I

magine you’re back in 
middle school, and you’ve 
just started your first 
period. You learned all about 
“that time of the month” from 
your health teacher, or maybe 
you had “the talk” with your 
parents, and now you have to 
go buy period products. You 
go and see an aisle marked 
“Feminine Hygiene Products” 
in the store. Most people get 
their first period between ages 
10 and 15, with the average 
age being 12. The harmful 
term 
“feminine 
hygiene” 
gets burned into the mind 
of 
every 
young 
individual 
who menstruates. Those two 
words have quite an impact 
because words are powerful 
and language matters. People 
deserve not to be ashamed of 
something that is natural. We 
all need to start talking openly 
and positively about periods. 
Every young person who gets 
their period has learned the 
term “feminine hygiene.” The 
language 
behind 
“hygiene” 
comes with the notion that 
periods are unhygienic and 
unsanitary. There is nothing 
dirty or unhygienic about 
having periods, and this term 
perpetuates the stigma around 
a natural human function. 
Since this term is plastered on 
every period product, people 
grow up feeling ashamed of 
having their period. Teens and 
young adults are bombarded 
with media and messages that 
undermine their self-esteem. 
Words used in marketing of 
products should be positive 
and provide a realistic sense of 
normal bodily functions. 
A poll says 58% of women 
have felt embarrassed because 
they 
were 
menstruating, 
and around 42% of women 
have 
experienced 
period 
shaming. This shame stems 
from the fact that women 
have been told their bodies 
should be clean and hygienic. 
This $4.22 billion industry 
coined the phrase “feminine 
hygiene” products, and they 
keep using it to capitalize 
on the shame that women 
experience. In addition to 
it 
being 
psychologically 
harmful, the stigma of hygiene 
has contributed to medical 
issues associated with women 

trying to stay clean. There are 
ongoing court cases against a 
pharmaceutical company for 
promoting the use of talcum 
powder 
linked 
to 
ovarian 
cancer. If people don’t push 
back against the notion of 
uncleanliness, industries will 
continue to create more and 
more products for women to 
buy. 
Let’s talk about the history 
behind the term “feminine 
hygiene.” 
It 
started 
in 
1873, 
when 
proclaimed 
anti-vice 
activist 
Anthony 
Comstock 
presented 
his 
ideas to Congress and set 
his anti-obscenity bill into 
motion. 
That 
same 
year, 
the Comstock Act passed in 
Congress. 
The 
legislation 
banned all materials deemed 
obscene. 
Items 
labeled 
as 
contraceptives or anything 
“immoral” 
or 
“indecent” 
were banned. This created 
an issue for the birth control 
industry. While birth control 
practices have been around 
since ancient times, choices 
were limited. The remaining 
choices 
were 
sometimes 
dangerous 
and 
often 
ineffective 
at 
preventing 
pregnancy. Margaret Sanger 
popularized the term “birth 
control” when she became the 
first to open a birth control 
clinic in 1916, only to be shut 
down nine days later because 
it violated the Comstock Act. 
For the birth control industry 
to 
continue, 
they 
needed 
to disguise their products 
with 
creative 
wording. 
Manufacturers at the company 
Zonite created the term that 
is still used today: “feminine 
hygiene” 
products. 
While 
this helped the company get 
around the Comstock Act, it 
also capitalized on the shame 
and stigma that society had 
attached to a normal bodily 
function — a bodily function 
that is needed in order to keep 
human civilization going. 
The 
Comstock 
Act 
is 
a 
prime 
example 
of 
how 
men 
in 
Washington 
have 
been 
disappointing 
women 
throughout history. Due to 
that law, the term that shames 
people 
for 
menstruating 
was created. This has made 
generations of people feel 
embarrassed that they are 
“unsanitary.” 
We 
continue 
to see people in Washington 
— the majority of whom are 

still white men — controlling 
women’s bodies. The most 
devastating and recent display 
of control occurred on June 
24, when the Supreme Court 
overturned Roe v. Wade. We 
need our leaders to stop having 
a say over women’s bodies. We 
need to never again elect a 
president like Donald Trump, 
who 
publicly 
said 
“blood 
coming out of her wherever,” 
so we can be sure someone 
with that mentality will have 
no say over our bodies. Having 
a president who speaks so 
poorly of women, time and 
time again, perpetuates in the 
minds of others that women 
are second-class citizens. That 
makes it easier for lawmakers 
to think that they should be 
the ones who have the final 
say about issues like ending a 
pregnancy. 
There are some movements 
that 
are 
lessening 
period 
shaming due to outspoken 
individuals striving to end 
the stigma around it. On Oct. 
19, 2019, the United States 
celebrated the first National 
Period 
Day. 
This 
day 
is 
dedicated to raising awareness 
about period poverty issues 
and 
advocates 
to 
reduce 
the stigma and shame that 
surrounds periods. 
This stigma around periods 
must change for the happiness 
and well-being of everyone 
who 
menstruates. 
Change 
needs to happen at all levels of 
government. Women should 
be able to make their own 
decisions about their own 
bodies. Men in power should 
be called out if they ever speak 
about women as if they are 
second class citizens. Parents 
should educate their children, 
those 
who 
menstruate 
and 
those 
who 
don’t, 
to 
show respect for everyone. 
Marketers 
and 
industries 
need to change the words 
they use and stop inventing 
products that are unnecessary 
and potentially harmful under 
the guise of cleanliness. The 
biggest change we can make 
to affect the way periods 
are perceived is to replace 
“feminine hygiene products” 
with “period products.” Make 
growing up just a little bit 
easier on middle schoolers. 
End the stigma that has been 
in our country for far too long. 
Just change two words, and 
we can break this cycle.

Opinion
Wednesday, October 5, 2022 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

It’s one word. Period.

 Read more at MichiganDaily.com

B

esides being a thinly 
veiled 
attack 
on 
the freedom to vote 
for 
Black 
and 
low-income 
Michiganders, the so-called 
Secure MI Vote initiative is 
a crass political maneuver 
posing as a solution in search 
of 
a 
problem. 
Michigan 
Senate Majority Leader Mike 
Shirkey, R-Clarklake, surely 
understands this as well as 
anyone.
“The Big Lie” of substantial 
voter 
fraud 
in 
the 
2020 
election has been thoroughly 
disproven 
by 
investigation 
after 
investigation, 
most 
notably in the Republican-
led State Senate investigation 
of 2021. Even one of its 
biggest 
cheerleaders, 
Rudy 
Giuliani, said they have “lots 
of theories (but)… don’t have 
the evidence”. Nevertheless, 
extremists 
within 
the 
Republican 
party 
are 
now 
using this baseless conspiracy 
theory as an excuse to attempt 
to pass voter restriction laws 
that, by design, would make 
it harder for Black and low-
income Michiganders to vote. 
Our democracy hangs in the 
balance as we debate this issue.
It’s easy to understand how 
making people jump through a 
bunch of hoops unnecessarily 
could deter voters from casting 
a ballot when it is their right 
to do so. The architects of 
the anti-voter bills know that 
while 11% of all Americans lack 
ID, 25% of Black registered 
voters lack the specified ID 
they would require. Existing 

law – that works and is safe 
and secure – already allows 
people who vote without an ID 
to cast a provisional ballot, one 
which counts only if the voter 
is determined to be eligible.
The extremist lawmakers 
backing 
this 
effort 
have 
crossed a red line. When the 
Michigan 
State 
University 
Board of Trustees considered 
a resolution to confront this 
abomination, it had sufficient 
support to be put on the agenda 
for their September 9 meeting. 
The measure asked the vendors 
they do business with to stop 
financially supporting these 
extremists because it not only 
violated values long held by 
the university, but those the 
vendors professed themselves: 
that they supported fairness, 
equity and access to the ballot. 
For 
example, 
Blue 
Cross 
Blue 
Shield 
of 
Michigan’s 
CEO signed a joint statement 
last year actually opposing 
legislative 
proposals 
that 
would eventually become the 
Secure MI Vote initiative, yet 
they remain the top corporate 
contributor to the lawmakers 
backing that initiative.
Then 
Sen. 
Shirkey 
was 
asked about the MSU voting 
rights resolution in a Detroit 
News column. He responded 
by threatening the funding 
of 
our 
public 
universities. 
Perhaps it’s not a surprise 
that he would leverage this 
type of power dynamic since 
PACs he oversees also receive 
donations from some of the 
same university vendors. Sadly, 
one of the Trustees must have 
felt pressured by the hollow 
threat and the Board never 
took a vote on it, forgetting that 

during the next budget cycle, 
Shirkey’s opinion or influence 
on any university budget will 
not matter as he will no longer 
be in office. These are the same 
financial scare tactics we’ve 
seen 
inserted 
in 
proposed 
legislation that threatens K-12 
institutions 
with 
budgetary 
extortion if they don’t alter 
their 
curriculums 
to 
stop 
teaching the truth about our 
country’s complex history with 
respect to race. 
The University of Michigan 
Board of Regents can still stand 
up for their principles and push 
back against this bully and his 
empty threats by taking a stand 
on voting rights. The Regents 
will hopefully remember that 
the harm caused to Black, 
brown and working class people 
if the bill proposed in Secure 
MI Vote becomes law will also 
be visited upon the student 
body who predominantly have 
the need to vote absentee.
Clearly, Sen. Shirkey would 
have 
people 
believe 
that 
our difference of opinion is 
partisan. It’s not. The right 
and freedom for everyone — 
including Black Michiganders 
and students — to vote and 
participate in our democracy 
should be a universal value, and 
it has only become a partisan 
issue 
because 
extremist 
Republicans like Shirkey have 
made it one. We hope that the 
University of Michigan Board 
of Regents will not cower in 
the face of Republican attacks, 
and will move its vendors to 
stop financing anti-democracy 
and anti-civil rights extremism 
with tax and tuition dollars. 
Standing by silently can no 
longer be conscionable.

State Sen. Erika Geiss: Secure 
MI Vote is a sham

ERIKA GEISS
State Senator

CHRISTINA SUAREZ
Opinion Contributor

I

t’s 
a 
well-established 
truth that one of the 
greatest 
indicators 
of 
a 
healthy 
and 
functioning 
democracy is the ability to 
disseminate 
accurate 
and 
accessible journalism to the 
general public. And, as midterm 
elections loom right around 
the corner, journalism could 
not be more crucial right now: 
the continuation of democratic 
backsliding, economic turmoil 
and deep political divisions 
are some of our most obvious 
challenges as a country. On the 
surface, not much is different 
from the American political 
landscape of the ’60s and ’70s. 
And yet, in living rooms and 
handheld devices across the 
country, our reality is much 
more stark: whether a fact is in 
fact a fact is being contested, 
misinformation runs rampant 
and common ideals such as 
democracy, citizenry and voting 
have become foundations for 
contentious debate.
In times such as these, I am 
always inclined to read from 
my favorite journalists and 
publications. Their voices are 
often a guiding light in a sea of 
noise, shaping and capturing 
the zeitgeist of the moment. 
But, 
given 
the 
amount 
of 
unprecedented 
conflict 
that 
surrounds us, I am often left 
questioning whether or not the 
institution of journalism can 
last in a way that’s sustainable. 
Newsrooms are shutting down 
across 
the 
country, 
social 
media has disrupted the ethics 
of storytelling and if the truth 
isn’t convincing enough, there 
is a conspiracy theory or flat-
out lie waiting in the shadows 
— and often in broad daylight — 
to take its place.
To get an idea of what 
lies ahead for the future of 
journalism and what role we as 
students play in amplifying and 
supporting the free press, I sat 
down with a couple of Knight-
Wallace Fellows: Meg Martin 
and Masrat Zahra. Martin is a 
freelance editor with a storied 
career 
in 
local 
journalism 
and 
Zahra 
is 
a 
decorated 
Kashmiri 
photojournalist 
covering human rights, war 
and the voices of marginalized 
communities. 
These 
are 
accomplished storytellers and 
story shapers who spent a year 
at the University of Michigan 
pursuing ambitious projects in 
the field. After my conversation 
with these fellows, I walked 
away 
with 
three 
forward-
facing solutions for the future 
of journalism.
One: journalism needs new 
allies — and college students 
are uniquely poised to step into 
this role. Two, “objectivity” in 
journalism has to die. The future 

of our democracy depends on it. 
Finally, journalism may not be 
able to heal our deep divisions, 
but it could be the place we lay 
down our arms. 
Increasingly, more people 
receive their news in short-
form content and sound bites 
than in traditional long-form 
media. And while short-form 
content isn’t new, platforms 
such as TikTok, Twitter and 
Facebook 
are. 
These 
days 
anyone can publish information 
or cover an event without 
the 
traditional 
frameworks 
and ethical conduct of an 
established 
newsroom. 
And 
while that poses numerous 
threats, Zahra argues this also 
poses 
many 
opportunities, 
particularly for engagement.
Zahra 
credits 
the 
eponymous hashtag for how 
quickly news about Mahsa 
Amini’s death was able to 
circulate around the globe. 
Zahra told me that “without 
social 
media, 
this 
story 
risked being silenced. These 
mediums 
are 
incredibly 
powerful for both journalists 
and engagement and we can 
use them to create awareness 
around issues we care about.” 
Who 
better 
to 
be 
good 
stewards of information in the 
digital, sound-bite age than 
university 
students? 
Think 
about it: We largely occupy 
the social media spaces of 
the internet, and at the same 
time, because of our time in 
college, we have myriad tools to 
question and critique media and 
information. Where are things 
being sourced? Is a certain 
voice an authority on the topic? 
Is the data accurate? “Students 
can be the connective tissue 
between short-form and social 
media content and traditional 
long-form 
content,” 
Martin 
said. 
Because so much of what we 
produce and engage with in 
universities exists under a code 
of ethics where we constantly 
have to verify our sources 
and 
present 
fact-sounding 
arguments, 
college 
students 
have an amazing role to play 
as smart, critically-thinking 
consumers and sharers of news. 
Because we navigate both of 
these spaces, we can take what 
we know about accountability, 

verification, reliabWility and 
accuracy, and bring that level 
of thoughtfulness to social 
platforms. 
When Watergate unfolded 
across TV screens, there wasn’t 
a 
dedicated 
news 
channel 
or 
radio 
station 
reporting 
on mistruths. Nixon had his 
supporters and his dissenters, 
but ultimately the political 
processes and investigations 
that 
played 
out 
weren’t 
interfered with, the president 
resigned and Gerald R. Ford 
took his place in the Oval 
Office. Today, news and media 
platforms 
not 
only 
spread 
mistruths, but they also give 
a wider audience to people 
in 
power 
spreading 
false 
information. Journalists must 
start taking a stand on what 
they choose to amplify and 
publish. 
The biggest critique of this 
proposal is that journalism 
should be neutral and give 
equal attention to both sides 
regardless of ideology. The 
reality is that some, including 
prominent 
Canadian 

journalist 
Candis 
Callison, 
considerity objectivity to be 
“the view from nowhere.” All 
news asserts a position — even 
news that feels harmless. Take 
a recent headline from a New 
York Times article: “Lots of 
Food Gets Tossed. These Apps 
Let You Buy It Cheap.” The 
editor isn’t simply reporting 
on a food app; they are staking 
out the position that food 
waste is bad, and there is 
something being done about it 
that we should all know about. 
“Journalists 
can’t 
just 
be 
mouthpieces 
for 
the 
government or the powerful,” 
Zahra 
said. 
“They 
should 
strive to share what’s right 
and what’s truthful.” And, in 
order to do this, journalists 
must 
take 
a 
stand. 
This 
should matter to all of us as 
consumers of media. What we 
read is not just a reflection of 
the world around us, it is also 
a reflection and a molding 
of public opinion. We are 
what we read, after all, and 
our identities and values are 
deeply tied to the stories that 
are amplified by the media. 

Here’s how journalism could 
work better for all of us 

ELINA MORRISON
Opinion Columnist

O

ne of the most storied 
institutions 
at 
the 
University of Michigan 
is the Central Student Government. 
First founded under a different 
name in 1906, CSG has overseen 
immense change at the University, 
advocating 
for 
student 
rights, 
serving at the forefront of student 
activism 
and 
shaping 
campus 
life. In the past century, CSG has 
coordinated Vietnam War protests 
at the University, established the 
Statement of Student Rights and 
Responsibilities, created the fall study 
break and pushed for desegregation. 
Despite the power it has historically 
wielded, however, CSG is now a 
mostly ignored organization that has 
fallen in prominence.
In the last election, the majority 
of those elected to CSG received 
under 50 votes, with many receiving 
totals in the single digits. Turnout 
was low across the board, including 
in LSA, which saw 1,264 votes from 
its 18,322 undergraduate population. 
Despite the low turnout, CSG still 
controls an immense annual budget 
of around $800,000, giving it the 
potential power to shape the U-M 
community and have a significant 

impact on students. With student 
body participation and investment 
near historic lows, however, it’s worth 
examining the current priorities and 
structure of CSG to understand what 
is and isn’t working and how CSG 
can once again connect with U-M 
students.
Perhaps 
the 
most 
important 
question to ask when evaluating 
CSG is what role it should play at 
the University. At other large public 
institutions like UC Berkeley and 
UCLA, student government has 
historically had a large voice on 
campus, with the UC Board of Regents 
having a much smaller soapbox when 
compared to our active regents. At 
the UCs, executive administration 
is the only other major campus voice 
that 
their 
student 
governments 
must contend with. As opposed to 
other colleges, which face a power 
structure centered around university 
administration, the University of 
Michigan has a unique distribution of 
authority. 
Both the Board of Regents and 
U-M executives play significant roles 
on campus, often working at odds 
with one another. With this diffuse 
power structure, it is harder for CSG 
to negotiate on behalf of students; 
it is more difficult to negotiate with 
nine agents (eight regents and the 
president) than just one. Because of 

this, CSG’s primary opportunity for 
influence lies in improving the day-to-
day lives of students in powerful yet 
inexpensive ways that are overlooked 
by the broader administration.
In the past few years, CSG has 
made strong contributions to student 
life through programs like AirBus, 
free news subscriptions, an emerging 
test prep program and high spending 
on student organization funding. An 
area where they have mostly failed, 
however, is activist attempts to 
influence politics. Today, CSG devotes 
a significant amount of its time and 
resources towards commissions that 
focus on activist efforts, with their 
most recent budget allocating $2,500 
to the Clean Campus Commission 
and the fall 2021 budget appropriating 
$5,000 to a COVID-19 POC Impact 
Task Force and $10,000 towards 
grants for organizations involved in 
anti-racism projects. 
While those are all good causes, 
CSG’s lack of a focused agenda has 
ultimately led to high spending 
and significant manpower devoted 
to programs with few tangible 
outcomes. With the U-M Regents and 
University administration’s outsize 
influence on campus, CSG faces steep 
obstacles that make the success of 
their initiatives virtually impossible.

CSG should rethink its role: 
A case for narrower priorities

NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist

 Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Design By Kate Shen

