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. 

