Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, September 26, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
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
MARY ROLFES | COLUMN
My body hair, my choice
What I’ve learned from young activists
SAMANTHA SZUHAJ | COLUMN
ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMN
C
ollege is lauded as a frontier
of
adolescent
freedom.
Leaving home for higher
education is the first chance for
young adults to act without constant
supervision and create a personal
brand. I was no exception: I became
a vegetarian, started worshipping
The Smiths and stopped removing
my body hair. Whether because it
was the most obvious or the most
controversial choice I made, the
last decision garnered the most
attention. A lot of it was positive, but
between gendered expectations for
dating and for young professionals,
I encountered negative reactions in
the form of implicit ambivalence.
While my body hair became a part
of my identity, the negativity was still
difficult to endure. A little over a year
later, my decision to transfer to the
University of Michigan presented the
perfect opportunity for a rebranding.
The razor I had previously put down
was picked up again. This decision
also brought negative responses, this
time more internal: Was I upholding
outdated patriarchal standards of
womanhood? Did shaving my legs,
especially for romantic purposes,
make me a bad feminist?
Whether my decision was to
shave or not to shave, both came
with the fear of not meeting
expectations.
American
society
has strong opinions on pretty much
everything women choose to do,
including whether or not they
remove their body hair. Letting it
grow can have professional and
romantic consequences; on the
other hand, staying smooth may
garner criticisms of conforming to
sexist, unrealistic beauty standards.
These contrasting opinions create a
dichotomy in which it’s impossible
to make the “right” choice regarding
body hair and women are not free to
make their own decisions. In the era
of My Body, My Choice, now is the
perfect time to consider all of the
ways in which our bodies are legally
and socially policed. This slogan has
powerful potential ranging from
medical procedures to the hair on
our legs. Using this principle of
bodily autonomy, we can create a
culture where the choice to remove
or not remove body hair is exactly
that – a choice.
Up until recently, body hair
removal for women has been all but
mandatory, an expectation upheld by
men, other women and mass media
such as advertising. The modern
practice of body hair removal began
in the early 1900s with Gillette’s
marketing of their women’s safety
razor, but according to Rebecca
Herzig, author of “Plucked: A
History of Hair Removal,” bare
bodies were truly established as the
standard of beauty during World
War II. At this point, body hair
removal became the norm: By 1964,
98 percent of women regularly
shaved their legs. Even now, almost
every American woman will remove
body hair at some point in her life,
with 85 percent doing so routinely.
Advertising helped begin the
modern practice of hair removal
and still plays a huge role in
maintaining
it.
Typical
hair
removal ads of the 21st century
feature images of thin, tanned
women twirling around on beaches
and running pink razors over
already bare legs. The message is
clear to me: Being beautiful and
being clean-shaven are one and
the same. The only way to fulfill
one’s potential as a woman is to
remove body hair, which is so
unsightly even the advertisements
for removal products won’t show it.
This norm expands beyond the
realm of beauty into standards
of hygiene. As Rebecca Tuhus-
Dubrow describes in an article for
The Guardian, a woman’s body hair
is considered “inherently wrong,
gross and dirty.” In fact, body hair
removal is so intertwined with
femininity that many men, despite
being embarrassed about their
body hair, won’t take part in this
grooming ritual due to its “unmanly”
reputation.
The past couple of years have
witnessed slightly more lenient
rules regarding hair removal. The
proportion of women who regularly
shave their underarms dropped 18
percent from 2013 to 2016 while
the percentage of women who
regularly shave their legs dropped by
a smaller but still significant seven
percent. But for some members
of the feminist community, these
numbers are not enough. Even if
it’s a choice, removing hair is still
the oppressed choice. As Tuhus-
Dubrow puts it, in some circles the
only “liberated” choice, and the
only one worthy of approval, is the
rejection of traditional femininity.
Unfortunately, this attitude is
not liberating at all. Rather than
abolishing an outdated norm, it
simply replaces it with a new one,
and women are still denied the
right to absolute power over their
own bodies. If you’re free, you can’t
be feminine, and if you’re feminine,
you can’t be free. While this all-
or-nothing attitude may be well-
meaning, turning an authoritative
mandate into an authoritative
binary still denies women the
freedom of choice.
In this war on body hair, how can
we place the regulatory power held
by institutions into the hands of
individuals? Well, since advertising
got us into this mess, maybe it can
help get us out. A recent example is
the razor company Billie’s Project
Body Hair campaign, the first to
show actual female body hair, which
discusses hair removal as a variety
of equally valid choices (“however,
whenever, if ever”) instead of as a
matter of right or wrong. Whether
you remove the hair on every part
of your body, or just the stuff on
your toes; whether shaving is a
daily routine, a special occasion, or
skipped altogether – it’s entirely up
to you. Rather than treating shaving
versus not shaving as a binary, this
kind of language creates a spectrum
of body hair removal, allowing a
reclamation of our bodies and what
we choose to do with them. Most
importantly, the examples set by
mass media can be carried into our
personal and professional lives, so
our choices are not only our own
– they are accepted. So wear your
crop top on game day whether or
not your pits are hairy. Pick out the
perfect career fair look regardless
of whether you’re shaving your legs.
Your choice — as long as it’s your
choice — is your participation in the
new body hair revolution. Embrace
it. Oh, and you’re allowed to shave
your bodies, too.
Mary Rolfes can be reached at
morolfes@umich.edu.
LENA SISKIND | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT LENASISK@UMICH.EDU
I
sometimes wish I had a
more courage. Maybe it
would help me speak up
instead
of
turning
away,
or
help
me
confront how I feel
when I know it may
be difficult. I wish
I had more courage
– particularly in the
face of adversity.
Telling one person
something
they
don’t want to hear is
difficult enough. No
one likes delivering
bad news, no matter
how
predictable
said
news
may be. Now, imagine standing
alone, in front of differing
news outlets and world leaders,
sharing
information
that
they may be familiar with but
nevertheless is not easy to
swallow. That takes someone
with courage and a desire
to bring change far beyond
what most are capable of – no
matter their age, background or
particular beliefs regarding an
issue.
To
me,
activist
Greta
Thunberg is that champion of
courage.
The Swedish 16-year-old
has been an active advocate for
the climate, beginning with
her standing alone outside
the Swedish Parliament in
2018. Since then Thunberg
has been a vocal leader of the
climate
change
movement,
meeting with various world
leaders,
including
former
President Barack Obama in
recent weeks, discussing the
importance
of
dedicating
national
and
international
efforts
towards
stalling
human
impact
on
our
environment.
If a single individual like
Thunberg can make a change,
so can we.
I used to feel, and still do
at times, like I am but a single
voice and actor and therefore
my thoughts and actions can
only make a minute impact.
How can I, as one person,
make a difference in my day-
to-day? How can I push for
change, and back my opinions
with action when I sometimes
fail to speak up and out?
Could I as a single person
have the bravery to sit outside
parliament, or the equivalent
of
such
here
on
campus,
alone, asking for something
or pushing for change in
such
a
daunting
environment?
This past Friday,
people around the
globe
walked
out
of classrooms and
gathered
in
town
centers, streets and
squares
pushing
for
change
with
painted signs and
exasperated voices.
Millions reportedly
responded
to
the
call,
with
outlets
noting
this to potentially be one of
the largest climate protests
in history. This action was
something
that
Thunberg
individually called for in her
own right over a year ago
– standing alone with her
cardboard sign asking fellow
students to join her in striking
to bring attention to the
nature of our environment.
If Thunberg can do it, so
can we.
And the thing is, there are
numerous
young
activists
that have already answered
respective
calls
to
action.
Sophie Cruz, at only five years
old, handed a letter to the
Pope, voicing her fears of ICE,
due to the immigration status
of her parents. Sophie since
then has spoken out in favor of
immigration reform, meeting
with Obama and speaking in
front of audiences including
the Supreme Court and those
gathered
at
the
Women’s
March on Washington. She is
now eight.
If they can, so can I.
I challenge myself to be
more courageous. Courage
means
various
things
to
different people. It could
be
introducing
ourselves
to
someone
new,
trying
something that scares us
or simply giving ourselves
a break. Courage is a little
different to all of us – but
the common thread is that
courage can catalyze change
in whatever form it may take.
As we go into the year, I
want to not only stand up, but
stand out for things I believe
in. I am going to push myself
to not just say, but actually do
something about how I feel.
Whether it be joining a new
organization,
participating
in events for my current
commitments or seeking out
groups championing things I
believe in, I want to dedicate
my energies without fear or
apprehension of being the
first to stand out, or stand
alone.
Do you think the first
person to decide to speak
up
against
something
was scared? Do you think
Thunberg experienced some
form of hesitation or doubt
regarding her push for strikes
and school walkouts? Without
knowing personally, I would
make
an
educated
guess,
that yes, they probably were.
And that is what makes us
human. But those who have
championed
movements
—
whether local or global — are
also human. They have most
likely been filled with the
same reservations that we all
face daily.
We can all take a page
out of the books of those
like Thunberg, the person
who raises their hand in the
large lecture or one who
starts
an
organization
on
campus because it stands for
something they believe in.
I will try to be. And maybe,
with time, my actions will
drown out the voices we are
all so accustomed to hearing
– the doubt that just because
we are one person we cannot
make a difference.
Samantha Szuhaj can be reached
at szuhajs@umich.edu.
SAMANTHA
SZUHAJ
If a single
individual like
Thunberg can
make a change,
so can we
The continued fight for fairer elections
T
he right to vote is one of
the most sacred powers
with which we have been
entrusted. However, this right
must continue to be protected
from politicians and special
interest groups who, through
partisan gerrymandering, seek
to meddle and exert undue
influence.
Last November, Michigan
voters voted 61.27 to 38.73
percent in favor of Proposal
2,
which
will
create
an
independent
redistricting
commission to draw the state’s
electoral districts. No longer
will the majority party in
the state legislature be able
to redraw districts to benefit
their party. Instead, this new
commission will be staffed by
ordinary citizens, not career
politicians.
As per the proposal, there is a
very specific process to choose
who will be on the commission.
There must be four voters who
identify as Republicans, four
who identify as Democrats
and five who either identify
as a member of a third party
or as a member of no party. In
order for the new districts to
be approved, consensus must
be reached by a majority of
the commission, including two
Democrats, two Republicans
and three of the people with
no
party
or
independent
affiliation.
Additionally,
safeguards
have
been
put
in place to prevent people
with political influence from
getting on the commission.
For instance, if you, your child,
your parent or your spouse
have served in the last six
years as an elected official,
partisan candidate, campaign
consultant,
lobbyist
or
a
member of a governing body,
then you are prohibited from
serving on the commission.
Each of these stipulations
helps to ensure a fair and
honest
commission
that
will
draw
the
district
boundaries that Michiganders
deserve.
However,
the
commission cannot effectively
do its work if Republicans
continue
to
weaken
and
undercut the committee at
every turn. Since the approval
of Proposal 2, Republicans
in Michigan have waged a
series of legal challenges to
try to prevent the formation of
this commission. This week,
the
Republican-controlled
legislature took yet another
step to restrict the effectiveness
of
the
commission.
Gov.
Gretchen Whitmer has said
that 4.6 million dollars is
needed to properly fund the
redistricting
commission.
However,
the
budget
plan
passed
by
the
Republican
controlled House and Senate
Conference
Committee
allocates 3.4 million dollars.
This 1.2 million dollar shortfall
would be detrimental to the
commission’s
effectiveness.
With something as important
as our elections on the line, we
cannot cut corners.
Across the nation, partisan
gerrymandering has wreaked
havoc on our electoral system.
It
has
allowed
for
the
disenfranchisement of voters
and for politicians to stifle
change and unfairly choose
their constituencies. In my
own state Senate district in
New York, the electoral lines
have
been
systematically
drawn to favor Republicans,
splitting
up
towns
and
creating disjointed districts.
When I worked on various
local political campaigns in
New York, people would come
to the local office not sure
who their representative was,
given that their town had been
divided during the redrawing
of the districts.
Gerrymandering is practiced
by both parties, and it is simply
unacceptable.
Independent
commissions, such as the one
in Proposal 2, are the only way
in which we can create districts
that are fair and allow voters’
voices to be heard. That is
why it is so important that all
of us in Michigan raise our
voices to support the creation
and
full
funding
of
this
commission. There is a reason
why Michiganders supported
Proposal 2 by such a wide
margin: They realized that,
regardless of party, we should
all strive for more fair elections
free of outside influence.
You can call your state
senator or assembly member
and
voice
your
opposition
to this funding cut. You can
also sign up to volunteer and
receive updates from Voters
Not Politicians, the advocacy
group
that
championed
Proposal 2. If we truly want
this, then we must push back
against these budget cuts and
work to ensure that Proposal 2
is properly enacted.
Partisan
gerrymandering
has wreaked
havoc on our
electoral system
Isabelle Schindler can be reached
at ischind@umich.edu.