Artifact Presentation: "If Men Could Menstruate"

If Men Could Menstruate

By: Gloria Steinem

A white minority of the world has spent centuries conning us into thinking that a white skin makes people superior - even though the only thing it really does is make the more subject to ultraviolet rays and to wrinkles. Male human beings have built whole cultures around the idea that penis envy is "natural" to women - though having such an unprotected organ might be said to make men vulnerable, and the power to give birth makes womb envy at least as logical.

In short, the characteristics of the powerful, whatever they may be, are thought to be better than the characteristics of the powerless - and logic has nothing to do with it.

What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?

The answer is clear - menstruation would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event:

Men would brag about how long and how much.

Boys would mark the onset of menses, that longed-for proof of manhood, with religious ritual and stag parties.

Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea to help stamp out monthly discomforts.

Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. (Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of commercial brands such as John Wayne Tampons, Muhammad Ali's Rope-a-dope Pads, Joe Namath Jock Shields - "For Those Light Bachelor Days," and Robert "Baretta" Blake Maxi-Pads.)

Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve in the Army ("you have to give blood to take blood"), occupy political office ("can women be aggressive without that steadfast cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priest and ministers ("how could a woman give her blood for our sins?") or rabbis ("without the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean").

Male radicals, left-wing politicians, mystics, however, would insist that women are equal, just different, and that any woman could enter their ranks if she were willing to self-inflict a major wound every month ("you MUST give blood for the revolution"), recognize the preeminence of menstrual issues, or subordinate her selfness to all men in their Cycle of Enlightenment. Street guys would brag ("I'm a three pad man") or answer praise from a buddy ("Man, you lookin' good!") by giving fives and saying, "Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!" TV shows would treat the subject at length. ("Happy Days": Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still "The Fonz," though he has missed two periods in a row.) So would newspapers. (SHARK SCARE THREATENS MENSTRUATING MEN. JUDGE CITES MONTHLY STRESS IN PARDONING RAPIST.) And movies. (Newman and Redford in "Blood Brothers"!)

Men would convince women that intercourse was more pleasurable at "that time of the month." Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself - though probably only because they needed a good menstruating man.

Of course, male intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguments. How could a woman master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics, or measurement, for instance, without that in-built gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets - and thus for measuring anything at all? In the rarefied fields of philosophy and religion, could women compensate for missing the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death-and-resurrection every month?

Liberal males in every field would try to be kind: the fact that "these people" have no gift for measuring life or connecting to the universe, the liberals would explain, should be punishment enough.

And how would women be trained to react? One can imagine traditional women agreeing to all arguments with a staunch and smiling masochism. ("The ERA would force housewives to wound themselves every month": Phyllis Schlafly. "Your husband's blood is as sacred as that of Jesus - and so sexy, too!": Marabel Morgan.) Reformers and Queen Bees would try to imitate men, and pretend to have a monthly cycle. All feminists would explain endlessly that men, too, needed to be liberated from the false idea of Martian aggressiveness, just as women needed to escape the bonds of menses envy. Radical feminist would add that the oppression of the non-menstrual was the pattern for all other oppressions ("Vampires were our first freedom fighters!") Cultural feminists would develop a bloodless imagery in art and literature. Socialist feminists would insist that only under capitalism would men be able to monopolize menstrual blood . . . .

In fact, if men could menstruate, the power justifications could probably go on forever.

If we let them.

Description and Analysis:

                The artifact that I have chosen to discuss for my presentation is the article “If Men Could Menstruate,” which was originally published in Ms. Magazine by Gloria Steinem. The writer proposes that if men were able to menstruate, this monthly occurrence would be viewed as a positive characteristic and would definitely not hold the same taboos that it does for women. Steinem goes above and beyond to depict a world where men are capable of menstruation and what this change would mean for gender and social norms. Gloria Steinem is well-known for playing a big role in the second-wave of the feminist movement. Through her involvement in Ms. Magazine this article was able to be published in the first ever liberal feminist magazine.

Weitz’s reading, “A History of Women’s Bodies,” refers to “liberal feminists” as goal-oriented towards gaining equality with men within social structures. This magazine was the only existing one of its kind, where only women were writing and working for the magazine. This magazine stood against so many women’s issues that are brought up within Weitz’s article including: menstruation, abortion, childcare, job opportunities, etc. I feel that “If Men Could Menstruate” will stimulate great discussion surrounding women’s inferiority status and how the particular issue of menstruation has been stigmatized by society because of its association with women.

                In Lorber’s article “Believing Is Seeing” she states, “The moral imperatives of religion and cultural representations reinforce the boundary lines among genders and ensure that what is demanded, what is permitted, and what is tabooed for the people in each gender is well-known and followed by most.” The cultural taboo surrounding menstruation is continuously perpetuated because of the gender that is connected to it. Steinem suggests if men were the one’s able to menstruate, would this therefore imply that menstruation would no longer be considered inferior? This interesting question raises concerns brought up by both Weitz and Lorber, women are inherently inferior and therefore their bodies and what they do are also considered to be lesser than men’s bodies.

                “Women and Medicalization”, written by Reissman, addresses a particular medicalized aspect of women, which is birthing. But, there has also been a medicalization of menstruation as time has gone on. Reissman considers something to be medicalized when it is looked at as related to health and illness. It also must require medical intervention in order to control the situation that has been termed deviant according to social norms. Considering that menstruation can now be completely eliminated or reduced to an occurrence of only 4 times a year due to new birth controls, (i.e.; Seasonale, Seasonique, and Lybrel) it is obvious that menstruation has been medicalized as a potential illness for women.

Discussion Questions:

1)  Weitz says that her article is meant to “illustrate how whenever women have fought to change ideas about their bodies and to improve their situations, others have fought to keep them in their places. This battle continues today.” Even after Steinem’s piece, which was originally published in 1978 menstruation continues to be stigmatized. What do you think about this taboo and how does Steinem’s article suggest things would be different “if men could menstruate”?

2)  Steinem states at the end of her piece, “If men could menstruate, the power justifications would go on forever.”   Lorber’s article covers this power differential and how manliness is deemed superior and femaleness is considered inferior.  For example, male gymnasts are trained to be physically strong while female gymnasts are praised for their grace and small physique. How does Steinem’s piece depict cultural norms about biological differences?

3)  Riessman discusses medicalization of women and how illness, like gender, has become socially constructed. Steinem seems to illustrate men’s menstruation as anything but an illness. Why is it that women’s issues are so often intervened with the medical field? In what ways has menstruation become medicalized?

4) Do you see Steinem’s article as a gross over exaggeration of social norms related to gender or do you believe that the way she has implemented humor into a taboo subject allows the audience to look at menstruation from a new perspective?