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.

