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