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outdated patriarchal standards of 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.

