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.