I have been infected by this viral video and I think I feel a little sick.
I cannot deny that advertising giant Leo Burnett’s campaign for client Procter & Gamble isn’t darn clever and at times touching (for those who aren’t yet convinced that “Zack at 16″ is advertising, see the list of P&G wins at this year’s Cannes Lions ADVERTISING festival–or take a look at the insultingly transparent product plugs peppering the comments).
But unlike others who may find this particular sex switcheroo a fabulous vehicle for generating sensitivity to girls and women and their periods, I find it, well, the same- old -same -old —capitulating to gender stereotypes to move product.
And this time, there’s the added twist of the (albeit, likely unintentional) trivialization of very real people whose bodies don’t align with their gender identity. You know, some people really DO have to sneak into that “other” bathroom to do their business. Some people ARE forced to keep the realities of their genitalia private or risk unwelcome medical intervention, ridicule or worse. Continue reading...
Furniture designer Andy Kurovets presents this shelf unit that mimics the layers of a maxi pad as it gradually absorbs menstrual fluid. While I don’t find the shelves as objectionable as my source for this bit of news does, they do strike me as a bit impractical. Won’t the wings get in the way? And loading these shelves with books or objets d’art would hide that beautiful design!
This is an interesting study, in a “Whoa! Somebody actually thought to do a study of that” kind of way. And that’s saying something, coming from someone who studies discourses of menstruation. Two economists designed a study to try to demonstrate that women bid differently in auctions depending on the phase of their menstrual cycle. They found that women bid significantly higher than men in their menstrual and premenstrual phases, but do not bid significantly differently in other phases of the menstrual cycle. They extrapolate from this that women are greater risk-takers during the fertile phase of their cycle.
The detailed statistical modeling and analysis is beyond my expertise as a humanities scholar, but I find the underlying premises of the study and its conclusions problematic. First, they assess which phase of her cycle their research participants are in by self-report and the assumption of a 28-day cycle: “We distinguish the menstrual phase (days 1 to 5), the follicular phase (days 6 to 13), the peri-ovulatory phase (days 14 to 15), the luteal phase (days 16 to 23), and the premenstrual phase (days 24 to 28).” As my colleagues at CeMCOR will tell you, one cannot assess ovulation merely from self-report of date of last menstrual period and projected date of next period. Regular menstruation ≠ ovulation. And pretty much any menstruator can tell you that the average 28-day cycle is just that, an average. The researchers also noted that 15% of their participants used hormonal birth control, but Continue reading...
It’s been frequently noted (by many writers, not justme) that menstrual blood must remain invisible. So I was quite pleased to stumble upon this lively discussion at Feministe about menstrual blood and why it seems to have a greater squick factor than other blood – or any other bodily fluid, for that matter.
Frau Sally Benz started this discussion with her befuddlement at the disgust of others when she discusses her delight in discovering the advantages of the Diva Cup:
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is people’s aversion to menstrual blood. Perhaps I’m just super comfortable with my body or took one too many reproductive health classes or maybe I’m just gross, but I really don’t get why people are so thoroughly disgusted by menstrual blood.
Within three days, the thread had more than 100 responses. Although the women’s responses to the sight of menstrual blood vary, they’re all talking about menstruation in a public forum.
This matters. Doctors rely on medical journals to learn about the latest research and treatments in their areas of expertise. They should know when such research is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
Readers of this blog probably already know, too, that in 2002 the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) research on estrogen therapies after menopause was halted before the study was completed because the risks of these drugs were greater than the benefits. For more about these issues and the relevant research, see the Society for Menstrual Cycle research’s positionstatements on WHI and estrogen therapy, and learn why menopause is not an estrogen deficiency disease.
Readers should note that statements published in re: Cycling are those of individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Society as a whole.
RSS 
