If Men Could Menstruate By Gloria Steinem ✓ Solved

If Men Could Menstruate by Gloria Steinem Ms Magazine O

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 (“menstruation”) 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 feminists 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.

Paper For Above Instructions

The satirical piece "If Men Could Menstruate" by Gloria Steinem presents a provocative exploration of gender roles and societal norms. By flipping the script around a biological process that has historically been stigmatized, Steinem effectively highlights the absurdity of gender-based privileges and biases. Through her imaginative lens, she illustrates how something as natural as menstruation could be weaponized into a symbol of power and boasting if men were to experience it. This essay posits that Steinem's argument underscores the need for feminism to address not only gender issues but also the socio-political structures that perpetuate inequality.

Steinem’s central assertion is that the characteristics of the powerful are often valorized while those of the powerless are diminished. She enigmatically proposes a scenario where men menstruate and women do not, suggesting that menstruation would be cloaked in a cultural veneer of honor and pride, transforming it from a source of shame to a mark of masculinity. This reversal not only unveils the sexism ingrained in society but serves as a critique of toxic masculinity, exposing how men seek validation through harm and separation.

The concept of "menstruation pride" serves as a vehicle for Steinem to explore larger themes within feminism, particularly the critique of male-dominated discourses which frame women's biological functions as weaknesses. In her narrative, the establishment of federal funds for menstrual supplies would not be seen as an act of health care, but rather as an affirmation of masculinity. Steinem's satirical tone reveals the absurdity of how societal values can persistently create disparity based on gender, demonstrating that what is constructed as strength in men is often a mere façade.

Furthermore, Steinem's speculation about the changes in the political and military spheres underscores the intersection of gender, power, and governance. The idea that men would be more equipped to serve in the military because of their capacity for menstruation reinforces the gendered narratives that have historically framed women as less competent. Through this lens, Steinem urges the need for a reevaluation of how society perceives menstruation and female biology as unworthy of respect or admiration. The creative thought experiments illustrated in the essay function to invite critical reflection on these entrenched inequalities.

Additionally, Steinem challenges the notion of maternal sacrifice as a glorified ideal in society. By coining phrases like “you MUST give blood for the revolution,” she not only invokes the biological act of menstruation but implies the broader sacrifices women make in a patriarchal system that demands subjugation and compliance. This critique is crucial for understanding the multifaceted nature of feminist activism, where cultural expectations can confine women's identities to the roles of nurturers rather than as empowered individuals who shape societal norms.

Steinem's essay also cleverly touches upon the influence of media and popular culture in shaping gender perceptions. Television shows and films would, in her version of reality, adapt to highlight and centralize menstruation within male narratives, normalizing a conversation that has been discretely brushed under the rug. This prediction serves as a rallying cry for reimagining how media can represent gender issues, encouraging diversity and deeper engagement with subjects that resonate with varied audiences.

This leads to a broader discussion regarding the need for inclusivity in feminist dialogue, particularly regarding race and socio-economic factors that often complicate the mainstream feminist narrative. The historical neglect of women of color, particularly black women, in conversations revolving around feminism, as highlighted in Michelle Bernard's responses to Friedan’s "The Feminine Mystique," brings to light the necessity of intersectionality in feminist discourse. Steinem's work serves as a valuable entry point for understanding the need to address shared systems of oppression, both in terms of race and gender.

To address these systemic issues, modern feminism must encourage collective actions that advocate for women's rights across various backgrounds, recognizing that oppression is multifaceted. In today’s society, dialogue surrounding menstruation should be framed in a way that transcends mere biology, promoting narratives that empower all women rather than perpetuating stereotypes. Steinem’s imaginative exploration suggests that acknowledging and embracing the entirety of women's experiences, including biological functions, is essential to dismantling prevailing gender biases.

In essence, “If Men Could Menstruate” serves as a powerful indictment against the superficial divides that govern gender experiences. By challenging readers to contemplate a world turned upside down, Steinem not only criticizes inherent bias but also lays groundwork for a more equitable future. It is essential for the feminist movement to expand its lens, ensuring that all women are recognized, respected, and regarded as equals—free from the burdens of societal expectations.

References

• Steinem, G. (1978). If Men Could Menstruate. Ms. Magazine.
• Bernard, M. (2013). Betty Friedan and black women: Is it time for a second look? The Washington Post.
• Friedan, B. (1963). The Feminine Mystique. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Beauvoir, S. de (1949). The Second Sex. Vintage.
• hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. South End Press.
• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.
• Solomon, A. (2012). Far From the Tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity. Scribner.
• Zalewski, M. (2003). Feminism After Postmodernism: Gendering the International Relations Theory. Routledge.
• Schmidt, J. (2011). The Politics of Women’s Health: Exploring the Social Determinants of Health among Women. Medical Anthropology Quarterly.
• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. University of Illinois Press.