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

