Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, January 10, 2019
T
he most basic problem
with
thinking
about
candidates in terms of
likability is that it prioritizes
charisma over a candidate’s
policies,
temperament,
experience, values and vision for
the country. It creates a horse
race version of politics in which
everyone
becomes
a
pundit
choosing candidates based on
who they think other people
will like instead of based on
who inspires them or presents
the
most
thoughtful
policy
platforms. More importantly,
likability is deeply gendered and
racialized.
Likability
is
prejudicial,
not preferential. No one just
happens to like Barack Obama,
Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders
and Joe Biden more than they
like
Hillary
Clinton,
Nancy
Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Gretchen
Whitmer, Elizabeth Warren and
Stacey Abrams. Likability is not
innate, it is shaped by our social
world. What we see influences
what we value. What we have
seen is 44 men and zero women
elected president. Because we
have never seen what one female
president
looks
like,
much
less a broad and diverse array
of them, it is much harder to
imagine how a female president
might govern. Our image of
leadership is entirely defined by
traditionally masculine traits,
so we expect the command of
a booming voice, the authority
of broad shoulders and the
power of a firm handshake. It’s
no wonder that when a woman
shows
traditionally
feminine
leadership traits, threatening
the system created to uphold
male minority rule, she is cast
off as “unlikeable.”
Even in progressive circles,
these issues persist. In 2016,
countless men, the majority
of which were “Bernie Bros,”
insisted they would vote for a
woman but just not that woman.
That woman, who was arguably
the most experienced candidate
to ever run for president, who
offered
progressive
policies,
who would have been infinitely
better than the current occupant
of the White House. No, not that
woman. As recently as November
2018,
I
heard
claims
they
“couldn’t define it” but “there is
just something about her I don’t
like.” What these men, and some
women, fail to recognize is that
who they do and do not consider
likable is fundamentally tied
to their own internalization
of
cultural
messages
about
traditional gender roles for both
men and women.
On the final day of 2018,
Democratic
Sen.
Elizabeth
Warren, D-Mass., announced
her exploratory committee to
run for the presidency in 2020.
The former advisor of the
Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, Harvard Law School
professor
and
current
U.S.
senator tweeted a video focused
on
protecting
the
middle
class from exploitation by the
wealthy, placing emphasis on
issues related to civil rights and
equality. And it didn’t take long
for the sexism to begin. The
same day, Politico ran an article
questioning how Warren can
“avoid a Clinton redux—written
off as too unlikable before her
campaign gets off the ground.”
The article goes on to cite a
friend of Sen. Warren’s as saying
“she is a warm and affectionate
person” to contrast her to
Hillary Clinton, who apparently
must be frigid and domineering.
Hillary
Clinton
and
Elizabeth
Warren
are
very
different politicians. They have
very
different
backgrounds.
Yes, both went to law school
and both became U.S. senators,
but this hardly distinguishes
them as inseparable kin in
Washington D.C. They have
very different policies and policy
priorities. Even the respective
political environments for their
presidential campaigns are very
different. I wonder what they
have in common.
Besides
the
misogynistic
biases in the media, the truly sad
thing this exposes is that while
O’Rourke
can
be
compared
to Obama and Obama can be
compared to John F. Kennedy,
female candidates don’t have
a
template
of
a
victorious
presidential campaign to be
compared to. Instead, they are
lazily grouped into the same
category reduced to their gender
with little analysis of their
unique qualifications and values.
Given the most generosity,
what Politico is really asking is
“how can Elizabeth Warren run
for president as a woman while
still being likable?” And they’re
not wrong for asking it. They’re
wrong for perpetuating a link
between female candidates and
being unlikeable. It is based on
the same attitudes about women
that lead to female leaders being
described as “bossy,” “petty,”
“not approachable,” “difficult,”
“bitchy” and “self-interested,”
as
well
as
being
assigned
significantly
more
negative
attributes
than
their
male
counterparts. Truth be told, any
woman running for president
will have to overcome the
rampant sexism in this country.
And if that woman is a person of
color, she will have to overcome
rampant racism as well.
And while these candidates
and their campaign staff will,
unfortunately, have to devise
strategies to deal with sexism
and racism, it is because of the
relationship between likability
and prejudice. Voters (and those
involved in and who talk about
politics) should avoid choosing
the next president of the United
States based on who they would
like to have a beer with. We all
know how that went last time.
Stop talking about female candidates’ likability
MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN
Marisa Wright can be reached at
marisadw@umich.edu.
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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
ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | COLUMN
L
aying on the couch in
my
comfy
pajamas,
f lipping through the
channels I come across an
old classic: “Dirty Dancing.”
I was ready to experience
all of the passion between
Baby and Johnny until I
was rudely interrupted by
a sequence of commercials
for weight loss plans and
products. I began to huff and
puff as my cheeks turned red
and f lipped off the screen
in rage. My siblings sighed
and
ignored
my
visceral
reaction to the commercials.
Somehow, it slipped my mind
that it was New Year’s Day,
the beginning of a month-
long mental battle.
For
most
folks,
New
Year’s Day is the start of
their new plan, lifestyle or
diet. It’s when they make
resolutions
to
be
more
active, read more books and
eat cleaner. A fresh start
from the holiday g uilt and
shame of drinking too much
and stuffing our faces too
often. But recently, I have
found it to be the beginning
of a toxic time called “diet
season.” This is when people
are convinced by the diet
industry
that
their
lives
will
become
better
and
they will be happier if they
were physically smaller. So
people ever year will spend
their money to join groups,
develop
plans
and
get
products to meet their goals
of losing weight. This year, I
will not be engaging in diet
season but will be actively
avoiding these messages and
restrictions.
I’m sorry to share some
sad and shocking news with
everyone who is currently on
their New Year’s diet: Diets
do not work! I know it may
be hard to hear this message
after being told for years that
the only way to reach health
or happiness is by weight
loss. But I’m going to repeat
myself and spread the truth
— diets do not work. People
often
regain
the
weight
and negatively impact their
metabolism. We have been
fed a false message that our
weight equals our health,
which is not a holistic view
of health. So, why are diets so
commonly recommended and
why do we keep restricting
ourselves from food to reach
this goal? I think weight loss
companies want us to believe
that we can lose the weight
for good and are willing to
take our money even if it
hurts our mental health and
well-being.
I have been trying to
restrict the quantity and the
quality of my food ever since I
received messages from the
world that my size was too
big. In third grade, I was
your average chubby kid who
loved
drinking
chocolate
milk, eating chicken fingers
and some damn good fries.
After visiting a nutritionist,
I was told that I should be
writing
down
everything
I ate in order to learn my
eating patterns and habits so
I could become a healthier
eater. But instead of learning
about
eating
nutritious
foods that could fuel my
body, I began an incredibly
unhealthy relationship with
food and my body.
In middle school, I created
my own carb-less diet where
I kept track of my weigh-ins
in a journal (it was pretty
upsetting to find in my closet
recently). In high school, I
began paying for my diets
on
both
Weight
Watchers
and Jenny Craig. During the
period in my life in which I
tracked everything I ate, I
could not stop thinking about
food
throughout
the
day.
Throughout the four years,
my weight would f luctuate
up and down and I blamed
myself for my inability to be
disciplined. And eventually,
in college, I was over diets
but had a new “ethical” vegan
lifestyle that would finally
make me healthy. But I ended
up fueling intense cravings
and
categorizing
certain
foods as healthy and others
as bad or evil.
This past fall, I stopped
being a vegan and finally
allowed myself to start eating
eggs
and
dairy
products.
When people asked why I
quit veganism, I would blame
myself and say I didn’t have
the willpower. All I could
think about was eating my
old favorites like a bagel and
cream cheese or feta bread. It
was not until the end of this
past semester, in my Intro to
Body Studies seminar, when I
learned about the difference
between
eating
disorders
and
disordered
eating.
It
was then that I realized my
veganism was just another
way of restricting myself.
Oftentimes, eating disorders
can
be
easily
categorized
based
on
people’s
day-
to-do lives and diets. But
disordered
eating
is
not
always clear to diagnose but
can still affect one’s day to
day life.
So, now that I realized my
poor relationship with food
comes from years of diets
and labeling food as good
and bad, I’m not restricting
myself from my cravings. I
have actually begun listening
to my body to find out when
I’m hungry and what I want to
eat. It’s not easy. Sometimes
I find myself wanting to be
restrictive and don’t listen
to the signals my body is
trying to tell my brain, and
I’ll overeat or be too afraid
to
start.
But
I’m
finally
learning my natural signals
of hunger and fullness. I’m
not listening to what a diet
plan says or trying to mimic
the portions those around
me
are
consuming.
I’m
trying to eat foods that are
rich, nutritious, fatty, leaf y,
greasy, sweet and fuel my
body.
If you are still looking
for a New Year’s resolution,
perhaps make it to read a new
book,
particularly
“Body
Positive Power” by Megan
Jayne Crabbe. She helped
me change the way I think
about food and my body. I’m
not here to tell you how to
feel or what you should be
putting in your body. But
by sharing my experiences,
I
hope
those
who
have
similar
relationships
with
food
know
they
are
not
alone. I’m sharing my food
journey, not for sympathy
or to brag that I’ve got it
fig ured it out ( because I
haven’t and I’m constantly
learning new things about
myself ), but to inform you
to ignore the messages from
the diet industry this year
about what you should do
to your body. Instead, listen
to
yourself
and
unpack
whatever
relationship
you
have with food when you
are ready. Let’s be kind to
ourselves and recognize that
challenging diet season is not
easy.
Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at
erosenz@umich.edu.
DANA PIERANGELI | COLUMN
I
t’s a conversation we’ve
all had with a friend.
When asked their opinion
on something political, they
get really quiet and bashfully
utter the standard reply, “Oh,
I don’t follow the news,”
sheepishly replying that it’s
“boring,” “depressing,” “doesn’t
affect me,” “doesn’t matter,” or
something along those lines.
They may push the question
on someone who does have
strong political views, leaving
us to wonder, “If our fellow
University of Michigan students
don’t
consider
themselves
politically invested, what hope
does the rest of society have?”
And why do so many people
not think of politics as a part of
their daily lives that is worth
their time?
Don’t get me wrong, I always
appreciate someone who has
the courage to say they aren’t
educated enough to speak on
a topic, especially something
as complicated as politics. So
many people in this society
give their opinions on issues
they have no real knowledge
on, only making them sound
ignorant.
However,
so
few
people are actually educated on
politics that ignorant opinions
are what rise to the surface of
these conversations. That leads
to another big issue: ignorant
voters.
Ignorant
voters
are
a
threat to society, and they’re
everywhere. A lot of people
who don’t keep up with politics
may do nothing to rectify
this
when
elections
come
around because they don’t
believe their vote matters,
so they don’t want to waste
time researching. But when a
good portion of voters all
feel this way, it starts to make
a big difference. This can
lead to a major part of the
population making uniformed
electoral decisions, or simply
not voting at all, greatly
decreasing the accountability
of the government. That’s
how we end up with people
complaining about the person
they elected to office; if they
had done their research in the
first place, we might not have
had this problem.
According
to
the
Pew
Research Center, ten percent
of Americans above 18 are
“politically
disengaged”:
they’re
not
registered
to
vote, they don’t contribute
to campaigns and they don’t
follow government and public
affairs. Ten percent may not
seem like a lot but that’s about
32,570,000 American adults.
32,570,000 people who don’t
care what goes on in their
own country. It should startle
us that there are 32,570,000
potential voters who, if they
even decide to vote, could
be
uninformed,
which
is
hazardous to democracy.
So here’s why you should
care about American news and
politics: You live here. Yes,
keeping up on the news can
be boring and/or depressing.
Yes, American politics has
kind of turned into a joke.
And yes, the constant flow
of unsavory information can
be overwhelming. But it is
your duty to be an informed
citizen in the country you live
in. Whether you like it or not,
politics are everywhere. It’s
not some easily disregardable
school subject like calculus or
chemistry (sorry engineers),
or just a topic you can avoid
at the dinner table. Politics
are constantly present. The
people who are elected the
laws that are passed, and
the actions that are taken
affects your everyday life
dramatically.
Not caring about politics is
a kind of privilege — one that
comes from being in a position
granted by race, gender or
class that allows you to feel
like politics do not affect
you. Maybe what happens
to the public school systems
doesn’t affect you directly.
You’re not in school anymore
and you don’t have kids in the
school system, but it affects
the people around you, and
therefore society as a whole.
As
Elizabeth
Broadbent
writes in her own work, what
Secretary of Education Betsy
DeVos does to the school
system doesn’t affect her kids
because
she
homeschools
them. But as an American
citizen, she recognizes that
it is her responsibility to care
about politics, so she still spent
time calling senators about
schooling
issues.
Everyone
benefits from a better school
system, even if those benefits
don’t seem direct or apparent.
Therefore, issues that don’t
seem to affect you personally
can still influence your life,
because they could affect the
people around you.
If you want to be truly
invested
in
our
country,
then pretend the state of
our country is like a good
friend, one whose life you
are a part of and you check
in on them every day to see
how they’re doing. Listen to a
podcast, read an article, talk
to your friends or even take a
political science class. Spend
10 minutes a day catching
up on what’s new with your
country. Just do something,
anything, to educate yourself
on the world around you. It
doesn’t take that much effort.
But it will make you a more
informed and active citizen,
ready to create the country
you want to live in.
Why everyone should care about politics
Dana Pierangeli can be reached at
dmpier@umich.edu.
We have been told
a false message that
our weight equals our
health, which is not a
holistic view of health
Here’s why you
should care about
American news and
politics: You live here
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
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.
Our image of leadership
is entirely defined by
traditionally masculine
traits
ELLERY
ROSENZWEIG