And, for the heck of it, inspect a Midol
booklet!
Gloria Steinem, the great American feminist, wrote the very funny
essay below, much of which I know could be true. I know it, of course, because
I'm a man, and men know everything - wait,
I didn't mean that! No, I take it back! Don't call
Ms. magazine!
Amy Richards, of Ms. Steinem's office, kindly gave your MUM permission
to reproduce the article, which originally appeared in the October 1978
issue of Ms. magazine.
By the way, a teacher of English in Spain challenged her students
to translate the essay into Spanish at
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 nonmenstrual
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.
And, for the heck of it, inspect a Midol
booklet!
© 1999 Harry Finley. It is illegal to reproduce or
distribute any of the work on this Web site in any manner or medium without
written permission of the author. Please report suspected violations to
hfinley@mum.org