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.