What's new
By:
Filters

If Men Could Menstruate - Gloria Steinem

Vampenstine

Vampenstine

Expert Talker
PF Member
Messages
630
Reaction score
2
Points
89
Location
Scotland
http://****jagk.tumblr.com/image/50274679408
(Click the image to enlarge it)


So, I found this quite interesting.
Thoughts? Opinions?
 
i feel like a lot of that essay skips over the fact that in it's own 'suddenly, men menstruating' world- women would have been menstruating for centuries. especially in the last bits, i highly, HIGHLY doubt the world would shift over in such a quick denial of women ever have menstruated in the past. feminism DOES have a hold on the world, although it is pretty small. i doubt any patriarchal society would get away with dismissing women's million-year struggle with the period.
the last bit bugs me. hits me as pretty militant feminist. (to be honest a lot of this does, although much of it is very, very true)
 
I'm not sure I agree with it or not. I have mixed feelings.
Not all men are like that yet there are some women who would treat it the same way said it that text. I'd need to think on it.
 
What we have here is a critical mass of feminist angst ready to explode in every direction. You guys might want to stand back.

In whatever warped reality Steinem lives in, men are oppressive and virtually everything they do is a calculated attempt to repress female sexuality and identity. In our reality this is false, so she must resort to making up fanciful stories about what men would do in some other universe....if their anatomy and physiology were drastically different and all else remained equal. Men menstruating implies the possession of a functioning uterus, which in turn would require the associated endocrine system that plays a large part in what makes females female, and shapes the female physical and mental identity. Essentially what she's arguing is that "if men were women they'd continue to behave the same way they do now because men are pigs lol." But Steinem isn't bothered with such trivialities as "logic," we're simply to take her retarded analogies and think, WHAT A STRONG AND INDEPENDENT WOMYN SHE IS!"

tl;dr: **** that ****. The kitchen awaits.
 
ouch. it's like i can smell the 'baww misandry' from here.

though i agree it's written in a very feminazi-esque way, she does deliver some good points. the difference in hormone systems and brain maps between male and female minds is not actually all that different (granted there ARE differences, but it's not so black-and-white as 1980's biology would have you believe); that and given how long it honestly takes hormones to change a person's thought processes, men would honestly still be very masculine in thinking for a while. long enough, i'm sure, to make menstruating a much more prideful thing than it is for most women. texts written by men, movies made for men, commercials directed towards men pumping up BE A MAN'S MAN would still exist and men would still refer to them.
men wouldn't suddenly become 1950's teenage girls talking about boys and braiding each others hair, born to marry a man they may not even like only to stay put in the kitchen.

tl;dr: go play sports and join the military, maybe get deployed somewhere.
 
I pretty much agree with that excerpt that I just read. I have said this for a long time now. I love how condoms are readily available and free almost everywhere you go - even in public restrooms, but tampons and sanitary towels are expensive if you want ANY sort of protection when it comes to not leaking through your clothing during that time of the month. I have always said that if menstruation was a male thing, then they would have ALL of the support that they could for it. I bet there would be something to stop the pain, something to make the entire ordeal easier, and more understanding when men take time off of work or miss appointments because they are doubled over on the floor in pain because of menstrual cramps.
 
Dreek Lass said:
I pretty much agree with that excerpt that I just read. I have said this for a long time now. I love how condoms are readily available and free almost everywhere you go - even in public restrooms, but tampons and sanitary towels are expensive if you want ANY sort of protection when it comes to not leaking through your clothing during that time of the month.
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges comparisons are fun.

A condom is an absurdly simple piece of rubber or latex that is put in place for a very short period of time to block the flow of semen during ejaculation. A tampon is an entirely different animal used for an entirely different purpose, which is to absorb menstrual flow. Here's an experiment for you: find a cardboard tube, a cotton ball and a balloon (or condom.) Stretch the balloon over the end of the tube and pour some water into the other end. Notice how easy it is to catch the water? Now remove the balloon and stuff a cotton ball in the tube and add more water. Soaks right through the cotton balls doesn't it? Now you've seen firsthand that there are unique challenges inherent in different physiologies, and it has literally nothing to do with men.

Also, most women purchase tampons more frequently than men must purchase condoms simply because the former is more frequently needed by more people. If all males had to buy condoms with the same regularity that women do, the expense would even out. In any case that remains a ridiculously stupid analogy because condoms and tampons are not even remotely comparable and are used for vastly different purposes.

Dreek Lass said:
I have always said that if menstruation was a male thing, then they would have ALL of the support that they could for it. I bet there would be something to stop the pain, something to make the entire ordeal easier, and more understanding when men take time off of work or miss appointments because they are doubled over on the floor in pain because of menstrual cramps.
Click to expand...

You're making the same absurd assumptions that Steinem made, which was to assume that everything else about the male psyche, lifestyle and mindset would remain the same in spite of this -extremely drastic- physiological change. Sorry, that's just not realistic. In the future you should probably refrain from appending "I have always said" and "I bet" to these sorts of baseless assertions, it just makes your already bad arguments look even worse.
 
and a cotton tube with a string isn't as equally absurdly simple? tampons are used for a very short time as well- you change them after 3-4 hours. the period isn't a constant flow like a faucet and generally only lasts for about 5 days.
so that's about 30 tampons a month, give or take.
and let's estimate a couple in a stable relationship who live together take advantage of having sex as often as possible, as the male sex drive permits. i'll be generous and assume they'll have sex twice a day, probably every day for a month, maybe amp it up to 3 when the woman is ovulating. i'll subtract a week in order to save for the week she'll be on her period and i'd suppose when they don't have sex.
without calculating for ovulation, that's about 46 condoms if we're using an average 30 day calendar year; 2 x 23.
maybe they only have sex once a day but twice on weekends. still more condoms used in a month than tampons.
or perhaps the man is single and never uses a condom a day in his life; does that mean since this equation is so off-balance that women should perpetually be forced to pay for their sanitary napkins and tampons?

i'm please condoms are for free, given that it helps prevent pregnancy; but what about birth control? birth control can get ridiculously expensive, especially if a woman has allergies or bad reactions to the standard pill or treatment. why is there more money going towards erectile dysfunction than male birth control? because without a mans virility, he is nothing?
so something made for more of a recreational fun-time should be free, but something that is an actual necessity should be charged for? something that is, 8 times out of 10 more for a man's pleasure, should be free?
why aren't relatively simple and cheap-to-make vibrators for free? only because it's not directly correlated to reproduction (although let's face it, a woman who masturbates isn't going to get pregnant from her vibrator)? because it's not seen as an alternative to sex?

so why would it be so difficult to also give out tampons and the like for free? because there's no profit? because there's so much profit in giving condoms out for free. we live in a very capitalistic world, yet we can get condoms for free and not tampons.
 
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!
 
Condoms are given out for free as a public health measure to help reduce new STD infections and unwanted pregnancies. Health authorities are aware that subsidizing the cost of condoms up front has benefits in the long term that outweigh the initial cost significantly. Subsidizing the cost of tampons and pads isn't going to provide any similar return so it isn't done. Capitalism 101. Women soaking their panties is less of a public health concern than HIV and lots of babies, no?
 
HIV is transferred via blood and bodily fluids, which is what a good chunk of what menstrual fluid is.
if a woman 'soaked through' her panties and sat in a seat on public transportation, or on a public bench, or dripped down the street, or down the aisles of a shop- is that no dangerous?
children are naturally curious, who's to say they won't dip their hands in and go wild? or what if someone sat down right on top of it, unaware? general exposure to it puts people at risk.
wouldn't having tampons/pads that are free and easily accessible also help prevent STI's as serious as HIV?
or should women who don't have the extra $5 to buy an emergency pack of tampons/pads be forced to drip all over the place because it's their fault for not watching their cycle closely, for not calculating for variables, for not always being prepared, for not realising the dangers of her very own body?
yet, if she wanted to, she could grab a handful of condoms. at least she won't be pregnant.
 
I think my IQ actually lowered from reading that.
 
awfulcopter said:
Condoms are given out for free as a public health measure to help reduce new STD infections and unwanted pregnancies. Health authorities are aware that subsidizing the cost of condoms up front has benefits in the long term that outweigh the initial cost significantly. Subsidizing the cost of tampons and pads isn't going to provide any similar return so it isn't done. Capitalism 101. Women soaking their panties is less of a public health concern than HIV and lots of babies, no?
Click to expand...

I am aware of the reasons already and I am still unsatisfied with them. Can you really say that it is fair? If you can, I think you need to take a look at it again. Sex is a **** choice, whereas menstruating isn't. It's coming, whether you have the energy or the mental capacity to deal with it or not, so you better just deal with it. And if you have no money to buy tampons or sanitary towels, then I suggest women go to the politicians places of living, and bleed all over the place just to prove a point. Most of the time the cramps are so painful that we have to buy pain killers too. That stuff isn't cheap, along with tampons and sanitary towels EVERY month.

Once again, and for whatever reason, the men's problem is taken care of, whereas the woman's isn't. Nobody cares about women in my opinion - at least not those who could do something about it. Also HIV can be spread via blood. I am sure the public would have plenty to say about there being blood everywhere all over the sidewalk and on public benches. Do you know how much germs and infection is in menstrual blood? It is simply not fair that tampons and other forms of sanitation are so much money. They really should be free. I don't want to have a period every month, but i have to, and to make things even more 'fun' I have got to repeatedly pay for that curse too, which is very upsetting when you look at things.

I ASSURE you that is menstruation was a male thing, something and everything would be one to support them with it, because men are valued over women. It is not an accident either, but by design.
 
awfulcopter said:
Apples to oranges comparisons are fun.

A condom is an absurdly simple piece of rubber or latex that is put in place for a very short period of time to block the flow of semen during ejaculation. A tampon is an entirely different animal used for an entirely different purpose, which is to absorb menstrual flow. Here's an experiment for you: find a cardboard tube, a cotton ball and a balloon (or condom.) Stretch the balloon over the end of the tube and pour some water into the other end. Notice how easy it is to catch the water? Now remove the balloon and stuff a cotton ball in the tube and add more water. Soaks right through the cotton balls doesn't it? Now you've seen firsthand that there are unique challenges inherent in different physiologies, and it has literally nothing to do with men.

Also, most women purchase tampons more frequently than men must purchase condoms simply because the former is more frequently needed by more people. If all males had to buy condoms with the same regularity that women do, the expense would even out. In any case that remains a ridiculously stupid analogy because condoms and tampons are not even remotely comparable and are used for vastly different purposes.



You're making the same absurd assumptions that Steinem made, which was to assume that everything else about the male psyche, lifestyle and mindset would remain the same in spite of this -extremely drastic- physiological change. Sorry, that's just not realistic. In the future you should probably refrain from appending "I have always said" and "I bet" to these sorts of baseless assertions, it just makes your already bad arguments look even worse.
Click to expand...

I don't think that my statements are absurd at ALL. Condoms are free, which if you think about it, might explain why they are purchased less frequently than women that purchase sanitation for their menstrual flow. The expense isn't going to even out because condoms are widely free. Once again, condoms are not. By your earlier logic about them wanting to prevent STD and whatever, if condoms were more frequently sought after, they would be even more free.

We are not going to agree. I am passionate about this in a way that you will not and cannot - and perhaps don't want to understand, but that is not going to change my stance on the matter, or yours I suspect. I have stated my opinion in this thread and you have stated yours. That's it.
 
I do not currently have the time to read thoroughly through each retort to this, but I'll just throw in my own opinion. IF Men COULD Menstruate. We don't, so I don't realllllyyyyyyyy careeeeee further. It won't happen. Well, I guess it COULD happen to be some type of commonality, but I won't be part of it. Furthermore, I see this as a butt hurt feminist. Then again, what's new? I see this kind of stuff daily, but do I care? Nah. Happy debating.
 
Dreek Lass said:
I am aware of the reasons already and I am still unsatisfied with them. Can you really say that it is fair? If you can, I think you need to take a look at it again. Sex is a **** choice, whereas menstruating isn't. It's coming, whether you have the energy or the mental capacity to deal with it or not, so you better just deal with it. And if you have no money to buy tampons or sanitary towels, then I suggest women go to the politicians places of living, and bleed all over the place just to prove a point. Most of the time the cramps are so painful that we have to buy pain killers too. That stuff isn't cheap, along with tampons and sanitary towels EVERY month.

Once again, and for whatever reason, the men's problem is taken care of, whereas the woman's isn't. Nobody cares about women in my opinion - at least not those who could do something about it. Also HIV can be spread via blood. I am sure the public would have plenty to say about there being blood everywhere all over the sidewalk and on public benches. Do you know how much germs and infection is in menstrual blood? It is simply not fair that tampons and other forms of sanitation are so much money. They really should be free. I don't want to have a period every month, but i have to, and to make things even more 'fun' I have got to repeatedly pay for that curse too, which is very upsetting when you look at things.

I ASSURE you that is menstruation was a male thing, something and everything would be one to support them with it, because men are valued over women. It is not an accident either, but by design.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I had to go back and reply to this one because it takes the cake. Why are you comparing condoms to tampons? Really? Why? Why? WHY?
Just because condoms are cheap/free doesn't mean it's in any sort of correlation with tampons. One is for menstruation, one is for sex protection. I apologize that one is more expensive than the other, but you know what? Sex is, generally, a two person scene. Women buy condoms, you know. Could tampon prices be lowered? Sure, along with basically most everything else in our society. Should they be lowered? Yeah sure, but that's not the point. You're comparing the two to try and find some type of oppression; that is crude, asinine, and blatantly retarded in my honest opinion. I hope you do not take offense to this because that is not the purpose.
Condoms would be used less frequently, as a population, if the price were to increase. Men and women would simply stop paying for them and, "Take their chances." If you're poor and condoms would provide some type of financial setback if bought in frequency, you would sing a different tune. "But guyzzzzz! y shud poor ppl buy teh condoms if they is poor??/??" If you jack up prices, that's oppression in its own against people of less money. We're talking about CONDOMS. You say, "But even if you raise the prices of it, it still shouldn't be too hard on the budget." Well darling, if you were to say that, then why are we having this discussion? You're the one complaining about tampons being of higher price than condoms. It is already explained why they are less expensive, but you say, "That's not fair!" Life isn't fair, actually.
I'm sorry, but sex protection is more important that tampons. That seems crass to say, but with menstruation you are dealing with, generally, one person. For sex, two or more AND things would spread more rapidly via sex vs. the theoretical HIV spreading. This is just starting to get annoying. Again, condoms and tampons shouldn't be compared. However, I suppose they could be compared in the sense of, "Tampons cost __. Bread costs ___. WHY?/?/? MEN EAT BREAD! WTF?" That's honestly how I see this debate. Jesus.
 
TBH the condom vs. tampon debate isn't really about why are condoms free and not tampons instead, but rather why aren't tampons free AS WELL.
yes women can also buy condoms, yes they can also use them, yes it's a two-party sort of deal, yes they help prevent STI's and pregnancy, yes to all of that.
tampons and pads are just as simple and cheap to make. you don't even need applicators, just sterile packaging and some cotton. as said above, they can also help prevent disease, they are also incredibly necessary for the health of the country.
so why can't we have tampons/pads free too? i honestly don't understand what's so tough about letting women have tampons and pads readily available for either an incredibly cheap price or for free.
it's incredibly frustrating because we didn't sign up to bleed from our vagina a week out of every month. we CHOOSE to have sex, but not to menstruate.
birth control is expensive and in many instances tough to even gain access to, abortion is expensive and painful, tampons and pads are a monthly expense.
well at least we can get drinks for free if we promise to use a free condom with a man. :b
 
Say the cost of 12 Pads is ?1.59, you change every 6 hours, so that?s 4 pads a day, and average length of period is 7 days, say 12 periods per year.

Per day - ?0.53
Per period - ?3.71
Per year - ?44.52
Every 10 years - ?445.20

My maths might be a bit out, in all honesty I think the reality is a bit out in that calculation as most women I know use a whole hell of a lot more pads than that.

But compare that ?445.20 every 10 years to ?18.99 for a menstrual cup, or other options like homemade cloth pads where all you have to buy is fabric, thread, needles and snap-fastens (which a lot of people all ready have in their home), even buying cloth pads from a big company like Lunapads that are a little bit more expensive than other cloth pad companies, it?s still a whole lot cheaper than disposable pads!

Women don't HAVE to pay for pads, they choose to, given the issues involved I'm surprised so many women still do - but that's marketting for ya, if it wasn't for pad companies telling you that you need them then you wouldn't buy them.
Just sayin'...
 
you need to change pads much more often than six hours- every 2 is more accurate.

basically, women should either buy pads/tampons or get a diva cup or make things at home?
yet instead of practising other safe sex methods such as oral, abstinence, mutual masturbation, hands, toys, etc, condoms are free?
is this a form of 'shut up women, since you use condoms as well you shouldn't be complaining about things such as this'?
people don't HAVE to use condoms, they don't HAVE to buy condoms, yet they're offered for free.
women HAVE to use some sort of tampon/pad/cup/cloth pads, yet they still have to pay.


what i want to know are reasons tampons and pads are NOT free. not reasons why condoms are in their stead, but just in general why we have to either purchase them, or purchase an alternative.
is it honestly all about capitalism and profit? because having condoms free must have a terrific impact on the economy.
is it truly good ol' supply and demand?
because honestly i find it quite bull hunky that something used for mainly recreational purposes can be handed out for free yet something that is honest to god necessary isn't.
and i highly doubt suddenly having tampons/pads being free will create such a domino effect that all necessities will be free as well.
perhaps it's because it's all too close to socialism; women wanting things for free when they're raising a red flag in their panties definitely raises a red flag itself.

or is this all a very thinly veiled male sex drive versus the female emotional instability and period?
i may or may not be reading too much into it all, but that's what i'm starting to get from all this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top