Opinion
4A — Thursday, January 16, 2020
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OWEN STECCO | COLUMN
Our need for labels underscores our discomfort with the LGBTQ+
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE Editor in Chief
ERIN WHITE
EMILY CONSIDINE AND MILES STEPHENSON
Managing Editor
Editorial Page Editors
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS 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
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.
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 subgroups 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.
KEVIN MOORE JR. | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT KEVJR@UMICH.EDU
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
MARY ROLFES | COLUMN
W
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.
Minding the orgasm gap
hile the 1989 romcom 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.