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