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 them 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.
|
