Gradual Progress Toward Gender Equality

I'd like to focus my post on the discussion we had in class on Thursday.  Although the material we talked about was not concrete perhaps there is more than meets the eye when it comes to facts and figures.  I had originally thought that because men could not menstruate, nor will we ever the article had little legitimacy.  In fact, I wrote it off in my mind as something completely ludicrous and why should we be debating such a thing that will never come to fruition.  That being said, upon further thought I realized that the idea behind the concept surrounded how men would treat menstruation. Glorification of something that is considered taboo in today's society emphasize how men are still dominant over women in today's society.  Whether it is politics or the work place the glass ceiling has prevented many women from reaching the occupations or positions they so desire.  I just find it awfully ironic and disturbing that the real drivers behind society are paid less or cannot achieve the heights they want to simply because of gender. Is it fair? no. Is it a true force? yes.  Thus, I don't believe that women will gain complete equality over night, but I feel like it is a work in progress, and a gradual movement to gender equality more than anything else.

Response to Lee C's blog post

I agree with you Lee, that the Mutter Museum is both educational and entertainment.
At it's height, the museum was seen as a source of educational wisdom and knowledge; and today, it is seen as more as entertainment/tourist-y attraction to "Regular Joe Smoes." I did find it cool that what we now know about medical science mainly came from the Mutter Museum and Hyrtl's skull collection.

I do agree further that the museum is open because of how the "times are a changing," as the saying goes. Our society does not really care about this museum really, as it did "back in the day." We see it as two-fold: 1) a museum with worthless junk in it (to some Americans); and 2) a place with scientific discoveries and knowledge at our fingertips, pun implied.

~Chad S.

Rights to Our Bodies

Going off the discussion we had on Tuesday about the Mutter Museum I wanted to bring up the issue of having rights to our own body after we die. I know today we have will's that inform people what we want to be done with our body after we die but is there not a unspoken right for the dead? I'm pretty sure now people have to actually have to sign off on having there body being used for medical reasons. Thinking of the people in the Mutter Museum, did the doctors just assume that because the people are dead that it did not matter if they had permission to dissect and show case the bodies? Perhaps in the name of saving others that the right of the dead is over looked but I know if I were family of the people in the museum I would want to take the remains and lay them to rest. Also if I personally had some "freak" thing about my body I would not want it to be put on display for everyone to see after I died. Perhaps if it helped people I would let them use me to test on but why put me out there as entertainment? They are just personifying the fact that I am a freak.

I also feel that Mutter Museum is somewhat dehumanizing the remains they have. Using only certain parts of peoples bodies makes it seem that that is the only important part about them. They are forgetting that all those remains were apart of someone; someone who had a life, no matter how short it might have been.

-Erica Nelson

Chad's Blog Post on Mutter Museum

I wanted to focus my weekly blog on the Mutter Museum and the documentary that we watched in class on Tuesday. I thought the article was very interesting because at first, I found it very odd and unusually that a person collected skulls back in the 1800s. I mean maybe it was a "fad" "back in the day" but, from today's terms, it seemed very peculiar to me. Also,  I liked how Hyrtl gave his collection to the now-Mutter Museum for their scientific and medical experiments/exhibitions.

It was cool to see from the documentary that the museum had a lot of exhibits that incorporated the skulls and Hrytl's collection too. I found that these collections/exhibits were very helpful for students of the College of Physicians of Pennsylvania; however, today the museum isn't for the same usage as it once was. The museum knew this would be the case and they adapt to the times.

Overall, I found the article and the documentary very interesting because the Mutter Museum was once seen as a precious tool for scientific knowledge  and now its just another tourist-y attraction. It is just sad (in my mind) that people just go to see skulls and not enjoy the true beauty of the museum it once claimed to be.

~Chad S.

A Truly Cultural Inequity

The conversation we had in class Thursday was perhaps the most engaging and interesting so far. The concept that women have been made biologically inferior reminded me very much of the notion that blacks were inequal through pseudoscientific methods. The concept that black skulls were too small to house large brains making them stupid is of the same school of thought as implying that women are unequal because of their ability to give birth or menstruation. These qualities are inherent but do not also carry with them the insinuation that women are weaker and more nurturing. Culturally, not biologically, we create that notion. Women are responsible for taking care of our young most primarily in our society, despite all advances thus far. It is hard still today to say that men have made strides to take up responsibilities in child care , and thus it is a cultural construct of "feminine characteristics" that so greatly damages our society and hinders women throughout the world.

Gendered Behavior

When reading Judith Lorber’s piece “Believing is Seeing,”   I thought it was interesting how she talked about everyday gendered behavior.  One example she gives is if a woman and a man are in a car, the man would be the one to drive the car, even if he isn’t the better driver of the two. I never thought about this before, but it is very true. Even looking at my parents, my dad is always the one to drive. Why do you think this is?  Is it because men are the ‘leaders’ or because it has been the social ‘norm’ for so many years?  One point Lorber makes is that this gives a sense of social power, which I think is true. I think that men like to feel in charge and this is one form of accomplishing that. The stereotype that women are not good drivers could also be a reason, but there are plenty of good women drivers and not all men are as competent. I just thought this was interesting and opened my eyes about another way in which men tend to be “in charge” in everyday activities.

-emothersell

In response to britt-toapha's post "Dealing with the gender issue through politics"

I feel like the progress that has been made for gender equality is extremely important, and that hopefully though every women's rights movement making progress there will be more changes to this inequality. However, since women's movements have been happening for decades now and we still can't say that we have gained equal opportunities to men, who knows how much longer it will be until these issues start to resolve. I feel that the points that were brought up in this post about government are extremely important when considering why changes haven't been made. I also believe that society will always be a contributor to the inferior status of women. If women are always going be viewed as a lesser version of men because of history, then we are never going to be taken seriously.

In Lorber's article, she discusses how cultural assumptions come from biological differences between genders. If biological differences are constantly going to be emphasized when considering social norms, then women are never going to be taken seriously in a society where the masculine characteristics are valued so much more. We can't change the biology of men and women, but we can change the way that masculinity has been associated with superiority and femininity being associated with inferiority. The double binds involved in this superiority-inferiority binary shouldn't and can't continue to favor men, when men and women are behaving in the same manner.

Thursday's discussion

I thought Meghan's discussion on Thursday was fantastic. I love the Gloria Steinem piece on menstruation and I think it relates to this class and the Lorber reading very well. I thought we had an awesome class discussion and it was interesting to see different points of view.

There were a few things in class that were brought up that I'd like to expand on. Someone had made a comment along the lines of "it seems like some things try to make women seem better than men." (Not an exact quote, but something to that regard.) I just wanted to clear up any confusion that people may have about feminism. Having feminist beliefs does not mean that you want to out do men by any means. It just recognizes that there is still inequality between the genders and it tries to create equal access to power and resources for women and girls. Like we said in class, we're still talking about these issues because things still are not equal. It's a shame that stereotypes can ruin an image, a belief system, or a group of people.

Other interesting points made in class was that the poem was satire and pointed only to "what ifs". I do think that theory is needed to work through these important issues, and that we can't just complain about things but need to actually do something about them. But, to start, thinking about what ifs allows us to shatter the norms and get inspired to enact social change. Those what ifs can be the starting point to allow people to say "Hey, that would be better wouldn't it? Let's see what we can do about it." Obviously, we can't make men menstruate, but we can start to think how menstruation, pregnancy, birth, abortion- a lot of things, really- are medicalized and stigmatized in our society and how certain language and practices related to these personal things can be really damaging to women. We can shatter the norms and shift ways of thinking away from the traditional systems, if we decide that those systems don't work anymore. I'm sure a lot of social movements, experiments and interventions started with a "what if?"

I came across this really great blog recently, and she talks about a lot of these issues facing women and how certain things are stigmatized and can be very damaging. The link is http://www.womanstats.org/blog10.htm, and she has a post specifically on menstruation. She talks about a lot of what we said in class- how shame and secrecy surrounding it can have harmful effects on girls and women, and she debunks myths about menstruation that people have held for years. It proves that we can't just "get over it" and "embrace it" as much as we want to. Unfortunately, we live in a society that does not often allow women to just "be themselves" without there being some consequences.

Along with menstruation, pregnancy and birth are very much stigmatized in our society, and many places do not have the respect for pregnant women that they should. Yes, men also risk losing their jobs if they take leave from work. But they usually have the choice. Women, since they physically are the ones who give birth, need to take maternity leave, and often times are not guaranteed their jobs when they return. We are also one of the only countries that does not have paid maternity leave! (See pictures below)

It's just a shame that after all these years, we are still fighting for equality, and that women get punished for natural bodily functions that we have no control over. 

Mutter Museum Documentary

After watching the documentary on the Mutter Museum, besides being a little queasy, I thought a lot about one of the questions that came up, whether the purpose of the museum in modern time is more so for education or entertainment.  I think that it is a little bit of both.  Obviously the artifacts or the models in the museum are used to display medical conditions before we knew anything about them and before medical advancements and discoveries were made.  Over time, relevant artifacts have been collected but I think that the reason the museum is still in business is because we need to take into consideration how much has changed since these discoveries were first made.  Part of this course is observing how different groups were once put in a different kind of light, and observing groups as "freaks", when today, that may not be the case at all. It teaches us how points of views have changed over time and how different the modern world is.  It teaches us how many advancements have been made and that things have changed for the better.  There are things we still may not understand, but we have certainly heard of many of the medical cases or simply individual characteristics and we don't take into account how it was viewed decades, even centuries ago.  I think the museum still stands because it does serve as a source of entertainment but it really opens up your eyes to the history of medicine, authority, and oppression.

Blazing a Trail in Male Sports

There have always been stereotypes about certain sports being a boys world or it's to rough for girls to play. In this years NFL combine that runs from January until April allowing scouts for the 32 pro teams to look at the top kids coming out of college. This years NFL combine is different then any of the ones in the past years. The reason being is that in this years combine there is the first female athlete competing in it. Lauren Silberman a native of New York City will complete in this years regional combine.

Now she may end up being the best kicker at the NFL combine. Or she may be just average. The problem is that I don't think any team will pick her regardless of how well she ends up doing. I feel that the reason teams would not pick her is because the media would lable it as a publicity stunt, a way to get more fans in the seats.

She is attempting to break the sex barrier by becomeing the first female to enter the NFL combine and hopefully be drafted. But because the NFL is a "mans sport" the chances of this seem unlikely. Even if she does not get drafted this year she will still be the first step in getting women into leagues like the NFL. No matter what happens come the draft at the end of April, this will be a historic moment for both the NFL and women.

Dealing with the gender issue through politics

During our discussion on Thursday, someone asked a question stating: If we all have the same ideas about gender inequality and gender roles, and we feel that action needs to be taken, why has nothing changed? Well, if you take a look at who controls the House in our government you will see why. The majority of GOP representatives are white males. If you reflect on the 2012 presidential campaign, it is obvious that these issues that women experience because of their attained characteristics due to their body type, are just as prominent as they were years ago. Equal work, equal pay still doesn't exist in the work force, and questions about whether or not women should be able to do with their body what they want are still in play. Take the Republican nominee, Romney, for example. He presented speeches and plans that showed how he views the gender roles of our society. From using women as a special interest group, to attempting to gain back women voters by stating how he wants pay equity for them, which just ended up into a gaffe (binders full of women) blown up by the media; some say that Romney seemed to use women to his advantage to gain the attention of voters and benefit himself. It is obvious that the gender stereotypes have been so intertwined and cemented into our ideology that attempting to change them via the government just turns into a really biased and in this case, tough and awkward situation. However, there is no doubt that our country is working to fix the gender inequality. We have lifted the ban on combat for women and have broken a record for having 20 women in the Senate, one being openly gay. Similar to our country's race and ethnic issue, the gender inequality issue has not dissipated because of these few significant breakthroughs. We still see unfairness not only in jobs, the media, and politics, but in everyday facilities and situations, as well. Some may argue that women are not at a disadvantage because they have the option to be just as successful, if not more, than men; but that doesn't mean that the issue has been eliminated. Do you think the gender issue will be completely irrelevant in future years because of the progress we have been making?

In response to JWelch's post "A gendered 'fit' body"

This post is in response to JWelch's post as well as based on ideas I had while listening to discussion in class.

While I agree that women and men certainly have the right to do whatever they want in sculpting their bodies, the specific "fit" body assigned to them by society has origins in biology. Men want to build muscle because they have been conditioned to by thousands of years of evolution. To defend themselves, defeat competition for mates, and to gather food men needed muscle; the more muscle one had the better chance you had of surviving. This was the role traditionally assigned to men. Women, on the other hand, had to raise children and take care of household tasks. Certainly this wasn't less important, but it required less muscle. Therefore, to attract the best male mate, women developed a desire to accentuate those characteristics most desirable to men. These include a petite frame and accentuated bosom and derriere. I imagine these types could easily be flipped if men were the ones who gave birth, but wouldn't men really just be women in the end? I feel we are trapped to have these two body types, because we need differentiation to reproduce. To have one androgynous body type would serve no purpose.  Also, I should add that these ideal types have been blown out of proportion by the media in the last century to unrealistic heights, but there is an explanation for them.

Therefore, I think that while there indeed is nothing wrong with striving for whatever body type you want, there also is nothing wrong with the stereotypical male and female image. When you see men and women striving for these bodies they are simply obeying their biological imperative. They may in fact be a bit outdated in today's increasingly post-modern society, but it's hard to ignore something so ingrained in the human psyche. It is designed to indicate the best genes and opportunity to pass on your traits to another generation. The real problem lies in the media, who have sensationalized these ideals to the extreme. Is there a solution to this? I don't think so, and I don't know if we need one. As I said before these ideal types serve a purpose. The best thing to do would try to have the media tone down their rhetoric, but by this point I think it's too late to affect change.

In Response to Jess McClean

Jess brought up the idea of women in sports and we discussed in class that society often has expected gender roles for each gender.  This story about Sam Gordon aired this past summer. Sam is a nine year old girl from Utah that plays organized tackle football in an all-male league.  Not only does she play, but she is exceptionally good at it too.  She broke many state youth football records while competing against boys nearly twice her size.  At the rate that she's been playing, she could legitimately pursue a career in professional football if she were to continue and progress.  Sam's story is interesting because of the gender roles society has laid out for us.  Imagine if Sam were to grow older and big enough where she was able to play in the NFL.  Would society be ready for a female football player, especially in a league full of men?  This issue came up previously when I believe it was Florida State University let their Women's Soccer Team goalie try out for the position of kicker on their football team.  She made the team I believe, but did not finish the season.  Examples like these are interesting to take note of considering the ideas we talked about in class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oclLKHg9rsc

Ryan Chilelli

Too Much Exposure?

When looking at the video of the Mutter museum, I asked myself this question: Is showing the human body in a museum too much for society? With the background of stories of exposure by the people who had their “freakish” qualities shown to the public, when is it going too far? I believe that modern society does not view these exposures at the same level as society from the 1800s or earlier. People can be drawn from the variety of these qualities for their entertainment purposes. The video is a little outdated but I feel that there are not that many scientific studies that are based off of museums anymore. The museum is important in exposing diseases that scientists have found a way to treat but have they in the past few years? I don’t believe that showing these varieties to the public is good in helping the public gain awareness. Science has now taken a turn towards technology and seems to rarely use visual reference anymore. Should these museums become private for the science field or stay open for the public? 

Darren Pope

Women In Sports

The reading Believing Is Seeing, states that "feats by women athletes who were presented as mature adults might force sports organizations and audiences to rethink their stereotypes of women's capabilities." I have seen over the years women's sports up and coming. There are more women beginning to participate in college, semi professional, and Olympic sports. I feel that even though there is a stereotype that says that women can only participate in sports that are not physical or that is a slower pace, I feel that women should be able to participate in any sport they would like regardless of contact level. I understand that men are stronger and the stereotypes are there to "protect" women, but should the player should be able to make that choice on their own. I think that the fact that as women get older their game changes is ridiculous. 

Jessica McClean

The gendered "fit" body

When we briefly touched upon the expectations for athletes yesterday it got me thinking about the different ways men and women view a healthy body, how biological is use to create ideal and how the genders often have different goals for a “fit body”. Generally it is evident by what each does at the gym. And given the uproar about the new gym, it felt fitting. Having been to the new gym and quite a few others I notice that the standard has been holding true; women will be on cardio machines most of the time they spend at the gym and will lift weights/ use machines or mats for a small portion of the time. While men will possibly participate in cardio for a small period of time and then lift weights most of the time they are there, a lot of the time I've noticed it is straight to the weights. Of course there are exceptions these observations, but if you walked in the gym and took note of the number of woman on cardio machines or the number of men lifting weights you would seen these hold true. The expectation woman hold for themselves is to have a thin body, usually when it comes to working out the method in which we tell others we are doing well is often the weight we've lost. However, while weight can be a factor for men it is often how much their lifting abilities have increased or the various muscles that can be seen now. Why isn't it both ways? Why can’t the genders want both, it’s healthy. There are quite a few men who do, but speaking about women; most are opposed to have a lot of muscle. Often woman will say they couldn't achieve muscle like men and I don’t feel that’s completely accurate, women are much better at building lower body muscles while men are better at building upper body. Okay so we can build muscle and  yes, who doesn't want to be strong, and yes muscle is good, but most woman just want to be toned and don’t want bulky muscle because it makes them more masculine. Just as we can see thin males without muscles as more masculine. Now I guess the question comes down to why we view these specific bodies as what is perfect for our gender and who decided it couldn't be more even?

-Joan W.

A Note on Body Worlds

We talked Tuesday about Body Worlds and its similarities to the Museum in the video. I brought up how I visited the exhibit in Cleveland when I was younger, and I wanted to use my post this week to talk about it.

Body Worlds is a traveling exhibit that displays preserved bodies and their respective organs. It has received a lot criticism, but there has been a lot of praise for its displays of the inner workings of the human body. As I said before, my family and I visited the exhibit when I was young, and when we bought the tickets we weren't all that sure on what the exhibit was. Of course we were in for a shock.

As creepy and surreal looking at dead humans were, there was a certain educational value to it. I remember they had exhibits on the differences between athletes and smokers, but one of the more intriguing pieces was dedicated to the development of the unborn fetus from contraception to birth. As I kid, I was amazed by the transition of a single cell into human through real human examples. (This post was not meant to spark any debate on abortion or any of that, I am only describing what I saw.)

Some of the things I saw were grotesque. Obviously, my little brother was not able to appreciate some things as my parents and I could. There is definitely some shock value in the exhibit, and that is why it draws such a crowd. But in it I also saw the beauty of the human body and its inner-working miracles. Maybe it is an art piece, maybe it is a scientific exhibit, either way it provides insight to the bodies that we all reside in, and because of that I saw its worth.

Below is the website for the exhibit for any pics and info:
http://www.bodyworlds.com/en.html

Running like a girl isn't such a bad thing

                A lot of very good points were brought up in class discussion today, whether you agree with them or not they were good points.  That being said, I would like to discuss some points that Judith Lorber attempts to make.  I understand that this article was written years ago but we are reading it now which makes it relevant.  Lorber says that Western sports are aimed at men.  Men may be stronger and faster than women, but in some sports that seem to be dominated by men, women dominate in reality.  Riflery for example is a segregated Olympic sport because women are more adept to firing a rifle more accurately than men.  Why?  It’s not because women have steadier hands or better eye sight.  It’s because of their structural build.  Endurance running has also shown that women can be competitive with men.   In 2010 at the Hard Rock 100, a 100 mile running race, Diana Finkel finished in second place.  In fact looking through the results of the previous years, there is usually always a woman in the top 10 finishers.  It’s only a matter of time before a women finishes in first place.  Women are relatively new to running.  At the 2012 Boston Marathon the winning male time was 2:12:40 while the first woman finisher was 2:31:50.  The women’s average pace was 5:47 per mile while the men’s was 5:03 per mile.  This may seem contradictory to my point, but a women getting second in a major race compared to a women coming in nineteen minutes after a man shows that in certain events women are just as good.  Women have different strengths due to biology not from a social construction.  These two sports aren’t widely watched and I do not think it’s because women are pretty dominate it’s probably because they are not as entertaining as football or soccer with fast paced action.  So while it may seem that women are kept down in many sports, there are activities that women excel at.  

 That's Krissy Moehl running . . . in a skirt. 

http://hardrock100.com/hardrock-pastresults.php

http://registration.baa.org/cfm_Archive/iframe_ArchiveSearch.cfm?mode=topfinishers&snap=49164180&

 http://www.runnersworld.com/trail-runner-profiles/5-minutes-krissy-moehl

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?