Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH

and DEREK WOLFE

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at

the University of Michigan since 1890.

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.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 12, 2015

W

omen are taught to be
disgusted by their bodi-
ly functions. They are

taught not to burp,
fart or hiccup in
public. When men
experience
natu-

ral cycles of the
human body that
occur throughout
the day, farts are
often funny, burps
are loud and spit-
ting shows a sign
of true manliness.
In a human body,
the same two acts
can be received in completely dichoto-
mous ways depending on gender.

A more subtle yet arguably more

destructive societal construction that
distinguishes the sexes is the percep-
tion of personal genitalia. I began
the article with the discrepancies
between reaction to bodily functions
because it is often much easier to con-
ceive how these differences have been
constructed by our male-dominant
culture. However, the general idoliza-
tion of the penis and revulsion of the
vagina begins at an early age and car-
ries all the way into adulthood.

Often, when a little boy plays with

his penis, he is “adjusting it.” When a
little girl touches her vagina, nearby
adults laugh in discomfort and scold
her to stop. Boys in middle school draw
penises all over the walls and on each
other’s faces. Girls in middle school
pretend vaginas don’t exist. Kids in
high school join the “pen15” club. Girls
in high school don’t even learn about
the clitoris in basic sexed.

When you or a woman you know

first experienced her period, was it
a moment of acceptance and peace,
or was it a weird secret that people
around her whispered about? Was
putting in a tampon the first time you
explored your own vagina? Was it the
first time you felt acceptable doing so?

We are taught to be disgusted by

the blood coming out of our bodies.
We are told to hide our tampons on
the way to the bathroom so passersbys
won’t dare know we have to stick cot-
ton up our canals to absorb the blood.
We are taught to shame girls who are
experiencing that time of the month
by asking if their emotions are being
influenced by PMS.

We are taught that we must stick

a plastic applicator up our vaginas to
insert a dry piece of cotton into our
vaginal canals so that we don’t have to
touch anything that might be “gross.”

Well, here’s the truth: your body is not

gross. It is natural and real. Your vagina
is not a secret. If boys can draw penises
on the walls, we can create vagina sculp-
tures to display in the art school.

It’s time for a revolution, and the

revolution has arrived — DivaCups,
MoonCups, Ruby Cups. They’re all the
same, and they’re here to stay. Men-
strual cups are a blood-catchment
system that is inserted into the vagina
and rests below the cervix. A person
simply empties the cup of blood into
the toilet when it is full, and boils the
cup at the end of her cycle. The cup can
be reused for up to 10 years.

Why is this so amazing? First of all,

menstrual cups are much healthier for
your body. They don’t have chemicals
or perfumes, they avoid dryness by
catching your menstrual flow rather
than absorbing it, and there is no risk

for toxic shock syndrome because they
are made out of 100 percent medi-
cal silicone. Plastics and chemicals in
pads and tampons can cause unwant-
ed problems. The cup can be worn for
up to 12 hours, and therefore allows for
much more constant physical activity
and traveling comfort.

Secondly, the cost savings with diva

cups are incredible. In one year if you
spend around $100 on tampons, then
in 10 years you are saving $1000 (some
simple math)!

Third, landfills are benefitting so

much from the menstrual cup revolu-
tion. In one woman’s lifetime, she will
use around 12,000 tampons or pads,
all of which (hopefully) end up in
landfills. Ruby-cup.com estimates that
about four diva cups in one’s lifetime
can equate to about 12,000 tampons.
They also report that about 170,000
plastic tampon applicators are found
along U.S. coastlines in a single year,
each of which takes about 500 years to
break down.

Ruby Cup is a special brand of men-

strual cup that works a bit like TOMS
Shoes: buy one, give one to a schoolgirl
in a developing country. This means
that she has more flexibility to go to
school all year round, stay healthy and
contribute to her society. Girl by girl,
we can change the world.

The menstrual cup revolution can

remodel our relationships with our
vaginas, our blood, our earth and,
most importantly, ourselves. We are
reclaiming our rights to our bod-
ies and our blood. The cup may seem
small, but it’s changing the flow.

— Maris Harmon can be

reached at marhar@umich.edu.

The Diva Cup revolution

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Aarica Marsh,

Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Allison Raeck, Melissa

Scholke, Michael Schramm, Matthew Seligman,

Linh Vu, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

L

ast Friday, U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg answered ques-

tions from com-
mentators
at

Hill
Auditorium

during the Uni-
versity’s
annual

Tanner
Lecture

on Human Val-
ues. The audito-
rium was packed
to capacity, with
thousands
of

political
nerds

drooling in their
seats simply for
getting the chance to lay eyes on the
“Notorious R.B.G.”

R.B.G.
has
been
celebrated

across the country for the past few
decades as a monumental leader
in the women’s rights movement.
Her popularity has been elevated
to that of a classic cultural icon
among America’s youth. Affection-
ately nicknamed Notorious R.B.G.
(a moniker inspired by deceased
rapper Notorious B.I.G.), Ginsburg
has entered the minds and hearts
of thousands of young nerds across
the nation, becoming an iconic
leader in the battle for equality
among all human beings.

During the lecture, Ginsburg

spoke about several topics including
law, women’s rights, professional-
ism, famous SCOTUS cases and giv-
ing advice how to best help others.

With all eyes glued to her small,

shockingly
fashionable
81-year-

old frame, Ginsburg noted, “If you
think of yourself as a professional,
well you’re not just going to get a
job so you can turn over a buck …
You’ve got a skill, and you can earn
a living from it. But if you think
of yourself as a true professional
armed with a skill, you could help
someone who is less fortunate.”

Even before Ginsburg began work-

ing in the public sphere, she embod-
ied this sentiment. When she began
law school in 1956, she was one of
nine women in her class of over 500
students. She graduated at the top
of her class in 1959 from Columbia

Law School after attending Harvard
Law for her first two years. However,
gaining employment after excelling
in law school was nearly impossible
for our beloved idol. Ginsburg men-
tioned during her speech that there
“weren’t many legal employers who
were willing to take on a woman.”

R.B.G. was eventually offered

a position as a law clerk. After her
initial struggle in the workforce,
Ginsburg steadily built an admirable
career as a law professional and an
advocate for human rights — specifi-
cally gender rights.

Her list of accomplishments is

almost unnerving. She taught at the
Rutgers University Law School. She
became the director for the Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union’s Wom-
en’s Rights Project, winning five of
the six cases she argued before the
Supreme Court. She was the first
tenured female professor at Colum-
bia Law School. She was appointed
to the District of Columbia’s U.S.
Court of Appeals by President
Jimmy Carter and wrote more than
300 opinions for the court. And in
1993 — the year I was born — Presi-
dent Bill Clinton nominated Gins-
burg to replace SCOTUS Justice
Byron White. After her confirma-
tion, she became the second female
justice in our nation’s history.

R.B.G.’s
popularity
began
to

increase after her ferocious dissents
in the affirmative action case, Fisher
v. University of Texas at Austin, and
the voting rights case, Shelby County
v. Holder. When alternatives to affir-
mative action were offered during
oral arguments, Ginsburg famously
responded in her dissent with, “only
an ostrich could regard the suppos-
edly race-neutral alternatives as
race-unconscious.”

Shortly after the dissents were

released in June 2014, New York Uni-
versity law student Shana Knizhnik
created the “Notorious R.B.G.” tum-
blr, propelling Ginsburg to Internet
immortality among America’s young,
tech-savvy demographic.

The creation of this tumblr

turned into something devoted
R.B.G. fanatics have only dreamed

about since 1993. A Jan. 6 post from
the site summarizes this notion
and Ginsburg’s year in two simple
sentences (emphasis mine): “This
year, the Notorious R.B.G. had
heart surgery, celebrated her 81st
birthday, and served her 21st year
on the Supreme Court of the United
States. But most of all, 2014 was the
year that everyone realized that she
is a total badass.”

In 2003, only nine percent of

respondents in a poll by FindLaw.
com were able to identify Ginsburg
as a Supreme Court justice; in 2012,
that number increased to 13 per-
cent. It’s safe to say that in 2015,
more Americans (especially more
young Americans) are able to iden-
tify R.B.G. as a Supreme Court jus-
tice and a passionate advocate for
human rights.

But is it really accurate to deem

Ginsburg “notorious?”

According to Merriam-Webster

online, the definition of notorious
is “generally known and talked of;
especially: widely and unfavorably
known.”

Oxford dictionary online has a

similar definition for notorious:
“famous or well known, typically for
some bad quality or deed.”

The nickname “Notorious R.B.G.”

is funny, amusing and clever, yet,
it’s not actually a good description
of Ginsburg, her work or her ideol-
ogy. While Ginsburg dissenters may
deem her “notorious” for her liberal
beliefs about human rights, in my
book she is anything but.

Ginsburg is renowned, esteemed,

illustrious,
astounding,
influen-

tial, preeminent — but she is never,


ever notorious.

In everything she has done, Gins-

burg has worked for the betterment
of humankind. She is an incred-
ible person, and I can only hope to
accomplish a mere sliver of the good
that she has done in the world.

For now, I will follow Ginsburg’s

parting advice: “Pursue — whatever
it is — your passion.”


— Aarica Marsh can be

reached at aaricama@umich.edu.

Not exactly ‘notorious’

AARICA
MARSH

Investing in your future

O

ur country’s income inequality is sim-
ply colossal. The top three percent of
wealthy families own 54 percent of

our wealth. The top 10 per-
cent owns 85 percent of our
wealth. This unequal dis-
tribution has been growing
since the late 1990s.

We can all agree that

income inequality sucks, but
that isn’t going to get us any-
where. We need to talk about
initiatives that each of us can
begin to help bridge the gap
between the wealthy and the
rest of us.

While a variety of fac-

tors meld together to create a person’s wealth,
one of the most influential and unused tactics
involves good stock investment. The wealthi-
est 10 percent own 81 to 94 percent of financial
assets — stocks being one of them.

I’m sure you’ve heard that investing in

stocks is a wise decision, but not until you
understand the mechanics behind compound-
ing interest do you realize how crucial invest-
ment in your 20s can be.

To make sure we’re all on the same page

with definitions, interest is the amount of
money you receive for letting someone bor-
row your money. A lot of financial institutions
provide interest — including stocks, bonds and
banks. Let’s take banks as an example. If you
put your money in a bank, you’re doing them a
favor by giving them money. They actually use
this money to invest in other projects to make
money. To reward you, they provide compen-
sation by depositing a fraction of your account
holdings. This compensation is the interest
that is added into your account.

However, not all financial institutions pro-

vide the same interest rates, and some institu-
tions provide interest that’s pitifully low. Banks,
for example, have historically only provided a
0.17 percentage annual average. That means
you’d only make 17 cents per year for every $100
you have deposited in the bank.

Stock averages are much greater. Though

the stock market is extremely volatile, it aver-
ages a six to seven percent interest rate per
year. This is the highest average return of all
forms of investment.

It’s in this percentage change that you could

become a millionaire while depositing around
one-tenth of that money.

The key lies in the idea of compounding

interest for long periods of time. Compound-
ing interest is similar to the idea of regular
interest except that your interest accrues
interest in the next year. Let’s use stock
returns to elaborate on this. Say that you
invest in a stock that costs $100 and, with
interest, it increases by the average seven per-
cent to $107. Then, if your stock rises by seven
percent in the following year, it’ll be worth
$114.49. Notice that the increase in the price

was 49 cents more than the first year. That’s
due to the fact that the seven percent interest
in the second period applied the seven-dollar
increase in the first period.

Now, this may not seem like a significant

amount of money, but over decades of time, it
is. If at age 20 you invested $1,000 in a stock,
it grew by the average compound interest rate,
and you took the money out when you were
50 years old, you would have $7,612.26. If you
pulled it out at age 60, you would have almost
$15,000. That’s almost 15 times the amount of
money you originally invested.

Let’s make it clear that this isn’t a get-rich-

quick scheme. Compound interest requires
decades of time to invest, but think of how
revolutionary this could be for people with
low income.

Saving $1,000 in a year only requires putting

$83.33 away each month. That can be difficult
for those living on a low yearly income, but it’s
possible for almost anyone.

If you saved $1,000 every year in your 20s

and 30s, you’re estimated to end up retiring
in your 60s with slightly more than a quarter-
million dollars. And if you want to invest more
money, you have the ability to retire with even
more money.

Having this nest egg leads to an infinite

amount of possibilities. You could allow the
stocks to continue gaining value each year
and sell off the extra value, allowing your-
self a multi-thousand dollar endowment each
year. You can use the money as a retirement
account to have a financially sound retire-
ment. You can will your children some of the
money and allow them to spend what they
want and invest the rest.

Now, this process isn’t as easy as picking a

stock and waiting 40 years. The stock market is
extremely volatile, and investing in bad stocks
could lead to you losing a lot of money. If you’re
going to invest, you need to put a lot of time
into understanding the process and identifying
valuable stocks.

But the time is worth it. It’s the way for

the single mother putting $50 in her savings
account to take control of her and her child’s
financial future. It’s how the 20-year-old flip-
ping burgers at McDonald’s has a chance at a
secure future.

So go on Amazon and buy a highly regarded

beginner’s investment book. Take advantage of
online websites dedicated to helping investors.
Ask friends for advice on getting into invest-
ment, and tell other friends about the power of
compound interest. Research companies until
you find ones you want to invest in. Invest,
invest, invest.

Don’t avoid the stock market because you

don’t know much about it. Though it’s not an
immediate remedy for poverty, it’s the system
that can diminish it.

— Michael Schramm can be reached

at mschramm@umich.edu.

Reconsider the honor code



TO THE DAILY:

I graduated from this University in 1995,

and during my years on this campus, the stu-
dent body protested the implementation of
the Statement of Student Rights and Respon-
sibilities (SSRR), which the administration
had introduced via a mass mailing to students
in the spring of 1992. Of those students who
voted in the November 1992 Michigan Student
Assembly elections, 86 percent voted against
the SSRR; sadly, the Regents implemented it
the very day after those elections.

Monday’s announcement by Central Stu-

dent Government about creating task force to
look into drafting an “honor code” to supple-
ment the SSRR surprised me. Now, as I did
then, I have to ask, “Why?” Aren’t there local
and state laws against what the fraternities and
sororities in question did? Don’t they have gov-
ernments (the Interfraternity Council for fra-

ternities and the Panhellenic Association for
sororities)? Don’t those fraternities and sorori-
ties themselves already have honor codes that
apply to all chapters across the country? And
why are University student leaders interested
in the very sort of “in loco parentis” utopian
stuff that their early-1990s Michigan Student
Assembly counterparts were fighting and vot-
ing against?

I am well aware that students at this Univer-

sity, as at other colleges and universities world-
wide, are at this crossroads. They are adults,
but at the same time, they are just beginning
to learn about life in the real world. However,
there are already laws in place for those who
do not behave responsibly. Therefore, I implore
CSG’s leadership to reconsider their decision to
look into creating yet another “honor code.”



Mark Rabinowitz
1995 Alum

Send letterS to: tothedaily@michigandaily.com
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

MARIS
HARMON

E-mail RachEl at Rdawson@umich.Edu.
RACHEL DAWSON

MICHAEL
SCHRAMM

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor.

Letters should be fewer than 300 words and must include the writer’s full

name and University affiliation. We do not print anonymous letters.

Send letters to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.