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?
I can see why this might be a hard hitting question for society to think about. But I have a question to that question. Why in this world does the medical field place almost complete emphasis on female history. By this I mean have you ever seen a book to help growing boys learn about how their body is going to change within the coming years of life, as far as I have seen no. All of the medical history of boys and mens health has been almost completely word of mouth. Unlike females who get medical readings from almost day one. I can't but ask if the world honestly thinks that women are the only ones being placed on an unequal level in this world. Men have things that happen to them that they wouldn't share with their own family let alone their friends. All I am saying is the inequality exists on both sides of the arguement, not just one.
ReplyDeleteIf you go on google and just type in "books for growing boys" a ton of results come up. I don't disagree that a focus in society has been put on women's medical issues, but I wouldn't go so far as to say then boys and men have been ignored.
ReplyDelete