Commenter Triet writes, in the anti-menstruation pill post:
It's been amazing seeing my wife and other women deal with her first pregnancy. Immediately upon announcing to the world she's pregnant, my wife was part of the "in crowd." Every mother--whether she knew my wife well or not--could smile and talk about morning sickness, or finding out the baby's gender, or feeling bloated, etc.So, it is not aesthetic. Humanity derives meaning from shared experiences, and deleting one of the most universal and central of all female experiences can subtract perceived meaning from people's lives. In that regard it is very important.
Humanity does derive meaning from some shared experiences — but not all. Shared experience that you bond over: pregnancy. Shared experiences that you don't bond over: hangnails, nearsightedness, tooth decay. Shared experiences that people sometimes seem to bond over, but that I'm sure they'd be much better off without: various illnesses or operations that some elderly people stereotypically discuss with each other, but which they'd be glad to avoid without any worry about lost "meaning."
My sense is that menstruation falls within the second (or, less likely, third) category of experiences rather than the first. To many women, pregnancy is a harbinger of their joy in becoming a mother, an affirmation of their fertility (something many women worry about before they become pregnant), a sign of a growing bond with their husbands, and more. Menstruation, it seems to me, is far removed from that: While it is part of the same system that may eventually lead to pregnancy, it doesn't have the directness of connection to a growing baby, it doesn't prove fertility in a way that would ease the woman's fears, it doesn't strengthen the marriage, and in general it lacks very little redeeming value.
But let's hear from some people who actually menstruate, and have been pregnant. When you menstruate, do you feel that you're part of the "in crowd"? If you chose to stop -- not because of menopause, which is a marker of age and of lost fertility, but voluntarily and reversibly -- would you feel "out"? Do you smile and talk to your friends about the cramps, the mood swings, and the like? Do you feel you derive meaning from the fact that you share menstruation as an experience with other women? Would you feel meaning subtracted if you stopped menstruating, because menstruation is so "central" a "female experience[]"? Do you find menstruation to be similar to pregnancy in any emotionally positive way?
Related Posts (on one page):
- For a Patronizing Response to My Post About Menstruation,
- Seeking Input from People Who Have Actually Menstruated:
- Pill That Ends Menstruation:
The idea that this pill is bad for social reasons is like arguing that frats aren't as socially valuable if they don't haze their pledges.
I don't know that anyone has commented on the hygenic purpose they serve, that is, to flush and clean the icky men's cooties out of the system. Also, if the male is a boor, and the woman is in an arranged marriage, it provides an excuse not to have to touch the icky male for a week, thus strengthening the marriage.
I lost all inclination to value menstruation as "a central part of being a woman" once it became clear to me that it would leave me unable to function one day a month, and that the doctors I went to could find no cure for it. I can suppress the symptoms enough to function by taking lots of over-the-counter pain medication, but that's far from a perfect solution.
I don't think you realize just how much those chronic cramps can make a woman hate her reproductive system.
I've talked about this with my friends, one of whom is going on the new pill that suppresses menstruation (she'll be the guinea pig). The only advantage to menstruation is that it's a monthly "nope, not pregnant" reminder.
If (for various health reasons) I am capable of switching to that new pill, I'd consider the lack of a period a benefit; miss nothing about it; and stock up pregnancy tests from Costco.
My friends and I bitch about menstruation together; we don't smile and talk about it. And the various travails of men, families and life are more than enough to give us shared bonding experiences without the added ignominy of bleeding for five days without dying.
Of course, I'm the opposite of Crane - I never had any period pains or cramps when I had periods - so I couldn't empathise with my friends who did suffer anyway. Sympathise yes, empathise no. (I hate the hassle of periods and the pain of getting menstrual stains out of clothing, which is why I enjoy not having them.)
Not taking a stand here. It's just moderately interesting.
- Alaska Jack
Unexpectedly getting your period and being caught without supplies will get you sympathy, but I don't think it's a bonding thing for most adult women. The exception to this is probably pagan women, who seem more inclined to see their periods as something to valorize because they're natural.
bonding over menstruation? only at summer camp, methinks. although i've heard some pretty odd conversations between women who use diva and its ilk.
A bonding experience? Puhleeze. Look men, would you want to spend five or six days every month with blood leaking from your body, sometimes coming on with little warning, and potentially putting a very embarrassing stain on your business suit?
Do older men who need Depends after their prostate operations, bond over the experience? Think about it.
Men like that give women plenty to bond over -- no menstruation required.
As for the synchronization "myth," I swam in college. At the beginning of the season, we were all over the map. By the end of the season, having spent 20+ hours a week together, at least three quarters of the team had Aunt Flo come to cheer us on at the league championships. But even though everyone was doing it, it still was not a bonding experience.
Despite all this, I'm not ready to get rid of her forever. After almost 25 years, it just doesn't feel right to kick her to the curb. Plus, I'm two-thirds of the way to menopause. Scary thought.
I have bonded with women over the unpleasant aspects of mensturating. But then my cycle was disrupted twice: once for a few months when I went off the pill(the withdrawal of progesterone sometimes does that, you can get a hormone spike to restart it); and second, for a whole two years when I had a thyroid condition.
I didn't feel any less of a woman when I wasn't menstruating, and I didn't feel any less able to commiserate with other women. They were concerned for my health, but not for my lack of a period. I didn't feel a sense of loss either. It felt strange, but so long as I was healthy or getting treatment I felt "normal." I am healthy now, and my cycle has returned--but I don't feel blessed to have it back, and I don't feel "more" of a woman.
I've been a woman the entire time.
It isn't getting my period that makes me feel like a woman, but the delightful (hormonally induced) biological changes that happen for the other three weeks of the month. After quitting the pill after ten years, I can tell when I'm ovulating and it's fun. A remarkably increased sense of smell, tiny fallopian cramps, and of course, a remarkably increased interest in sex. I like sensing the biology of my body and it's worth the mess, and the cramps, and the unaestheticness of the other five days.
Diction nitpickyness aside, I'm concerned about the health risks. That said, whomever said that menstruating is a bonding experience must have been doped up on cramp painkillers. As Professor Volokh pointed out, disease is part of being human, but that doesn't mean we don't try to prevent it. My periods were awful without birth control -- I had cramps so bad I sometimes couldn't walk. I've also manipulated pills to delay or speed up my period. But ultimately, I'd prefer the new BC pill that shortens your period to three days. That whole "you're not pregnant" thing is kind of relieving.
...and I really can't believe I'm posting this as a comment on the Volokh Conspiracy ...
In my experience, the only time women ever bonded over menstruation, or welcomed it, was when one of them was scared to death she might be pregnant, and all her friends held their collective breath in a sort of there-but-for-the-grace-of empathy.
I've had two (fabulous) children, which unlike menstruation, was profoundly life altering (so to speak!) in a good way. It did, indeed, bring me closer to other women, in both my own, and my mother's generation, who were enormously supportive and helpful from the time I became pregnant through those early, often exhausting, years of child rearing. All that pretty much came to an end, or course, when the kids started competing for the school play lead, or a spot on the team....
As for menopause, the hot flashes were a small price to pay for bringing the monthly tyranny of blood to end. Free at last! Gone fishing!
My general sense is that women really enjoy discussing in minute detail every aspect of womanhood and motherhood with other women. So I would think that there has been some level of bonding over menstruation. Although if women never menstruated I am sure they would fill the void with other things.
a)Menstruation can be extremely painful and debilitating for some women.
My college roommate was a varsity athlete but when she got hers, she was in bed for at least a day. My sisters have the same symptoms. I got off pretty easy. I don't doubt that many of these women would get rid of it for relief.
b)Menstruation is inconvenient and messy and thus embarrassing like all bodily functions tend to be.
I've heard many arguments that this has more to do with the fact that since it's part of 'mysterious woman problems' it is made even more reviled, but I'm a bit skeptical. It's still both inconvenient and messy even if the embarrassment is induced through society or misogyny.
c)Menstruation - controlling or eliminating it - is another step toward control over one's body.
Since the Supreme Court seems to think we menstruating folk are too stupid to make choices (the paternalism of Kennedy's opinion still makes my blood boil), I'm pretty ready to embrace just about anything that gives me more control over my body. Will it have side effects? Maybe, but doesn't everything anymore?
d) A previous poster who noted that the sugar pills in regular birth control are technically unnecessary is correct. I had heard that they included a week of bleed to make it more acceptable to the Catholic Church and we all know how well that worked out...
But I have discussed menstruation pretty extensively with a number of women during my life.
I think it is worth noting that no matter how unpleasant it is, it is not a disease, and serves a natural function. Pregnancy can also be quite unpleasant, even downright miserable at times. That doesn't mean women shouldn't be able to stop their periods if they want to--this is really a "keep your laws off my body" type of situation, unlike abortion, which involves ending another (at least potential) life.
And, in response to the idea that the absence of a period would subtract meaning from my life, let me suggest that for me, all it would subtract is moodiness, migraines, and the excuse to inhale a half-gallon of ice cream every 28 days.
In fact, the reason I'd consider using this pill versus the same one I had been using is monetary/convenience: my prescription coverage recently changed the rules, and won't allow you to refill the package before it's "supposed" to be used up, so I'd have to wait until the day before the placebo week to order a refill. This pill would eliminate that problem.
Check out Connie Willis' brilliant short story "Even the Queen" for a great SF take on this issue! :)
It also confirms once a month that I'm not pregnant. (Pregnancy would be a joyful surprise, but I'm still waiting to have children for a few years.)
Friend of mine was annoyed when a girl mentioned to him that she was on her period (fine, that's great, we don't want to know about it) so he offered to tell her about the wet dream he'd had the night before.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Incidentally, I wonder if that's the best analogy. Obviously wet dreams aren't painful, but they're messy and gross, and no one is really interested in talking about them or hearing about them (I'm disgusted enough with this post, in which I've had to say "w__ d____" so many times I can't bring myself to say it again). Guys would be perfectly happy if they could quit having WDs without losing their potential fertility. No?
And as a PS, Joe, I don't know why the young woman of your acquaintance brought up her period, but that shouldn't be entirely forbidden or shocking. Yesterday, I had to tell a (female) coworker that there was a danger I might pass out--if there had only been guys around, I would have had to tell one of them. Also, sometimes we get hit with really bad symptoms for an hour or two, like roll up in a ball in your office bad. When that has happened, if a guy friend or coworker asks what is wrong with me (b/c I go really pale) I usually just say something like--'I know what this is, it will pass' or 'I'll be fine tomorrow'--but if they keep it up, I will explain either euphemistically that 'it's a woman thing' or directly 'it is my period.' If WD's, as you call them, caused that sort of inconvenience or visible discomfort, I wouldn't feel horrible if a guy told me that was what the cause was. No, going into graphic detail is not appropriate, just as it would be inappropriate for one of us to start rattling off how many tampons we used that day, blah, blah.
I certainly agree that it's occasionally necessary to bring up uncomfortable personal phenomena like that, just as virtually every medical topic is a little uncomfortable. In this case, I believe, my friend was annoyed that it was brought up in casual conversation with no mitigating reason. I'm sure your male friends appreciate your euphamistic references. :)
HAHA I just remembered something that happened to another one of my friends. He was in another state visiting some girls we went to school with. One of them picked up her purse and left the room. "Where are you going?" he said. "To the bathroom," she said. "With your purse?!?!" he said. He caught on about .5 seconds after he finished saying that.
I don't get cramps. I don't get mood swings or nausea. My chocolate consumption doesn't change. My iron level is great. So no, it's not a bonding experience -- unless by "bonding," you mean "death glares from the sisterhood."
Obviously, I get pissed off at the idea that we should medicalise a normal bodily function that lacks any sort of problem. Yes, "natural" things are not always good - I say this as a woman who got whooping cough as a teenager - but that does not directly translate into elimination of all things which are "natural." Generally, it's like alcoholism: it's a disease when it becomes a problem in your life and when you can't function normally because of it.
Should health insurers cover this new pill for women who want to use it out of convenience and not because of any debilitating aspect of their period?
First, I disagree with the premise that
I believe it does derive meaning from all shared experiences, good or bad. Some may play a larger and more central role in a person's life, and the composite of experiences that people share changes from relationship to relationship, but we bond over the bad and the good, the trivial and the important.
Haven't we all complained off the cuff about stubbing our toe or having a hang-nail and someone else said "yeah, that sucks." Such a small and arguably insignificant thing has demonstrated another level of understanding between the two people involved.
And shared bonds that we may not want to endure still provide meaning to our lives. When my lung collapsed spontaneously as a high school student, I was introduced serendipitously to a girl in Minnesota who had the same thing. We became pen-pals and friends, bonding on many levels including the pain we suffered dealing with a collapsed lung. In addition to the bonding, I also gained a little more "meaning" to my life by realizing that I would be dead if not for some modern machines.
That said, I feel an equally important part of my comment was overlooked because all I did was link to articles in support of my feelings. Because each of us are made up of different experiences, of course some women will regard periods as a wonderful sign of womanhood and others as a burden gladly shed. In the Women's Health article, it says,
It also highlights some of the health issues that accompany estrogen+progesterone or all progesterone pills.
Ultimately, my last sentence remains the same:
This is not because women should be persuaded out of this pill--no, not at all!--but that all women should be advised of the physiological changes and risks taking the pill entails, as well as the lifestyle changes (including possible absence of monthly menstruation), so that they can decide with their doctor if taking the pill is in their best interest for their health, lifestyle, and vision of who they are.
As a professional with three kids, I thank God for brith control, breast pumps, nannies etc., but these "no period" birth control pills may be more "natural" than we think.
Once you generalize that humanity derives meaning from any and every shared experience, your proposition basically becomes irrelevant to discussion, especially when it's equally obvious:
a) that meaning of some sort can also be derived without shared experience, as your own posting on this topic demonstrates,
b) that individuals routinely assign entirely different meanings to comparable experiences, and
c) that, in fact, there is a considerable tension here between the actual range of experiences being shared and the commonality that menstruation is presumed to represent.
I find it hard to square the "perceived" neutrality of your acknowledgement that "of course some women will regard periods as a wonderful sign of womanhood and others as a burden gladly shed," with your initial assertion, in its original context: Now I'm a menopausal woman with two grown children who, I somehow feel compelled to say, doesn't fit any accepted feminist profile, and who believes in treating whole patients, but I couldn't suppress a groan over your repeated endnote: I'll chalk up the unwitting condescension here to youth, and suggest that you pay your future patients the courtesy of keeping your ruminations on the subtractive nature and social raminfications of the decision at issue to yourself! There is simply no way you can inject questions about the symbolic, psychological, and social affects of womanliness without adding gratuitous, if not specious, judgmental freight to a decision which, per this discussion, women are perfectly capable of sorting out as they, themselves, see fit.
What you can do, however, is space out your appointments so that you needn't rush from one patient to the next, cultivate a relaxed demeanor, and make a concerted effort to assure the women you treat that they are not wasting your time should they have questions or concerns that they would like to voice.
I may try it myself, though I'm so close to menopause it hardly seems worth it.
Because cramps are a shared experience: if you yourself do not get them, then you know someone who does or did (did, mostly, thanks to various forms of the pill).
And no one wants to be part of the cramps crowd.
Besides, just taking the pill can be a different "in-crowd".
It's been said before, I'll identify myself by my personality, thank you very much, not by the fact that I bleed from my crotch.
As a menstruator, I would love to be rid of my unpleasant, uncomfortable, though never debilitating, periods. I've never missed a period when I wasn't pregnant, although I nursed some of my children exclusively. Certainly no suppression of menstruation for eighteen months - not even for eighteen weeks!
There are good and valid things to consider about the safety of hormonal treatments like the Pill, but a doctor who urged me to consider the social and emotional ramifications as negatives in my decision would definitely merit a raised eyebrow.
When I talked about the prospect of having no menstruation, and said "In that regard it is very important," I was asserting that Eugene's position saying
That seemed to me then and now a little too categorical. I felt there were times/situations where it is important to consider something someone considers "part of being a woman" even if it may not be medically relevant--because we often make decisions in our lives on things that aren't medically relevant.
And I'm sorry you groaned over my last comment, but you must have missed the point. How could I bring up any birth control pill without discussing the social and emotional ramifications with a patient? I have been taught repeatedly to do that in medical school and I believe it is a correct principle. If a woman came in wanting birth control, I am going to talk to her about ramifications such as:
1. Social -- do you know this birth control causes random spotting and bleeding? If your job or lifestyle puts you in situations where this might be inconvenient, then I might recommend a different pill.
2. Emotional -- do you feel a period is a part of being a woman you don't want to give up? If yes, then obviously I'm going to suggest a typical estrogen+progesterone pill. If no, then the new one might be right for her.
3. Physiological -- as with all progesterone+estrogen pills, this one carries with it an increased risk of blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. Typically estrogen+progesterone pills do not carry the increased risk of cancer that progesterone only pills carry.
Such a discourse in no way dictates condescendingly to a woman what pill she should take, but gives her the full knowledge so she can make an informed decision about what is best for her life.
my take on it:
seems to me that if a woman and her doctor decide a particular med therapy is appropriate for her, the "health insurers" ('treatment deniers' is a more accurate description, IMO) should cover it (provided it's in their formulary to begin with). regardless of whether the rationale is "convenience" rather than "debilitation."