests it’s
time to stop the grind, and
instead learn to hustle. The
difference, Mitchell writes, is
that while both are qualified
and in possession of equal
capabilities,
grinders
“move
at a fast pace, juggle multiple
tasks” and “can work tirelessly
and see no return.” Conversely,
“hustlers put effort into existing
opportunities” and “know what
it really takes to achieve the
seemingly impossible.”
Nobody I have met thus
far, and undoubtedly very few
people in general, have truly
mastered a perfectly planned
life balance of work, sleep,
exercise and fun. But I’d like to
put more effort into trying, and
I encourage you to do the same.
I’d like to know that the hard
work we are all exerting is
being utilized efficiently. There
will always be time for
spontaneity and moments that
will never have a key on your
color code, but for one week,
try and be more cognizant
of the time you dedicate to
different sectors of your life.
Take out your AirPods, grab
your highlighters and find a
better way to hustle.

O

n Jan. 12, 2020, I
rejoined
the
ranks
of being single, or in
the words of my roommate,
I got remarried to the game.
I was single for most of
freshman year, so I thought I
was well acquainted with my
new life; but, when I started
dating again, everything felt
different. Soon, I realized
that the game itself had not
changed, but I had. See, for
the last year, dating was no
game to me because I was in
love with my girlfriend. But
now I found myself in the
starting lineup of a game I no
longer understood.
In the dating game, we
devalue people and reduce
them to numbers; we rate
them on a scale of one to 10;
we constantly brag about
our hookups to mask our
feelings; we swipe on Tinder
because we’re bored. Talking
to friends, I am constantly
astonished by the numbers
they casually mention. 238
Tinder matches. 12 bodies.
23 Snapchats. Of those three
people, they have collectively
been on two dates and in no
relationships over the last six
months. Now, don’t get me
wrong, I am in no position to
slut shame anyone. I’m not
even looking for a relationship
right now, but I am looking
for something beyond the
meaningless
games
we’re
playing. To transcend the
games and make dating work
again, we must address a
couple of core issues.
Problem 1: Single people
are too selfish.
Every Thursday, I wake up
at about 9:45 a.m., just in time
to sprint to my 10 a.m. I put
in my headphones and don’t
open my mouth until I need
participation points. I attend
classes until 4 p.m. and, after
napping, either go to Hatcher
to do homework or hang out
with my friends. Wash, rinse,
repeat. We all get caught
up in these vicious cycles
of routines because they’re
comfortable and, in many
ways,
necessary.
However,
this conventional routine is
flawed because it revolves
entirely around one person.
While monotonous at times,
our routines bestow upon us

the curse of independence
before our minds have fully
developed. We grow up so
self-reliant and self-conscious
that we inevitably become
self-centered and run the risk
of becoming egotistical. Thus,
when we venture to date —
whether casual or serious —
we struggle with empathy,
which allows us to justify
mistreating others or makes
us oblivious altogether.
This phenomenon influences
the decisions we make when
pursuing
potential
partners
because many of us are simply
too
self-conscious
to
talk
to new people — except on
Tinder,
which
I’ll
address
later. Instead, we prefer to
stay confined in our social
circles, which consolidates the
dating pool considerably. In
fact, Engineering senior Arjun
Lama encapsulated it perfectly
when he said: “I go to Rick’s,
but no one meets people there.
If you go up to someone, then,
all of a sudden, you’re weird.”
Now, this is where I draw a line.
If there’s a social stigma against
talking to people in a bar, we
have officially gone too far. In
order to expand our horizons,
our generation needs to be
bolder and reshape the dating
landscape. Go talk to that
cute girl in your biology class.
Go sit with that hot guy in the
dining hall. The world won’t
shatter. The worst thing they
can say is no.
Problem 2: Single people
are too fake.
Have you ever looked at
someone on Instagram after
you met them in real life, but
you didn’t recognize them
at all? Today, we have this
image that everyone should
put forward a perfect face
online. We need to look our
best or people won’t put forth
the effort to learn the person
underneath the looks. Enter,
Tinder.
Everyone who has told you
that looks don’t matter is
either someone hot, lying to
themselves or someone who
is not on Tinder. Looks aren’t
insignificant,
but
they’re
definitely
not
the
most
important thing. In person,
you can overwhelm someone
with your charm and bravado
while Tinder’s main form of

currency is ab muscles. Now,
Tinder has some redeeming
qualities
like
their
bio
section, Spotify preferences
and the post-match messaging
process. However, in order
to get to the best parts of
the app, people deem your
attraction worthy of their
attention. That’s what I call a
flawed process.
If you want to cut through
the noise, you can, but it’s
exceedingly difficult when
you only meet people through
Tinder or through friends.
Much
like
the
previous
problem, the solution is to
get outside of the ordinary
and meet some strangers.
No
matter
what
you’re
looking for, you’ll probably
find someone better in real
life than you ever could on
Tinder, and that is the point.
June
14,
2018:
During
orientation, I was on a bus
talking with a friend about
fantasy football when the bus
came to a screeching halt and
I fell forward into the girl
in front of me. While I was
profusely
apologizing,
she
turned around and I noticed
her piercing green eyes and
dirty blonde hair. She said,
“It’s okay, don’t worry about
it. By the way, I’m Morgan.”
I spent the rest of the night
talking
to
the
charming
stranger, going back to East
Quad and then to Bubble
Island.
Right
before
we
left Bubble Island, I heard
a thunderclap and saw a
torrential downpour outside.
I took her hand and we ran
out. In the middle of that
summer storm, I spun her
around and we kissed. That’s
why I talk to strangers.
At the end of the day,
dating isn’t that complex. It’s
just two people who want to
be noticed, to be seen and
accepted for who they truly
are. Whether it is for one
night or a lifetime, the rush
in your head, the fluttering of
your heart and the tingling of
your skin make you feel alive.
Those things make you want
to step out of your bubble,
stop being selfish and care
for someone else.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, March 12, 2020

Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Jenny Gurung

Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoey Phillips
Mary Rolfes

Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White

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

CAMILLA MUNACO | COLUMN

Discrimination within the Academy

JESSICA D’AGOSTINO | COLUMN

Stop the #grind, get some sleep

Keith Johnstone can be reached at

keithja@umich.edu.

KEITH JOHNSTONE | 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.

Jessica D’Agostina can be reached

at jessdag@umich.edu.

The dating game — playing to win

Work smarter,
not harder.

Without knowing
the plot, the sole
fact of having a
female lead makes
it a “girl” movie.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan