I
got a job offer the other
day and since then, I’ve
been thinking about how
annoying it will be that I’ll
probably have to start shaving
my armpits again. Since all the
communist
lesbian
farmers
in this town who want to put
taco trucks everywhere have
radicalized me, I’ve disowned
razors and burned all my bras.
I’m
half
joking:
Sometimes
I shave my legs because my
leggings pull on my leg hair
and it feels like when you leave
your hair in a ponytail for too
long, and sometimes I wear a
bra because my shirt is made of
mesh and there’s only so much
nipple I’m willing to expose to
my Spanish class.
For the most part though,
no one really bothers me about
my hair and boobs while I’m in
school — which they shouldn’t
because fuck them, I’m not here
for their evaluations of my body.
But when I got my job offer,
I realized I’d have to enter the
sexist labor market that can
in fact legally tell me what to
do with my body hair, boobs,
makeup, etc. and punish me if I
don’t comply (i.e. fire me).
Maybe I was wrong, though,
so I Googled something like
“Is it legal for an employer to
make you shave your legs?” and
came across this gem of a Yahoo
Answers page. I generally try
to avoid Yahoo Answers and
comments sections everywhere,
but I think that sometimes we
have a responsibility to sift
through the muck of these
relatively
anonymous
online
forums because it can be a good
place to access peoples’ (and
by
extension,
our
culture’s)
unfiltered attitudes, assumptions
and biases.
So, the situation: The original
poster, Ashley K., is asking a
question for a woman friend who
works at Sears and apparently
was told by her boss that she
either needs to shave her legs
or not show her legs at work.
Ashley K. asks the people of
Yahoo Answers (from now on
referred to as the POYA) if this
“ultimatum” is legal or if it
constitutes some kind of gender
discrimination. Ashley K. also
makes it clear that she doesn’t
give a shit about your opinions
on women shaving or not shaving
their legs; she just wants to know
the legal stuff.
The POYA predictably give her
their opinions instead of pointing
her to the website of, say, the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. The POYA say,
yes, requiring women to shave
their legs for work is definitely
legal, since no, it’s not a matter
of gender discrimination, it’s a
matter of “hygiene” and “dress
codes.” We’ve accepted that
men and women have different
“appearance
standards,”
and
hey, men have to shave their
beards so yeah, obviously ladies
need to shave their legs. And if
she’s really gonna complain so
much about it, “she can always
find another job.”
The POYA argue that a dress
code/hygiene
standard
that
requires
women
employees
to shave their legs does not
constitute gender discrimination
because such a rule merely
reflects our social understanding
of the proper ways for women
and men to present and conduct
themselves in public.
Though
the
POYA
aren’t
especially
eloquent,
they’ve
actually
synthesized
pretty
well the outcome of the 1989
Supreme Court ruling in Price
Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In Price
Waterhouse, the Supreme Court
ruled that gender stereotyping is
a form of sex discrimination and
is therefore illegal. The issue in
the case was that Ann Hopkins
was denied partnership at her
accounting firm because in an
evaluation of her work, men in
charge of her wrote that she was
too “macho” and suggested she
take “a course in charm school.”
So, while employers can’t say
and do explicitly sexist stuff
like that anymore, what sexism
they’re legally allowed to enforce
through dress codes is a bit
murkier. The Workplace Fairness
organization
claims
that
in
the vein of Price Waterhouse,
if a woman employee who
wears pants or does something
else
gender-bending
faces
discrimination, she might have a
case of sex discrimination based
on gender stereotyping.
But, the same website also
says that the ruling in Price
Waterhouse has not prevented
employers from having different
dress codes for men and women.
4 — Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
LAURA SCHINAGLE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
SHOHAM GEVA
Editor in Chief
CLAIRE BRYAN
and REGAN DETWILER
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.
Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan
Regan Detwiler
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim
Payton Luokkala
Kit Maher
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Lauren Schandevel
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Embracing the alt-right
Weaving words together
O
ur
country,
like
any
other,
experiences
horribly tragic events
that redefine our history — tragic
events that imprint themselves
into the minds of every American
and go on to influence policy
decisions years afterward. The
resulting
aftermath
of
these
events is often met
with
temporary
panic and confusion.
Despite
these
feelings being brief,
as a society we seek
out specific answers
and
facts
about
such events hoping
to
prevent
such
heinous acts from
happening
again.
From
establishing
investigative
congressional
commissions
that
use
every
resource available within the
country, to increasing funding for
our already massive intelligence
and defense departments, we go
to unbelievable lengths to seek
actual truths.
Yet these searches for truth
among the rubble are often
plagued with fringe members
of society not just questioning,
but completely denying verified
factual
evidence.
Conspiracy
theorists
construct
fantastical
positions
and
unverifiable
stories that they believe reveal
the actual “truth.” For example,
after the tragedy of Sept. 11, they
capitalized on the disaster and
began searching for false evidence
in the pursuit of discovering some
massive
conspiracy
the
U.S.
government
had
orchestrated.
Sept. 11 served as the leading
story for which these theorists
achieved moderate levels of fame
with their nearly hysterical rants
and positions — positions that
went on for 15 years, buttressed by
even more heinous and ridiculous
theories that incorporated the
same racist and nationalistic
themes as before. All
during this time, their
online presence helped
form
and
organize
segments of the “alt-
right,” solidifying their
place on the furthest
right end of American
politics.
Thankfully,
their fact-free tirades
are accepted only by
a mere sliver of our
population. They stayed
on the fringes of accepted political
discourse, and they and their
followers are rightly categorized
as conspiracy theorists.
Today,
conspiracy
theorists
use these events as excuses to
scream their racist and nativist
positions barely hidden under
the unbelievable theories they
construct. Their community is
stricken with white nationalism,
xenophobia,
anti-Semitism
and
a
crippling
degree
of
blind chauvinism. Within our
hyperconnected digital world,
their
deplorable
rhetoric
is
so easily transmitted to the
misinformed
and
misled
in
order to grow their support.
Most recently, these conspiracy
theorists
have
gained
new
supporters from the uppermost
levels of presidential politics.
The
arrival
of
the
15th
anniversary of Sept. 11 runs
in
tandem
with
Republican
nominee
Donald
Trump’s
campaign’s embrace of groups
that believe the tragic events of
9/11 were orchestrated by the
U.S. government. The campaign
has brought these disturbing,
factually inept, racist, right-
wing
populist
groups
into
presidential politics as sources
of truth and fact.
It is important to see how
this specific niche of ultra-right-
wing American politics has been
accepted as verifiable sources.
As noted by The Rachel Maddow
Show on Sept. 8, Donald Trump
has been using infowars.com,
(a popular conspiracy theorist
website
calling
for
a
revolt
against the so-called “New World
Order”) not only as a source
of factual reporting, but as an
accredited media outlet in which
he has conducted interviews
and embraced the leaders of
these fact-free, white nationalist
websites. Trump’s campaign has
validated these fringe groups of
extreme reactionaries as factual
sources of news. Groups that
were rightly shunned for their
deplorable rhetoric and ridiculous
theories
now
apparently
are
sources of fact for a major party
nominee seeking election to the
most powerful position in the
country. Unsurprisingly, Trump
has become the unifying member
of the alt-right movement. His
campaign has been built on attacks
against the media, intellectualism,
elites,
immigrants,
minorities
and liberals, and this has finally
come to head with the gathering
of these collective conspiracy
theorists supporting him.
What is so disturbing is that
Republican leaders continue to
support this campaign, which
has now reached new levels
of insanity by embracing and
continuing to use conspiracy
theorist
websites
as
factual
news. The Trump campaign
has praised the leaders of these
right-wing,
fact-free
groups.
These are leaders who believe
that the Clinton family murders
their adversaries, believe the
shootings of Aurora, Sandy Hook
and Orlando were orchestrated
by the government simply to
enact more gun control and
believe the U.S. military has
“weather weapons” that it uses
against its citizens. The current
presidential nominee of the
Republican Party is using a
website that believes juice boxes
are lined with chemicals that
can make your children gay as a
factual source of news.
This terrifying reality is what
the Republican Party has chosen.
This is their candidate, and the
lack of disavowal of his abnormal
presidential
campaign
reveals
the consequences of the intense
partisanship within our country.
The embracement of the alt-right
and conspiracy theorists from the
Trump campaign is yet another of
the countless examples of Trump
campaign’s ineptitude — and why
Trump is truly dangerous to the
future of our country.
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT EWOLFE @UMICH.EDU
MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN
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.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Michael Mordarski can be reached
at mmordars@umich.edu
MICHAEL
MORDARSKI
ISAIAH ZEAVIN-MOSS | COLUMN
Dress codes are sexist
CLARISSA DONNELLY-DEROVEN | COLUMN
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Clarissa Donnelly-DeRoven can be
reached at cedon@umich.edu
L
ast night, a friend of
mine
told
me
about
quipu, the system used
by the Incas to keep track of
numerical information. Quipus,
also known as “talking knots,”
are made up of thousands of
knotted strings, which, when
examined
by
a
contemporary judge
or
clerk,
reveal
certain
financial
information.
Quipucamayocs,
or
quipu
specialists,
were like a modern-
day accountant or
stenographer
—
recording what they
saw around them.
This conversation
triggered
a
series
of questions for me. Most
prominently: What does our
culture
lose
from
having
information at our fingertips
at all times? Is there something
to be gained in needing to
knot together pieces of fabric
to,
for
example,
calculate
certain statistics? Why has
contemporary society chosen
to
move
in
the
direction
of
making
information,
pertaining
to
essentially
any subject, instantaneously
available?
It seems that today’s world
gears itself toward eliminating
the amount of irretrievable
material out there — questions
we do not know how to answer.
Our world eliminates questions
that, when posed, we have
nothing to hold or point to as
the correct response. What’s
the capital of Djibouti? What’s
489 x 333? 162,837. I look the
question up; I answer it based
on what my phone tells me,
then, in a way, I feel as if I know
the answer, as if I am the one
feeding the information to the
world.
But
what
happens
with
so-called irretrievable answers?
Questions about which we can
only deliberate and discuss,
guess at and witness? Instances
where we don’t just look up
an answer force us to talk to
one another, to put our own
theories and ideas to the test
of the community — the people
with
whom
we
surround
ourselves. And this is why we
make friends in the first place!
To have people in our lives with
whom we can shape our own
perspectives. Because we need
other people to do this. We
cannot do this, any of this, on
our own.
But instead of acknowledging
and embracing this fact — it’s a
beautiful thing to recognize
one’s place within a community
where
every
member
feels
a vibrant, pulsing need for
everybody else — we isolate
ourselves
into
our
own
machines,
away
from
each
other and away from our own
working, conscious
minds. Sitting in a
lecture taking notes
on my computer, I
am an automaton,
typing
the
words
the
professor
says
without
consideration.
Shouldn’t we talk
about the topics we
are learning about
to each other as we
learn about them?
In so many of my classes, we
talk about the importance of
considering who is telling the
story, and which narrative we
are supposed to believe as fact.
In my field of American Studies,
we believe no singular narrative
can be called objectively true.
Instead, we piece together ideas
from literature, film, music,
theater, commercials, etc. to
get a sense of how people and
entire communities described
a certain moment or place. How
these ideas stacked up against
each other, how they clashed
and fought and played and
agreed with each other. And
then we go from there, to form
our own beliefs — constantly
checking
ourselves
and
checking the notions provided
to us by scholars, authors and
artists alike.
In
a
study
published
in
Psychological
Science,
social
psychology
graduate
student
Pam
A.
Muller
and Associate Professor of
Cognitive Psychology Daniel
M.
Oppenheimer,
found
that
the
process
of
using
computers solely to take notes
— even without other alerts and
windows popping up — results
in shallower processing. There
is something gained by taking
notes
by
hand,
especially
when we rephrase the words
of our professor into our own.
By doing this, we check our
professor and run their ideas
through our own filter. This
combination — their minds
with ours — produces what we
learn.
The
emphasis
on
blind,
instant
knowledge
extends
to how we consume political
coverage as well. Every day,
we
read
headlines
about
new
speeches
presidential
candidates give, trading barbs
and insults and, rarely, new
policy proposals. We discard
the candidates’ histories as
archaic
and
outdated
and
irrelevant, opting instead to
consider who they are today,
right now. And here, once again,
we are not meant to question
these figures or to question
the system. We are meant to
consume it all, automatons,
stuck
with
two
candidates
whom a heavy majority of us
believe to be corrupt.
From peers and colleagues
and pundits alike, I often hear
the following political mode of
thought: I really wish things
could be better in this way,
but that’s unrealistic, so, they
can’t improve, so I have to
vote for Clinton/Trump. And
nothing frustrates me more.
Because this mindset operates
under the belief that “we, the
people” have no power, that our
votes do not impact anything,
that we and the system are
somehow
separate
entities.
That we are nothing more than
spectators packed into the Big
House, cheering and booing
and yelling, unable to actually
impact what we witness.
If we all got together in
forums and discussions and
all heard ourselves describing
the world with this defeatist
logic, we would soon discover
we do have power, and if we
all actually want to change the
world for the better, we have
the means to do it. In Greece,
the current ruling political
party was founded in 2004, and
polled around 4 percent for the
first few years of its existence —
the Green Party in the United
States polls at this same figure
today.
Change
happens
quickly
and abruptly if we provide the
space for it. But that space will
only come if we engage each
other and hear each other. And
by “hear each other,” I don’t
mean to type verbatim each
other’s words. Because this is
not learning.
Instead, we ought to weave
together, like the Incas, all of
the ideas that we ourselves
have, along with those that
we consume. And as we knit,
we can add our own flair and
flavor to the project, no doubt
fundamentally influenced by
those around us, but ultimately
creating an ideology uniquely
our own.
ISAIAH
ZEAVIN-MOSS
Isaiah Zeavin-Moss can be reached
at izeavinm@umich.edu
Early fall: when the weather’s too nice
to help ease social tension
CLARISSA
DONNELLY-DEROVEN