T
his is a man’s world.
Despite
all
the
accolades women have
won and the inequalities we
continue to work
against, women still
receive
deplorable
treatment and are
usually left with less
than they deserve.
It’s evident in the
scandal of Harvey
Weinstein,
who
used his wealth and
power to intimidate
young female actors
and make them feel
like they had no
choice but to do what he wanted.
Weinstein then paid off his
victims to keep them quiet and
leave his reputation untainted
in the public’s eyes. It’s evident
in
the
continuous
gender
wage gap despite the fact that
women are more likely to have
a bachelor’s degree. It’s evident
in the feeling of needing to
have a makeshift weapon ready
when walking alone at night and
getting catcalled on the streets.
Sexism is ingrained in every
part of our culture, and we
can see and hear it play out
especially well in hip hop. This
is not a new discovery — we’ve
known that hip hop has been
criticized for its misogynistic
lyrics in the past, and artists
continue to perpetuate sexism.
While hip hop artists have
begun to reflect on how lyrics
contribute to misogyny and
create songs that do not focus
on the objectification of women,
radios still play songs with slyer
hints of sexism.
We
should
expect
more
from this industry, but its
representation of women is not
surprising
considering
how
male-dominated it is. According
to Forbes, only one out of the 20
highest paid hip-hop artists of
2017 is a woman. That woman,
Nicki Minaj, has some words for
the industry.
On Oct. 25, Minaj released
a series of tweets
showing
how
undervalued she feels
as an artist because
she is also a woman.
Who
society
typically pictures as
a rapper or hip hop
artist is very different
from Minaj. The image
of a rapper is typically
a man who is tough
and
intimidating,
who wears his wealth
on his sleeve and who says
whatever he feels, no matter if
it is offensive or crass. Society is
not used to and not comfortable
with women who display some
of these characteristics; women
who are assertive, outspoken or
speak about taboo subjects, as
Minaj does, are not embraced by
society in the same way as men.
In one tweet Minaj notes that
the discussion of “The Greats”
often
ignores
women.
Just
type in “Greatest Rappers of
all Time” in Google; there are
only a few women mentioned.
Some lists will include Minaj,
Lauryn Hill, Salt-N-Pepa and
Missy Elliot, but there’s no
mention of other rappers like
Queen Latifah or Lisa “Left
Eye” Lopes.
Minaj elaborated on sexism
in hip hop in 2014 during an
interview with Hot 97.
“The game is run by men,”
Minaj says in the clip. “Men
feels like it takes something
away from them to give a female
props the way they would give
Jay or Kanye or Em.”
In the interview, Minaj also
points out the use of qualifiers
as exceptions. “Don’t say I’m
good for a girl,” Minaj tells
the radio DJ. This is exhibited
throughout
our
society,
because when talking about
public figures like artists or
politicians, people often put
“female” before their job title.
No one does the same thing for
men. There is no need to always
use
“female
rapper”
when
talking about Nicki Minaj or
other rappers like Cardi B.
Minaj also calls out the DJ for
mainly playing tracks by Minaj
that feature male artists. She
can’t exist as her own entity; she
has to have a man on her track or
be featured on a track by a man.
But clearly that is not the case
— her songs “Super Bass” and
“Starships” did just fine without
featuring a male artist.
In addition to having the
confidence often associated
with maleness, Minaj is also
very creative. She’s not just
one artist — she has various
alter egos. She’s not just
changing hip hop because
she’s a female. She’s changing
hip hop because she is unique
and crafts lyrics that become
massive parts of our society —
no one can forget “Anaconda.”
The
influence
of
rappers
like Nicki Minaj and Cardi B
is undeniable, whether people
want to recognize it or not.
There’s no way to escape hearing
lines from “Bodak Yellow,” the
longest running number one
song by a solo “female rapper,”
on any popular radio station.
Hopefully, the success of Cardi B
and Minaj will make executives
and
producers
change
the
demographics of rap. Perhaps
then
rappers
like
Princess
Nokia, Noname and Sampa the
Great will come to the forefront,
actually get air time and replace
the tired lyrics that objectify or
criticize women.
L
ast week, the United
States Navy announced
the redeployment of the
aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz
from the Middle East to the
Pacific Ocean, where it will
join two other carriers already
stationed there. Its arrival marks
the first time since 2007 that the
U.S. has positioned three carrier
strike groups in the region
and represents an intriguing
development in the escalation of
tensions between the U.S. and
North Korea.
Despite
the
Navy’s
unremarkable announcement of
the Nimitz’s redeployment, the
move drew considerable media
attention,
as
most
defense
experts believe the presence
of
multiple
carrier
strike
groups is a critical prerequisite
for any preemptive military
action against North Korea.
Furthermore,
the
carrier’s
arrival
coincides
with
the
deployment of other advanced
warships to East Asia and comes
amid reports that the Pentagon
is considering putting nuclear
bomber planes on 24-hour alert.
These developments would
likely be less scrutinized if not
for the incendiary rhetoric of
President Donald Trump and
others in his administration.
Though nearly three months
have
passed
since
Trump
threatened to strike North Korea
with “fire and fury like the
world has never seen,” tensions
remain high. In his address
to the U.N. General Assembly,
Trump mocked Kim Jong-un as
a “little rocket man” and again
threatened military conflict.
Though
widely
criticized
as extreme and
aggressive,
Trump’s
sentiments
were
reinvigorated by Nikki Haley,
the U.S. Ambassador to the
U.N., who assured that the “fire
and fury” remarks were “not
an empty threat.” North Korea
has responded with its own
provocations, including threats
to attack Guam, “ruin” the
U.S. military and develop the
world’s most powerful nuclear
weapons. Though North Korea’s
bluster is nothing new, under
previous administrations, the
U.S. typically declined to retort.
Unfortunately, the bellicosity
of Trump, Haley and others in
Trump’s
administration
has
often
overshadowed
cooler
heads. For example, Defense
Secretary James Mattis has
emphasized
the
resolute
unwillingness of the U.S. to
accept a nuclear North Korea
while
acknowledging
the
“catastrophic” consequences of
war. Mattis is right — war with
North Korea would indubitably
be severely destructive and
possibly result in upward of
millions of (mostly civilian)
deaths and trillions of dollars in
economic damage.
There is no simple military
solution to North Korea; any
military invention is certain
to be massive, lengthy and
costly.
Yet,
alarmingly,
the
public statements of Trump
and
many
of
his
advisers
suggest a disconnect between
his administration’s vision of a
potential war and the actualities
of military intervention. In the
same interview in which Haley
defended Trump’s “fire and
fury” remarks, she curtly stated
that if diplomatic solutions
failed, “General Mattis will take
care of it.” Likewise, at his U.N.
speech, Trump declared that
the U.S. may have “no choice
but to totally destroy North
Korea,” implying the existence
of a straightforward, painless
military solution.
Both
Haley
and
Trump’s
comments reveal a deeply flawed
and
objectively
inaccurate
perception that military conflict
with North Korea would be easy
and fruitful. Perhaps even more
frustrating,
their
comments
demonstrate a profound failure to
learn from the U.S.’s recent history
of repeated foreign policy blunders.
This is most analogous to military
interventions in Iraq and Vietnam,
where unrealistic expectations
and the absence of clear long-term
objectives drew the U.S. into long
and costly conflicts.
This is not to diminish the
threat posed by North Korea
nor to contend that military
intervention
is
categorically
unwarranted,
but
rather
to suggest that the current
situation with North Korea is
a delicate issue that requires
thought and level-headedness.
Defense concerns surrounding
North Korea are legitimate;
the CIA believes North Korea
is merely months away from
realizing the ability to strike
the U.S. mainland with nuclear
weapons. Given North Korea’s
reputation for aggression and
unpredictability, it must be
prevented from attaining this
capacity at all costs.
The
U.S.
must
also
be
prepared for, and willing to
implement, military solutions
should the situation deteriorate
to the point where there are no
other options. However, any
military solution to North Korea
must be recognized for what
it is: a costly, unideal and last-
resort option to counter a direct
threat to national security.
Trump’s
willingness
to
respond
to
North
Korea’s
rhetoric and issue dramatic
threats of his own is troublesome.
The rapid escalation of tensions
and series of North Korean
weapons testing over the past
few months has shown that
Trump’s bombastic comments
serve to embolden, rather than
intimidate, North Korea.
Though one could argue
Trump’s
brash
and
direct
persona
has
paid
political
dividends, this style is ill-suited
for crafting effective foreign
policy. Foreign policy decisions
are often not easy nor easily
undone, and their consequences
are often irreversible, which
just serves to underscore the
importance of approaching such
decisions
with
considerable
thought and care. On the matter
of North Korea, Trump’s bluster
has only further destabilized an
already precarious situation.
Trump is set to embark on
an overseas trip to East Asia
soon, which will include a visit
to South Korea. Undoubtedly,
the president will face many
questions from world leaders
and
international
media
regarding tensions with North
Korea; it would do him and the
U.S. well to embrace nuance
over bluster when he answers.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, November 1, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
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
Trump’s big bluster
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
Rappers
COREY DULIN | COLUMN
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Corey Dulin can be reached at
cydulin@umich.edu.
MICHELLE SHENG | MICHELLE CAN BE REACHED AT SHENGMI@UMICH.EDU
Consumer consciousness
LEVI TEITEL | COLUMN
O
n my family’s annual
hibernal sojourn to visit
family in the Northeast,
I wore a red T-shirt I bought
online
from
an
American
Apparel sale. The front read:
“Legalize
LA!”
We
always
took
the
shortcut
through
Canada, which required us to
go through customs. While
the
customs
officer
was
checking our passports, he
noticed my shirt. “What does
that mean?” My parents and I
abruptly explained to him that
he needn’t worry about this
sartorial protest.
Flash forward a few years.
Now a junior in college, I have
the liberty to explore Ann
Arbor at will. I walked down
Liberty Street and noticed signs
that indicated the campus’s
American Apparel closure. Once
summer passed, store operations
ceased, and now all that remains
is an empty storefront. So long
to my adolescent years of trying
to emulate the aesthetics of
alternative culture.
American Apparel was an
instance in which we could
have
been
more
conscious
consumers.
If
we
first
acknowledge
the
process
behind a product being made
and ways companies utilize
messaging
to
keep
their
respected place, we will be able
to avoid supporting business
practices that hurt others.
Recently I have been thinking
about how certain economic
and political actions end up
contributing
to
injustices,
whether or not these acts
are
intentional.
Things
we
buy, statements we make and
brands we associate with can
have dire consequences if we
do not address how we may be
oppressing others by our tacit
support. In today’s discourse
surrounding
women
and
immigrants, a need to reconsider
these attitudes becomes even
more urgent.
The
red
T-shirt
I
wore
through
customs
probably
would not have prevented me
from re-entering the country,
yet this experience does not
compare to those of students at
this university who are directly
affected
by
dramatic
shifts
in immigration policy. When
I wore that red T-shirt as I
crossed the border, I intended it
to be a show of support for the
rights of immigrants.
This pro-immigrant stance
mirrored that of the ex-owner
of the company I bought the
shirt from. Dov Charney, a
Canadian-born
entrepreneur,
started American Apparel in
the late 1990s. It blossomed into
the quintessential hipster brand
for the licentious youth to buy a
plain T-shirt for upwards of $30
— until recently.
American Apparel clothing
was made in Los Angeles by a
multicultural production staff,
paid fair wages and provided
transparency
in
company
practices. The company embraced
progressive attitudes toward gay
rights and advocated on behalf
of their workers for immigration
reform, seen in their Legalize Gay
and Legalize LA social justice
campaigns,
respectively.
This
platform drew many customers
to support American Apparel’s
mission and became profitable by
doing so.
However,
these
utopian
visions
were
met
with
a
divergent
reality.
Workers
complained
about
factory
conditions.
There
were
numerous sexual harassment
allegations against Charney, and
their ads routinely objectified
women. The company dismissed
undocumented
employees,
and lawsuits followed in swift
succession, which soon turned
Charney from a visionary to
a serial nuisance. American
Apparel’s board let Charney
go and the hopes and dreams
of innovation and patriotism
which Charney instilled into the
brand soon followed.
Perhaps if consumers knew
this background they would
not give the company their
unequivocal support. Thinking
they were helping end one
oppression, they had no idea
what was actually occurring
behind
company
doors.
Whether or not the increased
number
of
allegations
was
either correlative or causative
with
American
Apparel’s
bankruptcy, a company board
and media attention found no
friend in Charney.
The past few weeks in culture
and politics have brought forth
revelations our country has never
dared
discuss.
The
damning
reports in The New York Times
and The New Yorker regarding
Hollywood
producer
Harvey
Weinstein’s long history of sexual
harassment and assault have
catalyzed a societal dialogue
captured in social media with the
now-trending #MeToo.
With victims speaking out with
such velocity and innumerability,
there is no way to dispute that
harassment and actions far worse
are endemic within companies.
Unfortunately, most of the time
consumers are left in the dark
because
companies
attempt
to
conceal
these
allegations
from the public. For publicly
traded companies like American
Apparel, how can shareholders
keep
executives
accountable
when
there
is
not
even
accountability among the highest
orders of authority? These dark
secrets are shrouded under a veil
of misinformation, like American
Apparel’s marketing campaign
promoting equality.
Much
has
changed
from
when I first bought my T-shirt at
American Apparel, and I’m not
sure if simply wearing this shirt
really helped the causes I was
trying to support. Maybe taking
concrete action would have been
a better tactic than trying to
look cool. And under this false
premise of political awareness and
expression, I thought I was giving
others a voice who needed one.
My lesson has been learned.
Do your research. One kind of
oppression does not substitute
for another. Recognize all
the
implications
of
your
financial decisions.
Levi Teitel can be reached at
lateital@umich.edu.
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
COREY
DULIN
Taking concrete
action would
have been a better
tactic than trying
to look cool.
The bellocosity of
Trump... has often
overshadowed
cooler heads.