That was so riddled with blatant misandry that it isn't even worthy of me putting forth the effort to point out just how sexist it was.
Because it's obvious, duh.
If men suddenly menstruated I'm pretty sure it would go a little something like this:
"HOLY **** MOTHING ****, THIS ****ING HURTS! WHY THE HELL IS THIS HAPPENING TO ME?! GODDAMMIT LIFE SUCKS! IT ISN'T FAIR! Man, I could really go for some chocolate... OH MY GOD I'M GONNA BECOME A **** LOSER IF I START THINKING LIKE THAT! But... chocolate... AHHHHH! OH MY ****ING GOD, WHY IS IT SO HOT?! ****, I'm horny. NO, NOW IT'S TOO COLD! Oh my ****, I'm good looking, SO WHY DOES NOBODY LOVE ME?! ****ING ****, why wasn't I born a woman?! It would have been easier than dealing with this **** that I have to live with the rest of my life which practically incapacitates me once a week each and every ****ing ****ty month! Where's the ****ing chocolate ice cream at?!"
And then if women didn't menstruate we'd be the ****ing more emotionally stable bosses who got **** done because we wouldn't become emotionally unstable, moody, and physically drained every month like the men would. So men wouldn't be able to do the things that paper talked about, as whole. Of course just like we have women in militarys, etc. now that means there is always exceptions.
If we assume it would have been this way always then things would be the reverse of what they are now. Men would have never been in charge because of all those crazy imbalanced hormone levels, therefore it would be less likely for men to become the Magnificent ****s that heavily influenced society. No, instead we'd of had Magnificent ****es dominating society by virtue of simply having more balanced hormone levels.
I mean, it's not just the act of bleeding from your gentiles that makes it menstruation - it's the hormonal imbalance that comes with it. Women as a whole have imbalanced hormone levels, so if men could menstruate which would also mean they'd have to be able to give birth (since that's what menstruation is all about - it's basically an unfertilized egg dissolving) then rationally speaking they must also get everything that goes along with menstruation and whatnot.
Which would mean they'd be more emotional in comparison to women, if women didn't menstruate. Because then men would have more of a hormonal imbalance, while women did not.
So in a manner of speaking I'm saying if the situations were reversed men would actually be the fairer sex and everything would be flip-flopped. Like instead of hearing "women and children died in..." you'd hear "men and children died in...", life if there was some sort of accident. We never get an indicator of male deaths, for shock value we are told about women and children dying in some accident - as though their deaths are worth more or something. Males, on the other hand, get lumped in with the general death toll only, as opposed to it all being "men, women and children died in...".
Same can also be said for the "women and children first" thing, during certain evacuations. It would be the reverse if our situations were reversed. In other words, women would become the expendable gender. Care to know why? Because we wouldn't ****ing be able to pop out babies, that's ****ing why.
It all comes down to reproduction, for us male lives are deemed more expendable because men can produce sperm for a lot longer than women are able to give birth. So, so long as you have a set number of males safe from harm, and a larger chunk of females away from harm, then repopulation would be easier... as opposed to the reverse. It's like this joke I once heard in Dr. Strangelove, though it's been a while since I've seen it, but basically a comment was made in the movie about how in case of nuclear war and humans have to go live underground, then there should be 10 women for every 1 man... you know, obviously for repopulation purposes. And they have to be good looking healthy women too... you know, for creating healthy and attractive offspring... obviously.
So what I'm getting at is, the reason women are the fairer sex (supposedly at least) is a mere matter of being the ones able to pop out children but we have a limit to how often this can happen successfully. So rationally speaking, you'd need to keep more women away from harm, that way you can have more baby makers. If men could give birth and everything happened as this paper said it would then we'd have destroyed ourselves a long time ago due to sheer stupidity. I mean who the **** sends the people that can give birth out to do something dangerous?
I mean, in case no one has noticed women out-populate men by a small but important margin. This is because nature. There has to be more women, in case **** hits the fan and polygamy ends up being the only option. If men could make babies, and **** hit the fan, then polyandry would be the only option.
Do you see where I'm going with this or does it require me to further point out the painfully obvious? It's not just about bleeding, it's about reproducing. You don't send the ones who give birth out into danger en masse. If you ****ing did that, your population would plummet.
For everything else, I'ma say "what awfulcopter said".
EDIT: **** I ended up putting forth an ounce of time and effort into this... bad Antigone, bad!