I Still Want My Period

(Warning: This post is really long. Primarily because it took me about 3-4 weeks to write and research.)

Well, It seems like menstruation has been the hot topic on feminist blogs for the past few months, and I wanted to follow-up on my previous post about using hormonal birth control to suppress menstruation. For those of you who missed the earlier post here it is at Alas and at Rachel’s Tavern. My concerns about menstrual suppression revolved around three issues 1)the lack of studies of the long term health effects of this 2)the possibility that women may get pregnant and not know about it in time to get adequate prenatal care or have access to abortion and 3)the marketing and framing of menstruation as abnormal bad or gross. If I were to prioritize those three things, the last one is the one that I am most concerned about, and that is the one I would like to emphasize in this post.

Amanda over at Pandagon took exception to my view, and made this argument:

The problem isn’t discussing one’s feelings about it or anything like that, but I have a big, fat problem with the kneejerk assumption that “natural” is more valuable than “unnatural”. Every time someone praises menstruation as something that makes them feel like a woman or whatever, I wonder if they’re working for Tampax or something.

The only problem with that argument was that it was not my point. If I was making that argument, I think she has a valid point. I try very consciously to avoid the term “natural”–things like poison ivy and stinging nettles natural. The natural framework is problematic. First, off you’d be hard pressed to get people to agree on what is natural, and second we can’t assume that things that are “natural” are necessarily better than things that are created by people. I also think there are just as many people making money off menstruation as there will be on stopping menstruation. Whether you think a period is “natural” or not, we do need to understand that there is nothing abnormal about periods.

One commenter defended my position very well. La Luba said,

But traditionally, it is the male body that has been viewed as “normal” or “natural,” and the female body that is viewed as abnormal, unnatural, cursed, in need of “fixing.” Arguments like this are really intended to reclaim the female body as OK in its own right; that there isn’t something wrong with us, simply because our bodies aren’t male.

I’m not attached to “natural” as meaning “completely without medical intervention.” But I’m very suspicious of an effort by Big Pharma to focus the marketing of this pill formula towards women without problem periods. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. There is a lot of effective right-wing organizing towards abolishing birth control; Big Pharma is reacting to that by targeting the market in a way they know will have a positive effect on their bottom line–by reminding women of the negative aspects of their periods. That will create a demand. Women who wouldn’t dream of fighting for their right to control when and if they get pregnant will definitely get out in the streets to demand the right to live without a period–and don’t think for a minute that has nothing to do with the history of how women, and our menstruation, has been viewed.
Color me skeptical.

And yes, the fact that many women aren’t aware that “periods” while on the pill speaks to the fact that we are taught to be divorced from our bodies and their functions—that we are taught that our bodies are for being seen and being “done to,” rather than being active. I’m seeing this issue against a backdrop of how women’s bodies are viewed and treated, and I see Rachel’s point about semen. Semen has never been traditionally viewed with the negativity menstrual blood has. We haven’t heard semen referred to as “the curse” our whole lives.

I can’t see the marketing of this pill as being any different from the marketing of say, breast implants, or plastic surgery. Restorative breast implants and plastic surgery can make sense for cancer patients, or burn patients….but is this something the rest of us need, or should want? No one would question this “choice” if periods had been traditionally viewed through a neutral lens, as neither good nor bad, just there. That’s not the backdrop we’re working with here. Especially considering the religious overtones of “unclean” menstruating women; of “hysterical”, “unstable” menstruating women. Those myths are still out there. We are still fighting those myths. Whether or not an individual woman makes the choice to take this pill is immaterial. But whether this pill is seen as a “magic bullet” to rid us of the “hysterical” myth is very material. I don’t want a future of “but of course women are just as capable as men! we’re not hysterical anymore, ever since the pill! It’s only those women who don’t take the pill who are hysterical!!” arguments. There’s plenty of pseudo-feminists who would ride that train. (not that it would work. the bars would just be moved again.—but that’s another reason these conversations are necessary.)
I’m not saying that having this pill as an option is adding fuel to these fires. This pill is neutral, in and of itself. I’m saying it’s well worth questioning the why of this option. There are good reasons for making this choice, to take this pill. There are also good reasons for making the choice to not take this pill. Guess which choice is likely to be validated in an antifeminist, capitalist society such as we live in? A world where plastic surgeons make sales pitches in health clubs, because working out isn’t “enough” to make a woman “beautiful?” A world where women are more likely to swallow a man’s semen after oral sex than men are to perform oral sex on a menstruating woman (why is menstrual blood generally considered “ickier” than semen, hmm? wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact it comes out of a female body, would it?).

Natural hell. That’s not the bottom line for me.

Later LaLuba, also added the following comment which I agree with,

Who here is fetishizing “natural” I don’t have high blood pressure; does that mean I’m fetishing the concept of “natural” if I don’t take high blood pressure medicine?
I haven’t really noticed a mainstream tendency to fetishize natural. The mainstream tendency is to fetishize the “better living through chemistry”. And women’s bodies are the favorite battleground. For all the mention of fetishizing “natural”, I have yet to hear of a bottle-feeding mother being asked to leave a public place for not breastfeeding. It’s breastfeeding mothers who are regarded as disgusting, animalistic, filthy, unsanitary, and a public health hazard. Not to mention just plain slutty broads who want to show their tits. I have yet to see much cultural support for women who aren’t getting the full intervention workup. And yes, part of that is because historically, women were/are viewed as being closer to “animal” nature than men. I don’t like fuzzy-headed la-la arguments about some amorphous concept of what is-or-is-not “natural” either, but dammit, we are pressured to tamper with our bodies more than men are, and for specious reasons. Like I said before, there are good reasons for choosing this particular version of the Pill (in reality, a continous dose of the same-old-same-old Pill), but there are also good reasons not to. And women who choose not to are likely to be regarded as unclean freaks, the same way breastfeeding mothers are.
Look. This Pill has been around for generations. There’s a reason it is being marketed in this way, at this time. And it’s because of the pre-existing disgust women were taught to feel about our bodies. Yes, blood stains clothing. Yet people in general do not feel the same way about a bloody nose and a bloody cunt. There is a special revulsion reserved for menstruation. Why? It’s not just about the bloodstains.

I think we need to take a particularly strong stand against the phenomenon that La Luba addresses (in the bold writing). I strongly agree with this proposition. Marketing anti-period or no period pills really is really an ingenious way to help the fight against birth control. I can’t tell you how many young women I know who swear they take birth control pills ONLY to regulate their periods or cut down on period cramps. They say this because they know it is much more acceptable to say, “I am trying to feel better during my period” than it is to say “I’m having sex, and I don’t want to get pregnant.” I’m not chiding people for taking BCP to cut down on painful periods. I’m just pointing out that the “ick” fact associated with periods is something that the right wing embraces, and feminists need to be very careful not to embrace this too.

To me one of the underlying issues is body image—how we feel about our periods is part of our body image. Body image is not just whether we like our weight, breasts, or cellulite. It’s also whether or not we accept the bodily processes that are associated with women. A study by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals found that MOST women did not enjoy their period (71%) and would like to stop periods (62%). I don’t necessarily find this troubling. I did find some of the study’s other findings bothersome:

Forty-five percent do not avoid touching themselves when menstruating; but the sample was split on whether they thought menstrual blood was disgusting, at 37% disagree/strongly disagree and 37% agree/strongly agree.

I’m shocked at the number of women who will not touch themselves when they are on their period. I remember having an argument with a classmate in high school who believed that women were not supposed to bathe while on their period. She learned this from her mother who forbade her from washing during her period. One of the other findings I found interesting was the fact that 75% of women “believe men have a real advantage by not having the monthly interruption of a period.” On some level this is probably true, but I worry that people are not going to realize that it is the social arrangements of patriarchy that disadvantage menstruation, not anything defective in women’s bodies. Menstrual shame is a real issue that should not be minimized. In fact, Planned Parenthood dedicates a whole webpage to the subject.

The scientific community seems divided over the issue. The Society for Menstrual Cycle Research has released a statement on menstrual suppression. This statement includes results from three studies on the subject of menstrual suppression. Here is a quote on the study findings (the bold emphasis is mine):

Authors of the first paper, Christine Hitchcock and Jerilyn Prior, reviewed studies that have been published on extending the schedule of oral contraceptive pills in order to reduce the frequency of menstrual bleeding. They concluded that we do not yet have evidence to suggest that menstrual suppression is entirely safe and reversible. The second set of authors, Alex Hoyt and Linda Andrist presented results from a study of women’s attitudes toward menstrual suppression. They concluded that negative attitudes toward the menstrual cycle were a better predictor of women’s interest in menstrual suppression than women’s menstrual symptoms, suggesting the importance of psychosocial factors in women’s decision making about altering their menstruation. The third paper, by Ingrid Johnston-Robledo and Jessica Barnack, addressed popular media coverage of menstrual suppression. From their analysis of print media, they concluded that regular menstruation is presented as bothersome and even unhealthy. Advocates of menstrual suppression and its benefits were afforded more space than opponents and risks. As with many other health issues, women are not getting accurate, balanced information, rendering an informed decision about this health care option difficult if not impossible.

While the response of this group is more tempered, the doctor who created Depo Provera, has a popular (but controversial) book arguing that menstruation is obsolete. (I still think menstruation is no more obsolete than semen.) Others advocate menstrual suppression, but don’t go as far. Here are two good sites that give information that is generally favorable to menstrual suppression—The Well Timed Period and No Period.

Some people, who disagreed with my previous post, took me to task arguing that I did not know what a period is. They claim that people taking BCPs do not have periods, just break through bleeding. I think what these people are missing the fact that the definition of a period is socially constructed, and the vast majority of people define a period as bleeding from the vagina as part of the cycle of a woman’s reproductive system. I know cases of women not taking BCP who were anovulatory, but still had monthly bleeding that they label as a period. Most women label the period in which they bleed as their period whether they are on BCP or not. Since my argument was more about the potential marketing of periods as icky disgusting and gross, I think the physiology of BCP is a moot point. What troubles people is blood coming from a woman’s vagina. They don’t care whether she has ovulated or not; they don’t care about the lining of the uterus.

Let’s be real menstruation needs a public relations firm. Imagine if I had written this post about diet pills or a new breast enhancement pill, making the same argument that women should have the right to take it, but that we should be leery of the marketing. I think we would see many more feminists up in arms. I have a feeling the response would have been much different, and I would have been getting high fives all over the place. The disgust with female bodies is widespread unless of course we are talking about the aspects of our bodies that are most accepted by men. (Having your breasts partially revealed on the cover of Maxim is good, but having your breast partially revealed while breast feeding invokes a totally different reaction.) I think views on menstruation are some of the most negative, especially when you have only 45% of women willing to touch themselves while menstruating.

I’m not saying that women should not take these sorts of BCP regiments. I believe in women’s rights to make decisions about our bodies. I also haven’t lost sight of the fact that our bodies have been and continue to be pathologized, and that’s a part of the reason that I still want my period.

Endnote: Clearly, this debate is very contentious among feminists. I collected several discussions on this subject, which are listed below. Overall, the feminist bloggers that I have read are fairly evenly divided on this issue, and both sides seem to feel passionately about the subject. Here are some posts on this subject: Pandagon, Shakespeares Sister, Feministing—Pt. 1 , Pt. 2 , Pt. 3, Niobium, Pandora’s Bazaar, Deanna Zandt, The Primary Contradiction..

This entry posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Feminism, sexism, etc, Gender and the Body. Bookmark the permalink. 

126 Responses to I Still Want My Period

  1. 101
    thinking girl says:

    OK, Shelley, thanks for the information. what you have said makes sense enough. I still think I’d rather shed the lining when I’m supposed to and deal with the relatively small (for me) hassle of having my period. And I still think that there are anti-menstruation messages in society that MAY influence how women feel about their periods. Maybe not all women, and maybe not the women who have commented here who have obviously thought enough about their periods to comment intelligently about their feelings toward their periods and bodies. But, I am more concerned about the women who recieve the anti-period message and are influenced without pausing for thought. I’m concerned about the women who receive the message and just decide to start taking their BCP all the time without consulting their doctors, possibly compromising their health. I’m concerned about the female-body hatred in general in society that leads women to do all sorts of things to their bodies to make them more acceptable to patriarchy. The anti-period message is not jsut an anti-period message – it’s part of a larger message about controlling women’s bodies for the purposes of furthering patriarchy. Women’s bodies are the sites for the expression of patriarchy. That is what conerns me. If you want to stop your period, and it’s safe, and you are sure that it will make your life better, and you’re sure that you want to do it for you and not because of any patriarchal influence on you and your life, by all means go ahead. It’s not really you that I’m concerned about. It’s the “unenlightened” (for lack of a better word and at the risk of sounding completely condescending) non-feminist women out there who blindly follow whatever patriarchy dictates – which happens to prefer its women submissive and period-free for their convenience. You can deny that that is the reason YOU want to eliminate your period, and that can be true and I believe you. But maybe it’s not the reason why other women want to eliminate theirs.

    Joanne, if you don’t like the smell of menstural fluid, try the Diva Cup. There is no smell involved. I can’t rave enough about it. (that said, it can’t be used by everyone, like Mendy points out.) Using one gives the best opportunity to see what’s going on – better than pads, believe me. It’s certainly not period-denial. I have a way better understanding of my period with the Diva cup than any other method of collecting menstrual fluid I’ve tried.

  2. 102
    Mandolin says:

    hey mythago,

    pretty definitely sure it was a “this could cause cancer” thing; however I don’t trust the physician who said it (who was retired, and I’m pretty sure out of date). Nevertheless, the idea is out there.

  3. 103
    JoAnne says:

    I agree, thinking girl, that there are anti-menstruation messages in society, and that the decision to stop menstruating could well be based on that distaste rather than any personal feeling that it’s more trouble than it’s worth. I think anti-menstruation feelings are based on the idea of male being normal. I think we all know the “joke” that nothing that bleeds for five days and lives can be human.

    And there are all those myths about how no woman who is having her period can be rational, which feeds the notion that any woman saying something a man disagrees with is irrational, and that’s because of her period, which is hidden, or PMS, where she isn’t even having her period yet. Therefore the claim is “always possible.” I don’t mean to ignore women who truly do have uncomfortable or even severe mood swings, but we know it’s not true for everyone.

  4. 104
    mythago says:

    Mandolin, I know that one prominent researcher has made a pretty convincing case that menstruation is an anti-biotic process, so it’s not too much of a logical leap that occasional periods are a Good Thing (though, as somebody pointed out, on-the-Pill uterine lining is not like off-the-Pill uterine lining).

  5. 105
    Lee says:

    I think the comments on this thread are interesting, but it didn’t occur to me until yesterday that the reason why the tenor of this thread seems so familiar to me is because it’s a lot like the earlier thread about the mother of the child with Down’s syndrome. Note: I’m not intending to compare a disabled child with a menstrual cycle in any way. I’m trying to say that (to me) the comments in both threads are (at a certain level) about how society as a whole and other women in general view individual women’s choices about deeply personal matters that men do not have to make – that we can’t be trusted to make the choices that make the most sense for us, especially when that decision isn’t the mainstream one.

    My concerns about the possible future downside of menstrual suppression drugs, arise in part because we already have the shining examples of hormone replacement therapy and testing for fetal abnormalities to examine. Mothers of children with certain kinds of disabilities are frequently treated by family, friends, and the general public as if they couldn’t possibly be playing with a full deck, because, after all, we have tests for that sort of thing nowadays and abortions are still legal. Not all that long ago (before they discovered some significant adverse effects), some women who chose not to avail themselves of HRT had to face a certain amount of the same kind of skepticism, because, after all, everybody knows menopause turns you into a crazy woman and there’s a pill for that now.

    So while I think that for many women menstrual suppression therapy would be a great boon and a blessed relief, and I totally support any woman’s decision to avail herself of the medication to achieve this if she thinks this is the best thing for her, I’m still skeptical that it is an unmitigated good. If MST becomes the new normal, would women who cannot or choose not to take the MST pills have to deal with friends and family who think they’re very misguided or weird? How likely is it that supervisors would pressure women to schedule their periods to suit the company’s convenience and pressure women who aren’t on MST to take the pills (and penalize them when they don’t)? These are just two adverse social effects I can think of right off the top of my head.

    I’m not saying that I think we shouldn’t be able to choose MRT. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I think it sucks that we still feel we have to justify our choices about fairly basic things like whether or not to have our periods, not just to men but also to other women, and that we still have to wonder if something that is marketed as good for us is really all that good or not.

  6. 106
    Shelley says:

    So while I think that for many women menstrual suppression therapy would be a great boon and a blessed relief, and I totally support any woman’s decision to avail herself of the medication to achieve this if she thinks this is the best thing for her, I’m still skeptical that it is an unmitigated good. If MST becomes the new normal, would women who cannot or choose not to take the MST pills have to deal with friends and family who think they’re very misguided or weird?**

    And I guess my thing is … the pill’s been around for what, 30, 40 years, and it’s hardly become the “new normal” and no one thinks twice if any individual woman chooses or doesn’t choose to take it. So it’s hard for me to fear that MST will become “the new normal.”
    Interesting post, btw. I would also submit that pain-of-childbirth might also be an relevant analogy – I don’t have to be terrified of the pain of childbirth to simply not want it, and the social construct of childbirth pain differs from woman to woman (“part of my essential quality as a woman and unique female experience” to “unwanted pain that I’d rather forego, all else being equal”).

  7. 107
    Mendy says:

    If MST becomes the new normal, would women who cannot or choose not to take the MST pills have to deal with friends and family who think they’re very misguided or weird? How likely is it that supervisors would pressure women to schedule their periods to suit the company’s convenience and pressure women who aren’t on MST to take the pills (and penalize them when they don’t)?

    I’m stuck here, because I can’t figure out how my supervisor is going to know I’m on my period or when, exactly, my cycle falls. I suppose she could ask, or ask my physician, but that information should be protected under hippa. This is of course assuming one doesn’t have a debillitating period. The only way anyone that doesn’t habitate with me knows that I’m actually menstruating is if I choose to tell them. Generally speaking I don’t share that kind of information at work because it isn’t germaine to work. Of course that is just me, and as someone that works in an environment where I’m pressured to do all kinds of things, I’ve learned that what management doesn’t know (and what doesn’t affect my productivity) isn’t any of their buisness.

    I can see how some women might feel pressured to take the new hbc’s, but I don’t think that would extend to the workplace. What I see happening is more likely that some doctors will simply prescribe this incarnation of the pill for women without discussing it with them. And I’m speaking here of young women going to discuss bc methods for the first time. After my first pap my doc just prescribed Ortho Tricycline (sp) without really talking with me about all the options. Luckily it worked for me and I didn’t have any problems.

  8. 108
    Kate L. says:

    I don’t know how “natural” the aversion to shit and piss and other bodily functions are…

    This is completely annecdotal, so take it for what it’s worth, but my 15 month old daughter appears to have no aversion to these things at all. She actually gets mad when her dad tries to shut the door of the bathroom – and this would be a boon to us all since the smell wafts uncontrollably if it’s open. She actually usually stands in the bathroom with him – which would be torturous to you or I. This could be because she doesn’t want to be alone, or have him shut a door or something, but I doubt it. She’s a pretty independent child and doesn’t especially have a fit when you leave a room or she can’t see you (*I’m not especially comfortable with that unless she’s in her room, because that’s the only totally babyproofed room in the house, but it doesn’t bother her a bit). She also doesn’t really appear to care about having a poopy diaper, and I usually have to fight her to not play with the dirty ones.

    I could chalk all that up to toddler curiousity and that drive overwhelms our revulsion of all things elimination, but there is a part of me that really wonders just how “natural” our revulsion to bodily elimination is. I’ve also known several other babies who would play with their shit if given the chance… and sometimes find a way… It’s only after adults drill into them, “No, yucky, ick, gross, stinky etc” that they start to not like it. But like I said, that’s just annecdotal.

    Anyway the point is, I don’t especially agree that it’s natural to have a revulstion for bodily functions, as usual, I’m with Rachel in that the “ickiness” of periods is probably more socially constructed than a “natural” thought process.

  9. 109
    Shelley says:

    I could chalk all that up to toddler curiousity and that drive overwhelms our revulsion of all things elimination, but there is a part of me that really wonders just how “natural” our revulsion to bodily elimination is. I’ve also known several other babies who would play with their shit if given the chance… and sometimes find a way… It’s only after adults drill into them, “No, yucky, ick, gross, stinky etc” that they start to not like it. But like I said, that’s just annecdotal.

    Anyway the point is, I don’t especially agree that it’s natural to have a revulstion for bodily functions, as usual, I’m with Rachel in that the “ickiness” of periods is probably more socially constructed than a “natural” thought process.
    >>

    I think you make an interesting point, but I don’t have to find menstrual blood to be a special level of “ew, yicky, stinky, gross” for me not to want it on my underpants, bedsheets, and clothing. No different from if I cut my finger and it bleeds onto my favorite white t-shirt.

  10. 110
    Mendy says:

    Shelley,

    you make an interesting point regarding how some view menstral blood as somehow more “gross” than a cut finger. My view is that while I almost never know when my period will actually start, I do know the exact moment I cut my finger. I have always found it disconcerting to wake at 5 am to find myself sleeping in a puddle of blood. (My periods are very, very heavy) I find the 5 am surprise inconvenient for the reasons I’ve already stated. And fwiw I am about as natural as it gets with the exception of having had a tubal ligation.

    I don’t find menstral fluid itself to be especially gross, however I do find the prospect of my nice linens being stained frustrating. Yes, I believe that most of our revulsion to the actual blood of a period is socially constructed, but there are those that cannot stomach the sight or smell of blood from a simple cut finger either.

  11. 111
    Lee says:

    Mendy, I edited this part out of my earlier post because I thought it was getting too long, but what I was thinking about when I wrote the bit about being pressured to schedule your “off” weeks for work purposes was actually more along the lines of: your supervisor would know because you take sick leave for it (as do many women with debilitating periods now). So while it would be completely illegal and unethical for a supervisor to come up to you and say, “We have an important deadline coming up and I’d really appreciate it if you could delay this planned sick leave a few weeks,” I think it would be totally realistic to believe that it would happen, just as it does to a certain extent with pregnancy.

    Shelley, I like your comparison with childbirth. Why should I justify my decision to have an epidural to anyone except my OB/GYN? Why should my sister justify her decision to go “totally natural”? We shouldn’t have to, and yet we still usually do.

    As for MST becoming the “new normal,” I was thinking about what would happen if the marketing slant Rachel discussed in her original post was effective. If 70% of the women with periods decided MST was for them, the new use of an old drug would effectively become the new normal, just as the old use of this drug has become basically normal for many, if not most, sexually active and fertile women in the U.S.

  12. 112
    Shelley says:

    As for MST becoming the “new normal,” I was thinking about what would happen if the marketing slant Rachel discussed in her original post was effective. If 70% of the women with periods decided MST was for them, the new use of an old drug would effectively become the new normal, just as the old use of this drug has become basically normal for many, if not most, sexually active and fertile women in the U.S. ***

    BTW, I love debating this issue with such a roomful of smart women! You’re right that the bcpill has become basically normal for many sexually active and fertile women in the US. I’m not sure that that’s a bad thing, however. After all, I do think that the broad availability and social acceptance of reliable birth control has been one of the determining factors in creating / supporting feminism – because it’s freed women from being subject to what their bodies do naturally (create babies) unless or until they want to have a baby. I guess IMO menstrual suppression is no more or less “subverting the natural function of my body” as birth control is in the first place.

  13. 113
    Lee says:

    Shelley, I don’t think BC using The Pill is necessarily bad (I actually think is a good thing), but had I been of an age where I needed to consider its use when it was first introduced, I would probably have been just as skeptical WRT long-term effects of daily use over 30 years. (I don’t remember if the results are out yet about women who used The Pill from the get-go, but I seem to remember seeing some preliminary results that indicated a somewhat higher rate of breast cancer and heart disease. I don’t have time at the moment to Google it, as I’m on deadline, so sorry if this is incorrect.) I think MST has the potential to have a similar impact on our society as the original use of the product, and the right slant of the marketing could make the impact immensely positive from a feminist POV. I wasn’t trying to be overly pessimistic, just glumly realistic.

  14. 114
    Shelley says:

    but had I been of an age where I needed to consider its use when it was first introduced, I would probably have been just as skeptical WRT long-term effects of daily use over 30 years. (I don’t remember if the results are out yet about women who used The Pill from the get-go, but I seem to remember seeing some preliminary results that indicated a somewhat higher rate of breast cancer and heart disease. I don’t have time at the moment to Google it, as I’m on deadline, so sorry if this is incorrect.) ***

    I don’t pretend to know medically, but I do think there’s a distinct difference between “is MST as safe as they claim” (which is certainly a fair question) and “what are the societal implications if MST becomes routine.” I think sometimes people start answering “what are the societal implications if MST becomes routine” and get derailed by “and besides, I don’t believe it’s as safe as they claim anyway.” Which is certainly a view that people are entitled to have; I just think it doesn’t address the heart of the issue, which is the societal implications of suppressing periods, not the health implications.

  15. 115
    Mendy says:

    So while it would be completely illegal and unethical for a supervisor to come up to you and say, “We have an important deadline coming up and I’d really appreciate it if you could delay this planned sick leave a few weeks,” I think it would be totally realistic to believe that it would happen, just as it does to a certain extent with pregnancy.

    Lee:

    I’ve stated that I have very painful, inconvenient periods. Having said that I do miss time from work due to my periods, however, I don’t take scheduled sick leave to cover those days…I simply miss work with no explanation other than I am sick. My supervisor doesn’t know when my period falls unless I choose to tell her, and even if she asked me to “schedule” my period for non critical times at work…I’d laugh in her face.

    If I were on MST I am under no obligation to report that fact to my employer, just as I’m not under legal obligation to report to them that I’m planning a pregnancy. It is only when I get ready to apply for maternity leave that I “must” inform my employer. My supervisor found out I was pregnant with my last child when I was seven months along. I’m sure she knew, but I only officially informed her when I applied for my scheduled leave for my delivery.

    I am sure there are women who might feel pressure to schedule their body’s processes to the whims of their employers, however, I feel as though there are some aspects of our lives that ought to be left to us (women) and our helthcare providers. Our choice of contraceptives, our choice to concieve or not, and when we opt for motherhood are those decisions best left to women, their partners, and thier doctors.

  16. 116
    Lee says:

    Mendy, at many companies, if you take sick leave on any kind of a regular (periodic, no pun intended) basis, you will be asked to produce a note from some kind of medical professional explaining why you are taking leave on (say) the third Wednesday and Thursday of every month. Many companies have software that tracks leave patterns, and I have actually had several supervisors ask for this note. (I do not have problem periods, but I prefer to schedule various appointments for times when no crisis is likely to erupt at work, which tend to turn out to be roughtly the same 4 days every month.)

    As for pressure to conform to company whims, I was informed by one supervisor that she would prefer her young married women to wait to have children until after they had been at the company at least two years, because it takes so long to train people in the position I had at that time. This supervisor was known for her ability to make her workers miserable if they didn’t conform to her expectations. Yes, it’s illegal, but it does happen, and many companies seem to feel that they own your body because they are giving you a paycheck.

  17. 117
    Lee says:

    Shelly, I think when the issue is women’s bodies, the societal and the health implications are so intertwined that both parts need to be considered at the same time – I’m probably being sloppy by not concentrating on putting it together in a neat package, but I’m still on deadline and don’t have very many brain cells to spare for the task. Supplementally (in some way I don’t have time to tie in properly), I understand from friends who are labor attorneys that supervisors illegally try to influence a woman’s choice all the time (e.g., you’ll be fired if you don’t get an abortion) and insurance companies arbitrarily but legally do the same thing (i.e., not paying for birth control unless medically necessary). Yes, these things should be private, but right now, for many working women, they are not.

  18. 118
    Mendy says:

    Lee:

    I’m not sure about other company’s HR policies in regards to sick leave, but my employer only asks for a note that verifies that I am “unable to work for this time (insert dates) and may return on (insert date). Of course that hasn’t stopped the HR director from calling my GYN and harrassing her staff to tell him why I’ve been off…but they laugh at him due to Hippa regulations.

    I take my right to privacy very, very seriously and my medical information is at the top of the list of things that is no one else’s buisness but mine, my doctor, and my family’s.

  19. 119
    jenn says:

    Have not followed every single word on these posts, but got the jist. Have not seen anyone respond with the health problems my sister had while taking Depo whatever it’s called– splitting headaches, bloating, sore breasts 100% of the time, gaining 20 pounds – in other words, full-time PMS. Sorry, but that doesn’t appeal to me. Having a period is considered a woman’s way of connecting to her spiritual essence by some people who refer to it as moon-time, referring to the similarities between a woman’s cycle and the moon’s in the good old days when we lived in less electric light. Now they say our average cycle is anywhere from 21-41 days long! Having recently hit menopause, I have been reading a lot about the spiritual transformation a woman goes through at that time, as well as the physical and psychological changes. I think suppressing periods is in the same league as bottlefeeding, breast implants, hormone replacement therapy and abortion – it’s a woman’s choice. Unfortunately, mostly it’s either ignorance, poor body image, or ‘convenience’ that wins, instead of a woman doing the real work to understand her own body, her own cycles, and grab back the control of her body from ‘out there’ in medical land. Let’s not let the pharmaceuticals reap a rich harvest from suppressing women’s periods and screw up our bodies in the process. Ten years later someone will say, gee we shouldn’t have let women be the guinea pigs, especially not young girls. See the website mum.org for lots of letters from concerned women for and against having a period. (stands for Museum of Menstruation.)
    thanks for bringing up this powerfully disturbing topic and treating it with such insight. I am researching a book on menstrual taboos and rituals and have posted some of my queries about the feminine essence on my blog.
    musemother

  20. 120
    Lee says:

    Mendy: sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner – I was on vacation, then had to get the kids ready to go back to school.

    The new medical privacy regulations probably are changing the dynamic I brought up. Most of the instances I gave as examples date from before this law went into effect. I’m glad you’re so militant about your privacy, and I’m glad your doctors and your HR department seem to know their stuff (unfortunately, not always the case for small-business HR departments). However, I think you would agree that there are women out there who would give up this information if pressured by a supervisor, even though the supervisor shouldn’t even be asking, which is a whole ‘nother topic.

  21. Pingback: Feministe » Like A Natural Woman

  22. 121
    NicoleGray says:

    It’s always interesting to me how one person saying, “I think it’s important to consider aspect ‘a’ of this issue” invariably leads to someone else saying, “Wait, why are you denying aspect ‘b’?!”

    As someone who initially demanded birth control at the age of 16 due to severe cramps at least one day a month, digestive difficulties, and irregular periods, one of which lasted for 21 days, I do not feel at all attacked or belittled by Rachel S.’s post. Menstruation, like everything of and related to women, is used in whatever manner best behooves the patriarchy at any given moment.

    As some have pointed out, menstruation often becomes a target of the naturalistic fallacy: what is “normal” is natural and therefore good. Just because the patriarchy uses mentruation as a sign of fertility and therefore a good thing, however, does not mean that it doesn’t turn right around and also tell us to stop bleeding so damned much because it makes us more difficult to fuck.

    What’s that old joke? Never trust anything that bleeds for six days at a time and doesn’t die. Hardy har, huh?

    Unfortunately, there’s no way to magically trick the patriarchy and come out on top. As always, women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Just like you’re either a whore or a prude, you’re either bleeding too much or not enough.

    As is usually the case, women must make the best choices they can, taking into account their own individual situations as well as being willing to open their eyes to all sides of an issue. It seems to me that Rachel S. is trying to point out part of the problem while in no way denying all the other parts.

    My one quibble with the original post is that menstruation is often a shitty way of judging pregnancy status. A surprisingly large number of women continue to appear to menstruate or at least spot after conceiving.

  23. 122
    Frieda says:

    Hi,

    Great blog. The question of suppressing menstruation has been discussed in this letter published The Lancet (a UK peer reviewed medical journal)

    The Lancet 2000; 356:513-514
    DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74189-1
    Dangers of suppressing menstruation
    Ellen C G Grant

    As Dr Grant points out, progestins and estrogens can cause mood and vascular changes and these drugs also increase the risk of 60 medical conditions. She explains that a bleed flushes infections out of the womb and cervix.

    Also that progestins can either shrivel the womb permanently or dilate and over develop the blood vessels in the womb permanently and that studies have found there is increased risk of breast cancer even with short term use (average three years) .

    The letter is available at Go visit The Lancet

    http://www.thelancet.com (free registration is required).

    Unfortunately there is a kneejerk reaction that anyone who is against prescribed steroid sex hormones must be against contraception, against abortion, a religious or moral lobbyist.

    I am not against the idea of contraception nor am I anti abortion. However there are medical grounds why these steroid drugs are dangerous and are causing widespread illness.

    Many women and girls already do not realize the bleed they have whilst on prescribed steroid sex hormones such as the Pill, patch, jab, implant, hormonal IUD or ring, is not their own menstruation. It is a drug induced withdrawal bleed.

    The prescribed steroid sex hormones are not the same as the bodily hormones but much more powerful. They completely suppress both the ovarian and the adrenal gland hormones (the latter are effectively the immune system and progestins are powerful immunosuppressants). It is not just the menstrual cycle that is suppressed but menstruation itself.

    When the drug is stopped once a month (withdrawn), the levels of the drug in the body fall suddenly. The womb is then forced, entirely artificially, to shed its lining. This is therefore definitely not menstruation, not a sign of health, fertility or not being pregnant. It is a drug induced withdrawal bleed.

    That is why even post menopausal women on HRT (the same drugs as the Pill but in smaller doses) who have a womb can have a drug induced withdrawal bleed if they come off these drugs once month.

    However many women and girls are left under the false impression that the bleed they get is their own “delayed menstruation”, their own hormones “kicking in”.

    They have no idea a drug induced withdrawal bleed can even exist. The use of ambiguous vocabulary in manufacturer inserts and by health professionals such as “period”, “bleed”, “bleeding” and even “menstruation” to describe a drug induced withdrawal bleed only serves to reinforce the false impression.

    Dr Grant, who took part in the original UK trials of the Pill, was originally in favour of prescribed steroid sex hormones until clinical experience taught her that the problems of these drugs were intractable.

    Prescribed steroid sex hormones do not “regulate”, “balance” or “top up” the bodily hormones. They only mask acne and menstrual problems, not solve them because progestins especially are immunosuppressant.

    This means the drug suppresses the warning signals of the body that something is wrong but the underlying problem is still there and may be getting worse. And the drug itself may be introducing side effects, the symptoms of which are also masked.

    And this is why when women and girls come off these drugs either once a month or altogether, these problems which have been masked can dramatically emerge. Or sometimes they get so bad, they break through the immunosuppressive mask even while the woman or girl is on these drugs.

    Since the manufacture of these drugs, there has been enormous hype persuading women and girls and their families that the basis of their medical problems is hormonal. However hormones come only at the end of a chain of processes in the body. At the beginning are basic nutrients: vitamin Bs, zinc, magnesium, essential fatty acids and iron.

    When these are deficient, all sorts of processes in the body can go wrong, including the hormones. But this does not mean that hormones are the cause or that powerful prescribed steroid sex hormones should be used as blunt immunosuppressive instruments.

    For example, if the womb muscle is lacking in these nutrients, it may contract during menstruation and menstrual pain may occur.

    If iron is lacking, the blood vessels which control the blood flow from the womb may not function properly and prolonged menstrual flooding may occur (which in turn causes more nutrient deficiencies). Acne can result from allergic type reactions, yeast/fungal overgrowth and also basic nutrient deficiencies. Men and boys with acne are not fed prescribed steroid sex hormones like girls and women.

    For more information about the medical dangers of these drugs, see

    Go visit this page with the papers given at a medical conference on why progestins are causing so much breast cancer

    http://www.ecomed.org.uk/meet_winter2006.php

    Go visit this site which outlines the technicalities of some of the dangers of prescribed steroid sex hormones

    http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/article.cfm?id=70

    Go visit this medical journal with an issue dedicated to the dangers of prescribed steroid sex hormones.

    http://tinyurl.com/ym9oa6

  24. 123
    Frieda says:

    Oops, apologies for a dud last link.

    Try this link

    http://www.journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=0dnrcvqfxhyg

  25. Pingback: The Happy Feminist: IS THERE A DOWN SIDE TO DRUGS THAT SUPPRESS MENSTRUATION?

  26. Pingback: Reason Magazine - Blood, Spite, and Fears