E
veryone wants to be “that
girl.” You know who she
is, the one who “has her
life together,” who wakes up early,
works out in a chic set, drinks
colorful smoothies, has pretty,
shiny hair and glowing skin — all
effortlessly of course. I’m sorry to
tell you that this is not actually a
tutorial on how to be her, in fact,
I’m here to tell you instead that you
can’t be her. She isn’t real! But you
are, and you can be just as happy as
her.
Social media is full of trends:
things that rapidly gain popularity
and lose it just as quickly. It seems
weekly, sometimes even more
frequently, there is something
new that we absolutely must try.
Alarmingly, lifestyles have become
part of these trends. The two
are almost antonyms, making it
unproductive to turn a lifestyle into
a trend — or a trend into a lifestyle.
Trends are fleeting, something that
comes and goes almost too quickly
to keep up with. A lifestyle, however,
is something holistic, a way of living
that influences everything one
does, every day. A lifestyle cannot
be adopted as quickly as or as
fleetingly as trends are.
Influencers all over social media
masquerade as “that girl” for
millions to see. Instagram is full
of men and women alike carefully
posing in their expensive gym
outfits to show off their fit lifestyle.
This is problematic as a second
captured in time, with contorted
angles, flattering lighting and
subtle editing, is presented as
a perpetual state of being. Tik
Tokkers post 10-second videos of
the best 10 seconds of their day,
and YouTubers 10-minute videos
of the best 10 minutes of their
week. This is problematic because
that’s all those videos are: their
best moments represent their
entire lifestyle. It sets unrealistic
standards of not just how to look,
act or be, but how to live.
That isn’t real life. In reality,
people struggle, and that’s okay.
The lifestyle that is presented is
not the problem, but the way in
which people try to achieve it is. It
is great to have goals of eating well,
of taking care of your body through
exercise, of maintaining a good
schedule and other healthy things.
However, it is important to realize
that these types of significant
changes don’t happen overnight
and that it is not realistic to
maintain such a “perfect” lifestyle
all of the time.
I might have misled you a bit.
While I can’t tell you how to be “that
girl,” I can help you to implement
the lifestyle characteristics that
she represents — with science.
Leading a stable lifestyle is all
about forming consistent habits.
In “Atomic Habits” by James
Clear, he notes that “your habits
can compound for or against you.”
He explains that productivity
compounds, but so does stress.
Completing one small task a day,
for multiple days will result in lots
of things accomplished. However,
the opposite is also true. Multiple
stressors can come together to
create
high-stress
situations.
If these situations persist for
weeks, months or even years,
they can create serious health and
happiness problems.
Knowledge and relationships
can compound as well, but so can
negative thoughts and anger. What
all of this means is that everything
you do must be done intentionally.
Habits are most successful when
there is some level of commitment
behind them. Now, your situation
is not going to change immediately
because you decide it will — but
over time it might. Practice the life
you want, and it can become the
life you have.
This
may
all
sound
very
exhausting, and honestly a lot of
work. But, habit forming doesn’t
have to be a burden. In “The Power
of Habit” by Charles Duhigg,
he describes the way habits are
naturally formed. First, there is a
cue, a desire for a result. Following
that cue, a routine develops
and finally, a result is obtained.
The result is like a reward, it’s
what was desired. This in turn
provides subconscious motivation
to repeat the routine or habit to
continue getting the result or
reward. Studies have found that
it is the reward part that makes
us continue the habit. If you are
struggling to form a habit, you
can accelerate this process a bit by
rewarding yourself for completing
the behavior you are trying to turn
into a habit.
For example, if you want to
start waking up earlier, you might
reward yourself with your favorite
coffee or breakfast. This teaches
your brain that waking up earlier
results in something yummy. If
you want to start studying for an
hour each day, you could reward
yourself with some television
time afterward. I like to reward
myself for cleaning my apartment
with fresh flowers to put in the
kitchen. If the result is sufficiently
rewarding, the habit will form.
While not perfect, habits are
consistent and will deliver results.
This can make change much easier
and less of a chore.
Being “that girl” is unattainable
because it suggests that people live
incredibly productive, healthy and
well-balanced lives effortlessly.
The truth is that none of those
things are effortless. They require
commitment,
dedication
and
persistence, but they are achievable
with good habits. If you start today,
you can be anything you want.
T
erm limits on members
of Congress have turned
into one of the mainstay
bipartisan policy appeals. Polls
have shown as much as 80% of the
country supports them. Politicians
ranging from former President
Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz,
R-Texas, to former President Barack
Obama and progressive Rep. Ro
Khanna, D-Calif. have backed the
policy. Proponents of the idea like
the
aforementioned
politicians
suggest that they could improve
our democratic system by rooting
out
corruption,
modernizing
Congress and implementing fresh
leadership.
Younger
candidates
for the upcoming November 2022
midterms especially have clung to
the idea, such as Iowa Democratic
Senate candidate Abby Finkenauer,
who has made term limits a main
component of her campaign, likely
in a direct attempt to attack veteran
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley,
who is currently running for his
eighth term in the Senate.
However,
congressional
term
limits are not as great as they may
seem. Foremost is the fact that they
are inherently undemocratic, and
go against much of what American
democracy stands for. A core ideal
of democracy is that those who are
elected are a reflection of the will of
the people. If a majority of a district
or state wants someone elected,
voters can reflect that preference on
the ballot and elect them.
Congressional term limits would
take this all away. A congressperson
could have done fantastic work for
a district or state, be immensely
popular and have a constituent base
ready to support their re-election,
only for the government to turn
around and tell said constituents
their candidate of choice is no longer
valid. It makes little sense. While
proponents of term limits decry a
lack of new leadership, a cohort of
extraordinarily old individuals and
entrenched politicians, they fail to
mention that there is a perfectly
functional mechanism to rectify
these issues, if indeed they fail to
represent the majority of constituents,
and that is for them to be voted out.
Whether in office for three, 10 or 50
years, every congressperson is held to
the same standard of re-election: win
the most votes.
Additional problems include the
fact that term limits, when they
have been tried in state legislatures,
have been shown to increase
polarization, decrease familiarity
between
congresspeople
—
therefore hurting the chance to form
bipartisan working relationships
— and that legislative branches
grow increasingly powerless in
comparison to the executive brand
and their underlying bureaucrats.
There is no reason to believe that
new candidates would be any less
corrupt, have any better intentions or
be any better leaders than those who
have steady, proven support among
those they represent. This is the
most popular reasoning invoked by
proponents of term limits, yet there
is little if any congruent evidence this
policy would work as desired. Many
term-limited members of Congress
would simply go into occupations
that cause the same problem most
proponents are concerned about,
such as political lobbying and
advocating for shady special interests.
It has become popular as of late,
spurred on in part by prominent
republicans, to critique experience.
Somehow
having
extensive
knowledge and familiarity with
government has become a bad
thing, and being an ‘outsider’
with little if any government or
political experience has become
desirable. While in almost every
professional field experience is
looked at as a benefit, for politicians
it has become somehow an inherent
evil. Moreover, were politicians to
be limited to shorter terms, they
would be less effective at crafting
legislation
and
struggle
more
to navigate the complexities of
congressional action.
A harsh reality of those in favor
of term limits is that their support is
often rooted in ageist thinking. Some
feel that those who are, for example,
75 years old and have been in
Congress for decades no longer can
be capable in their positions. While
it is reasonable, and quite common,
for individuals to prefer candidates
based in part on their age, it is unfair
and inaccurate to automatically
surmise that those who are high
in age are not competent or able
enough to maintain their posture in
Congress. Even if that were the case,
there is a perfectly good system to
remove these officeholders, through
the democratic feature of voting.
Congressional term limits are
a solution for a made-up issue and
insult voters by insinuating that
the electorate is not competent
enough to hold its elected leaders
accountable. Proponents of term
limits exacerbate some of the exact
issues they aim to rectify, and many
of their ideas are often rooted in an
immoral, ageist philosophy. While
it is fair to be concerned about
entrenched corruption and a lack of
diverse generations in Congress, the
solution is to elect better candidates,
not take away the will of the people
to vote as they please.
N
ecto, a club located on
Liberty Street in Ann
Arbor,
is
a
popular
destination for Queer students at the
University of Michigan on Friday
nights. This is partially to do with
the 18 and up age requirement, and
mostly to do with their infamous
Pride Fridays, which have existed
since 1984. Pride Friday (also known
as “Gay Night”) sees high amounts
of traffic — almost as soon as Necto
opened back up in July 2021, there
were lines down the sidewalk to get
in. Clubs are popular on weekend
nights, but Necto is particularly
known around campus for Gay
Night.
During my freshman year, on Oct.
3, 2019, my friends and I went to an
Icona Pop concert at Necto (they
wrote “I Love It (feat. Charli XCX)”,
a very popular song from 2012). I
dyed my hair temporarily pink and
danced the entire night. A friend
told me that one performer of the
duo stared at me when they entered
the crowd. I still don’t believe her. I
did not go to Necto again until last
semester when I went to a Friday
Gay Night. While there was no
official concert that I was waiting for
and it was some random Friday night
in October, the atmosphere held the
same excitement and anticipation as
I entered the club.
Many of my Queer friends still
love to go on Fridays, even as they
are over 21 and can go to other bars.
One of Ann Arbor’s most popular
gay bars, Aut Bar, closed during
quarantine in June 2020. Drake
George, a Statement columnist
at The Michigan Daily, wrote in
February about the decrease in
Queer bars over the last few decades.
Aut was not a singularity, and Necto
stands today as one of the only
18+ Queer-friendly bars within a
walking distance for University of
Michigan students.
I sat down with Business freshman
Maddie Wilson, a member of the
executive board in the Out for
Business organization at the Ross
School of Business (though it is not
Business
School-exclusive).
She
estimated that she goes to Necto’s Gay
Night almost every other Friday since
joining the club, a popular event to
bring members together. During our
interview, she told me, “Personally I
love Friday Pride Nights, just because
it’s just a different atmosphere than
a frat party.” She emphasized the
community of Necto itself and the
importance of going with people that
you like, as well as her comfort going
alone.
For Wilson, Necto is not just a
place to dance and listen to music
with her friends, but also a place to
meet people (we both have crazy
bathroom stories). She said that she
mainly goes on Fridays, but she tries
to go on Saturdays with her sorority
sisters, too. When I asked if she went
anywhere other than Necto, she
said, “I think Necto is the main place
we go out … I don’t think there’s any
other place, at least to my knowledge,
that is a going-out club-type of feel,
that has a Pride Night.”
I
also
asked
Engineering
junior Erdem Ozdemir about his
experiences at Necto. He told me
that he started going to Necto this
past summer, but he has since
been going more often, about once
a month. When I asked about a
favorite Necto memory, Ozdemir
told me about an event two weeks
ago — Kylie Sonique Love’s drag
performance on Pride Friday. He
expressed an interest in going to
Live on their bi-weekly Thursday
Pride nights after classes are over in
the summer, but he currently only
goes to Necto for specific Queer-
friendly events. “It also doesn’t help
that there aren’t a ton of commercial
Queer spaces in Ann Arbor, I know
there was Aut Bar, but that closed
over the pandemic,” Ozdemir said.
“For now, it’s mostly Necto.” He told
me that he only goes to Necto on Gay
Night — “I’m usually there because
I want to be around other Queer
people … the energy there is really
good, it’s a lot of fun, and there’s a
sense of understood community
there … Plus, the music is better.”
Necto stands as one of the only
University
student-accessible
nightclubs (for both age and location)
within Ann Arbor. It is distinctive in
its specific openness, though there
generally is a cost for attendance —
$10 for anyone 21 and up, and $20 for
18- to 20-year-olds, but it’s free before
10 p.m. for anyone with a college ID.
It may not be the only place to meet
people or hang out, but it is well-
known for its feeling of community
and fun atmosphere. Ann Arbor
needs more Queer establishments,
like most cities; for now, Necto seems
to work for a lot of LGBTQ+ students.
If you are looking for a club to go to
on a Friday night, consider going to
Necto for free before 10 p.m. Do NOT
forget your MCard.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
10 — Wednesday, April 6, 2022
Fridays at Ann
Arbor’s Necto
GISELLE MILLS
Opinion Columnist
AMY EDMUNDS
Opinion Columnist
How to be “that girl”
The honorable
The false allure of term limits
DEVON HESANO
Opinion Columnist
Design by Libby Chambers, Opinion Cartoonist
Charles
Hilu
was
contacted
in
advance
of
this
Op-Ed’s
publication.
He
voiced
no
major concerns about material
misrepresentations of facts or
events. The Michigan Daily is
committed to publishing a variety
of Op-Eds & Letters to the Editor.
O
n March 25th, 2022,
an article titled, “Too
Many White People in
Trotter Multicultural Center,
Graduate Student Claims,” was
published by The Michigan
Review’s Charles Hilu. This
article
poorly
attempts
to
speculate the thought process
of the Black graduate student
at the University of Michigan,
Byron Brooks. Brooks notably
wrote a letter to the Board of
Regents in which he claims
that the presence of white-
identifying students in Trotter
Multicultural
Center
is
threatening the building’s utility
as a safe space for people of color.
Though this subject may be a
touchy one to be analyzed and
debated, Hilu, in his article, goes
so far as to tastelessly disrespect
and disregard the concerns
of Brooks and other students
of color at the University of
Michigan.
At the beginning of the article,
Hilu very aggressively coins
Brooks as a “racist.” Though the
coining of Brooks as a “racist”
is open to debate, before even
articulating
his
reasoning
Hilu
demeans
the
valuable
thoughts of a student who is,
rightfully, concerned with his
community’s well-being. In the
third paragraph of this work,
Hilu also writes that a “common
sense of decency” is uncommon
in
U-M
students.
Hilu
demonstrated a lack of genuine
intellectual rigor; instead of
honestly contending with the
argument Brooks was making,
Hilu depended on tired dog
whistles to whip his audience
into a frenzy. Hilu has destroyed
his own credibility by shutting
down
Brooks’s
attempts
to
facilitate an honest conversation
about privilege and security for
people of color on our campus.
The point of Brooks’s letter,
and very explicitly, the core of
his requests at the end of his
writing, is ignorantly thrown
away by Hilu.
Later in the article, Hilu
writes — in regards to Brooks’s
suggestion that the University
of Michigan Board of Regents
take action and uphold their
equity — that “His words are
vague because he knows the
only thing that would remedy
his concerns is some form of
racial segregation or privilege.”
First and foremost — though one
could perhaps infer based upon
the tone of the letter that Brooks
would prefer the segregation of
students — the only thing that
Brooks explicitly asks of those
in power at the University is
that they address this issue
formally on campus and “set up
a meeting with student leaders
of color accross [sic] campus to
ensure that true equity is being
upheld.” Secondly, a productive
article would suggest possible
solutions as opposed to simply
bashing a student for speaking
out.
Though Brooks’s ideas are
debatable,
this
article
has
misused
and
misconstrued
the meaning behind Brooks’s
original letter and ultimately
demonstrates to all students
that if they genuinely express
themselves to those who have
the power to make change, they
will be publicly ridiculed instead
of worked with. The vicious
attacks Hilu instill in his article
only reinforce the feelings of
discomfort that students may
feel on campus and the doubt
that students may have in the
willingness of policy makers to
address their needs. Through
and through, Hilu’s article only
stains his reputation as a writer
and the University of Michigan’s
image as an institution.
Hilu,
in
his
article,
also
teases and disrespects Brooks
when he infers that Brooks has
a fear of white people. Racial
trauma is described as “mental
and emotional injury caused by
encounters with racial bias and
ethnic
discrimination,
racism,
and hate crimes.” This is an issue
much more abundant in today’s
younger
generation
than
one
would think, and it is an adversity
to be taken seriously, yet Hilu
makes fun of this concept. Making
fun of a topic that’s significant
in the lives of many people of
color all across the nation is
simply
inappropriate.
Again,
Brooks’s ideas on the occupancy
of white individuals in the Trotter
Multicultural Center should be
debated, but Hilu disregarding the
legitimate and real racial trauma
that many people at the University
relate to is no better than openly
spitting on the mental health of
students.
BENJAMIN COLDING
Opinion Contributor
Op-Ed: The Michigan Review publishes
article bashing student as opposed to
addressing over-arching racial issue
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com