T
he
“clean”
aesthetic
—
matcha,
20-step
skincare routines, gua
sha, 4:30 a.m. yoga, minimalist
makeup
and
nude-toned
shapewear — went viral in 2022.
It’s a stark difference from the
pouty lips, bold eyebrows and
spray tan aesthetic of the 2010s.
Coupled with the rise in social
media, the new trend to be as
natural-looking and dewey as
possible has elevated criticisms
of cosmetic enhancements. Our
favorite celebrities that were
recipients of unnatural plastic
procedures, especially those
keen on hiding any of these
physical alterations, are no
longer cutting it.
But despite the fact that
post-pandemic plastic surgery
demand
has
skyrocketed,
the
negative
perceptions
surrounding
cosmetic
enhancement are still widely
held among everyday people.
Those cognizant of how the
beauty industry profits off
of
insecurities
often
draw
the line at permanent body
modifications,
such
as
lip
fillers and botox, as the product
of poor decision-making by
women.
Sentiments
against
these injections — either from
their
medical
irrelevance,
seeming superficial motives
or
health
risks
—
revolve
around the larger idea of body
neutrality, or honoring one’s
body as it is with neither
positive nor negative feelings.
However, today, it is next to
impossible to abstain from
being profited off of and be
body neutral. There exists a
spectrum of participation with
exploitative medical practices,
but a greater understanding of
the plastic surgery industry’s
versatility is vital for greater
acceptance of cosmetic body
modification.
For example, the products
made by Juvéderm, one of the
most popular dermal filler
brands,
are
made
almost
entirely of hyaluronic acid
(HA). This acid, also known
as hyaluronan, is a “linear
polysaccharide” that is both
abundantly produced in the
body and ubiquitous in key
“visual” tissues such as skin,
nerves and epithelium. HA’s
magic has to do with its ability
to bind 1,000 times its own
volume in water — giving it
plumping
superpowers
for
aging, wrinkly, inelastic and
dry skin.
HA, in addition to popular
hydroxy acids (AHAs, BHAs,
glycolic acid, salicylic acid,
etc.),
is
a
massive
selling
point
in
topical
skincare
products. These acids have
deep exfoliating and hydrating
properties that work against
common
dermatological
issues
like
acne
and
hyperpigmentation,
making
them vital active ingredients
in cleansers, sunscreen and
everything in between.
Why, then, is it so negatively
perceived to have a naturally-
occurring
compound
subcutaneously added to tissue
when that same compound
already exists in our bodies
and
is
encouraged
to
be
applied topically? The answer
partially lies within the anti-
cosmetic augmentation crowd.
These
critics
largely
view
all enhancing procedures as
a monolith — a byproduct
of the larger view that any
cosmetic-driven effort is an
effort against body neutrality
— when, in practice, no two
procedures are the same. To
clump butt implants and lip
filler into the same category,
for
example,
undermines
the
intrinsically
natural
and low-risk concept of HA
formulas and inappropriately
sexualizes the motivation for
all injections.
On another token, as someone
with lip filler and botox, I’ve
been told that I’ve pursued a
scheme to fit more comfortably
within
the
patriarchy
and
oppress other women in the
process. It’s ironic considering
that this criticism came from
white women — a demographic
that has imposed Eurocentric
beauty standards on melanated
women,
specifically
Black
women, for centuries. Skin
bleaching, hair perms, colored
contacts,
rhinoplasties
and
blonde hair dyes are all cosmetic
modifications
that
continue
to pervade various countries
victim to colonization. Yet,
white
“feminists”
often
focus on the ways in which
women
are
subjugated
by
the male gaze because doing
so grossly takes the blame
away from themselves for the
ways they subjugate ethnic
women to Eurocentric beauty
standards
—
a
malignancy
that far supersedes that of the
patriarchy when not used in
conjunction with it.
Furthermore,
it
is
an
inherently feminist act for
women to choose for themselves
what they want to happen to
their own bodies. The crux
of criticism toward elective
plastic
surgery
or
fillers
actually perpetuates the idea
that bodily autonomy should
only be a woman’s choice if it is
for medical necessity (such as
in cases regarding abortion). In
reality, personal empowerment
through elective procedures
contributes to broad social
progress
just
as
much
as
rejecting
beauty
standards
does. Because of plastic surgery,
transgender people are better
able
to
affirm
themselves
with
genital
reconstruction
or facial feminization surgery,
breast cancer survivors can
receive breast implants and
postpartum
women
can
undergo stomach liposuction.
None of these procedures are
needed to maintain a pulse,
but they instill a priceless
confidence and a new sense of
self.
College-aged women are in
a tricky spot when it comes
to self-image; we are toggling
between residual teenage acne
scars and budding forehead
wrinkles alike. Ann Arbor has
over 10 plastic surgery clinics,
and I will be the first to say
that this accessibility was a big
reason many of my classmates
and I pursued fillers and botox.
The American Society of Plastic
Surgeons reports that only two
years ago, roughly 768,000
cosmetic enhancements were
pursued by women ages 20 to
29 — a statistic they predict
will be on the rise. However,
the pursuit of plastic surgery
does not, in any way, negate
my feminism or integrity in
fighting
beauty
standards.
Instead of focusing on the rise
of cosmetic enhancement in
young age groups, we should
be advocating against the root
of social structures and power
dynamics
that
successfully
coax women into considering
inauthentic
versions
of
themselves that they never
wished for.
Simply
put,
throughout
the history of time, cosmetic
enhancement has been an easy
and superficial way to criticize
women for distracting, vain
and self-sexualizing behavior.
With medical advancements
in
plastic
surgery
and
dermatology that blossomed
into the 21st century, these
deprecating themes continue to
encircle women who physically
and
mentally
benefit
from
going under the knife. Properly
advocating against cosmetic
enhancements
requires
a
deeper, nuanced understanding
of each treatment — including
motivations,
risks
and
consequences.
A
cosmetic
surgery-free future will only
come to fruition with advocacy
against social structures, not
against women themselves.
It is simply lazy to brand all
women who pursue elective
injections
or
surgeries
as
agents
of
the
patriarchy,
because it lacks critical analysis
of
individual
motivations
and goals while navigating
the
backdrop
of
various
unattainable beauty standards.
Design by Arunika Shee
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
10 — Wednesday, January 25, 2023
NAMRATHA NELAPUDI
Opinion Columnist
In defense of lip fillers, botox and plastic surgery
Opinion
Leader of the flock: What’s needed for the next CEO of Twitter
“V
ox
Populi
Vox
Dei,” a tweet from
Elon Musk which
embodies his stepping down
as CEO of Twitter. The eccentric
billionaire’s decision came on
Dec. 20 in response to a Twitter
poll he set up to see if he should
step down as Twitter’s CEO. The
results showed that 57.5% of the
17 million who answered were in
favor of him stepping down. Musk,
in response to the poll, tweeted
“I will resign as CEO as soon as
I find someone foolish enough to
take the job!” While the identity of
the next CEO is still unknown and
possibly undecided, there should
be certain values and actions Musk
should look for in his successor or
successors to ensure that the “town
square of the internet” reaches its
full potential.
In acquiring Twitter, Musk had
a variety of goals for the platform,
from increasing the number of
users to 931 million to quintupling
the revenue from the platform by
2028. Among these goals has been
a wider plan to make Twitter an
everything app — a vision that
makes Twitter a one-stop shop
for news, shopping and payments.
Although this goal for the platform
is highly ambitious, it creates a
framework to build off of for the
future of Twitter and its executives.
With such a large vision for
the platform, Musk should first
look
at
the
fundamentals
of
Twitter’s successes and failures
before attempting a full push
toward his grand plan of creating
an everything app. Building on
the smaller aspects of Twitter
could be the determining factor
between
Musk
achieving
his
goals and improving the platform
and Twitter becoming the next
MySpace. When looking back on
past successes, Musk should first
take a deep look at the user base of
Twitter.
Twitter, like any other social
media platform, exists because
its users generate content and the
platform generates revenue from
selling ad space and, sometimes,
selling
user
information
and
personal data. Since Musk has
taken control of the platform, he
has reported, despite Twitter not
officially publishing their user
numbers, that users on the site
are at an “all time high,” proving
his dedication to one of the most
essential parts of the platform.
Alongside its users, Twitter
also has had successes with the
accessibility of news and other
world events for users. This has
become another part of Twitter
that Musk has looked to strengthen.
Musk has championed the use of
Twitter as the main hub for people
to receive information about the
World Cup, for example. Although
Musk has been able to bring forth
many successes to the platform,
other policies enacted by him and
prior Twitter executives haven’t
been as successful.
One of Musk’s major actions,
which was overwritten the same
day, was the banning of links
to other platforms on Twitter.
Although this action made Twitter
mutually exclusive to itself, it also
cut Twitter off from the rest of the
internet, which upset the majority
of users.
A key factor that Musk and
the heads of Twitter did not
consider was Twitter’s current
place within the ecosystem of the
internet. As of right now, Twitter
serves as an auxiliary social media
platform, which content creators
on other platforms as a means to
communicate with others and
promote their content on other
social media platforms, such as
YouTube and Twitch, where they
can gain greater revenue. While
Twitter still supplies some revenue
to its largest content creators,
Twitter should recognize that,
even if it becomes a main source of
revenue for a creator, it cannot bar
its users from the wider internet
ecosystem that benefits everyone
in it.
Alongside potentially cutting
off
greater
user
engagement,
Twitter has also shown failures
by some users, which caused
backlash for their alleged barring
of information. Musk has also
faced similar backlash for banning
the journalists covering ElonJet,
a Twitter user (who was also
banned) that Musk claims violated
Twitter’s doxxing rules. Although
Twitter has guidelines for banning
users,
executives
within
the
company have displayed some
power in determining which users
get banned on the site without
needing to abide by the rules in
Twitter’s terms of service.
Accounting for the successes and
failures of Twitter so far, the next
head or heads of Twitter should
look for greater transparency and
understanding of the internet as
they look to grow user-retention
and first-time users. In order to
first reinforce the success that
Twitter has already had, the next
leader of Twitter should look to
innovate how the platform is used.
This innovation should be more
than just copying other sites as well,
a trap that Facebook and Instagram
have fallen into.
Along
with
increasing
its
users, Twitter should continue to
market itself as a thoroughfare of
the internet, tying major events
to the platform itself, making it
synonymous with everyday use on
the internet.
In
looking
to
fix
failures
within the site, the future head
of Twitter should have a greater
understanding of the internet’s
unofficial ecosystem and know
how to improve Twitter’s standing
within it. Although there is no
clear answer for how this can be
achieved, making it a desirable
place for content creators to base
their content on is a major part of
doing so, which involves greater
income for their creators.
Another major part of fixing
failures on Twitter is its problem
of unmoderated power. In order
to solve this problem, the board
of directors, as opposed to a
singular CEO, needs to come to
the forefront. By having multiple
people make executive decisions
on the platform, the ability of
a single individual to impose
their will on users will weaken.
On top of this major decision,
having more transparency with
content moderation and control is
important to stop decisions that
may harm the network.
Though
Musk
may
have
already decided on his successor
or may take many more months
to consider, he should account for
more than just a singular goal.
By reflecting on what has been
done and what can be done by the
next leaders of Twitter, Musk can
account for what’s most important
for the platform and its users, and
what needs to be done in order to
make it as he calls, the digital town
square of the internet.
TOM MUHA
Opinion Columnist
Design by Emma Sortor