Blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research
In the grand tradition of Ms. magazine, we present the latest installment of SNL’s “Classic ESPN Women’s Sports Tournament” with NO COMMENT.
(OK, if you really want to know what we think, see our previous posts about this misogynist series. We’re just too tired to say it again.)
NBC New York’s website just announced an upcoming presentation titled “That Not So Fresh Feeling: Marketing Embarrassing Products To Women,” to be hosted by DoubleX (the ladyblog spin off of Slate.com) on February 22. The panel of experts includes Susan Kim, co-author of FLOW: The Cultural Story of Menstruation; Sarah Haskins, creator of Target: Women for Current TV; former “Colbert Report” executive producer Allison Silverman; and Hanna Rosin, co-editor of DoubleX and contributing editor at The Atlantic Monthly.
I’m not sure exactly who is the intended audience for this presentation, but nevertheless I’m disappointed that no one from the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research appears to be on the panel. Consider this an open invitation to any of our readers who will be in New York and able to attend the event to write a guest blog entry about it for re:Cycling.
Details
That Not So Fresh Feeling: Marketing Embarrassing Products To Women
February 22, 7PM
Housing Works Bookstore Café, 126 Crosby Street; 212- 334-3324
Free
Four years ago I published an article in Sex Roles (March 2006) about the twists and turns of the media coverage of a scandal that came to be known as “Camillagate.” It concerned the publication of a surreptitiously recorded phone chat between Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, and his lover, Camilla Parker-Bowles, that occurred in 1993. The reason the mild sex banter between two horny middle-aged royals got so much attention was that at one point they made joking references to tampons in an erotic context. The exchange was widely misreported with a distorted claim that Charles expressed a desire to be transformed into a tampon. It even became the basis for a skit on Saturday Night Live (only a small portion of it is available now online).
At the time I predicted that Charles would never get away from the tampon association. What I could not predict was how nuanced the forms of mockery would be. Who could possibly have guessed that the story would play out as a means of bolstering George W. Bush’s faltering reputation by contrasting his macho style with the more effete image of The Prince of Wales?
If I correctly understand the terms of SHM’s copyright agreement with Oxford University Press, I am permitted to publish this unedited version of my review as a “pre-print” article. The final version will be available only from Social History of Medicine.
Lara Freidenfelds, The Modern Period: Menstruation in Twentieth Century America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008. Pp. 242. £31/$60. ISBN 978 0-8018 9245 5.
Lara Freidenfelds, an historian currently teaching in Women’s Studies at Wellesley College, has written a thorough and engaging history of menstruation in twentieth century USA. Her title, The Modern Period, is more than a succinct description; it cleverly references her discussion throughout of how advancing Progressive values shaped beliefs and practices surrounding menstruation. These Progressive values included faith in scientific rationality, belief in the value of education, and unqualified endorsement of technological progress. The ‘modern period’ also references the evolution of menstrual management practices into a coherent whole and the movement away from practices and beliefs considered old-fashioned, such as worries about catching a chill or the use of cloth pads. Her analysis throughout addresses the class implications of modernization; that is, the perceived need to adopt modern practices of bodily presentation and self-control for class mobility. Such modernization, asserts Friedenfelds, is a key component of Americans’ ability to see themselves as middle-class across great gaps in education and income.
There’s been quite a bit of internet buzz during the last week or so about a study conducted at University of St Andrews and Edinburgh University by Tom Kelsey, in which he and his colleagues develop a computer model of how a woman’s supply of eggs declines over time. The scaremongering accompanying news reports of this study is reminiscent of the 1980s kerfuffle about how women over 40 were more likely to be killed by a terrorist than to be married. Some headlines are proclaiming “Women lose 90% of eggs by age 30″ and advising women who want to be parents to act quickly. Some are even recommending fertility screening analogous to cancer screening.
Before you ladies under 30 rush off to get impregnated, let me point out a few things. First, this study is a computer model. It is not definitive evidence that women cannot conceive after 30. Second, there has been ongoing new research in the last several years that suggests mammals may be able to produce new ova, contrary to conventional doctrine that females have a fixed reserve of egg cells enclosed in the ovaries at birth. Although there are many skeptics, there is still a great deal that is unknown about how the ovaries work.
Third, it only takes one egg cell to make a baby.
Word on the street is that Apple is introducing their first tablet computer today. With their usual flourish, they’ve named it . . . wait for it . . . the iPad.
ETA: The ladies at Jezebel have published more than one compilation of period-related iPad jokes. A sample:
Are you there, God? It’s me, Marketing.
Don’t make fun. The iPad is the technology of the future. Period.
Can I get a scented iPad for when my data feels not-so-fresh?
Edited again to add: The Week has an interesting comparison of historical femcare slogans and Apple slogans – more similar than one might expect.
[Video via Lunapads]
Guest Post by David Linton, Manhattan Marymount CollegeA short item in the February 2010 issue of Harper’s Magazine captures, yet again, how nervous some folks are about any mention of matters menstrual. The piece referred to the publication of a list of words and terms that were blacklisted from use in crossword puzzles and other word games by a British computer program called Crossword Compiler.
Among the partial list of problematic terms, along with others such as bollocksing, bonk, clitoridectomy, fanny, nooky, ruttish, sapphic, sexy and shtup, was the word “catamenial.” This rather arcane term is one of the more obscure references to the period, more likely to appear in medical or, surprisingly, broadcasting documents.
For the first 25 years of commercial TV’s existence in the US, the National Association of Broadcasters specifically banned the advertising of feminine sanitary products. It was not until 1972 that the ban was lifted and a year later, 1973, the first mention of the menstrual cycle appeared in a ground breaking episode of All in the Family.
Our Bodies, Ourselves is seeking up to two dozen women to participate in an online discussion on sexual relationships.
Stories and comments may be used anonymously in the next edition of Our Bodies, Ourselves, which will be published in 2011 by Simon & Schuster.
We are seeking the experience and wisdom of heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, queer and trans women. Perspectives from single women are encouraged, and you may define relationship as it applies to you, from monogamy to multiple partners. We are committed to including women of color, women with disabilities, and women of many ages and backgrounds.
In the words of the brilliant anthology “Yes Means Yes,” how can we consistently engage in more positive experiences? What issues deserve more attention? And how do we address social inequities and violence against women? These are some of the guiding questions that will help us to update the relationships section in “Our Bodies, Ourselves.”
The conversation will start Sunday, Feb. 14 (yes, Valentine’s Day) and stay open through Friday, March 12.
Participants will be invited to answer relevant questions (see sample below) and build on the responses of other participants. We’ll use a private Google site to post questions and responses.
Interior of Red Tent, Belly & Womb Conference, Baldwinville, MA, 2005
The act of reframing the menstrual cycle–as a source of deep awareness and even, power–is hardly news, and yet, it seems that way to most of us.
Liz Kissling sent me this link to a 2002 essay written by Gina Cloud. Here is a classic passionate call for a new (or very old, perhaps) way of responding to menstruation. While I bristle at the essentialism at the root of this reframing, I certainly appreciate any effort to reclaim the menstrural cycle and render it as more than a nasty nuisance that depends on consumerism to make it go away. Cloud renames the menstrual cycle, the “sacred cycle” and PMS as “powerful monthly insight.” For her, the week before a menstruator’s period is a time to “get clear” and unblock what she calls the “repression of expression” most women are socialized to practice every day.
Cloud numbers among a steady stream of women–health educators, midwives, at least one physician, and lay women dedicated to empowering women through resisting more conventional attitudes about menstruation. They have written books, led workshops and generally promoted the idea that menstruation can and should be seen as a not a curse, but a gift.
First, it was Tampax, and then it was Vagisil. But it’s good they didn’t leave out Summer’s Eve. And I expect Midol (for those irritating PMS-y women) and something about menopausal women’s hot flashes (can’t they control themselves with hormone therapies?) to be next. Although probably SNL writers aren’t savvy enough yet to even contemplate what menopause is or how they feel about it, so they’ll probably stick with skits that revolve around women’s body parts and younger women’s reproductive experiences.
I was frustrated with SNL’s skit about ESPN’s coverage of a women’s billiards tournament, “Tampax to the Max Tournament of Champions” (see my blog post about it). I was disgusted and concerned that SNL writers revised this skit for a second airing, to include a spoof about women’s yeast infections during a Women’s bowling tournament, “Vagisil Superstars of Bowling Tournament”. After seeing the second skit, I (along with many other critics) knew that the power of the skits was not in jokes about women’s menstruation alone but, rather, in jokes about the disgusting nature of women’s bodies more generally.
Jane Lynch just gave us another reason to join her fan club. Interviewed on the red carpet at last night’s Golden Globe event, in addition to being asked about her outfit and jewelry, Lynch was asked what was in her bag. She replied, “My invitation, a little bit of lipstick, and a tampon.” The (male) interviewer chuckled and responded, “Are you feeling lucky tonight?” Check out her reply in the video clip at the left.
(I am bit disappointed that she wasn’t planning to make the same announcement if/when she won the award . . . )
[via Kate Harding]
The feminist blogosphere has been buzzing lately over all the decorations available for ladyparts. We chimed in ourselves on the labia dye, My New Pink Button. Now, via Broadsheet, we learn of “vajazzling”, or bedazzling one’s vajayjay. Actor Jennifer Love Hewitt, star of The Ghost Whisperer, recently announced to George Lopez and his talk show audience that her “precious lady” now “shines like a disco ball” because it is covered with Swarovski crystals.
Note that I used the term “vajayjay” above only because that is the term used by Love Hewitt in advocating the practice of vajazzling. (She says all women should vajazzle their vajayjays, and has an entire chapter of her new book dedicated to the topic.) Perhaps I take things too literally, but I understood vajayjay = vagina, so when I read Mary Elizabeth Williams’ Broadsheet article, I had a lot of questions. Like, WHY? why put crystals in your vagina? No one but your gynecologist will see them! And doesn’t it hurt? Aren’t crystals sharp? And what, exactly, does one use to ATTACH Swarovski crystals?
Of course, Jennifer Love Hewitt isn’t putting crystals in her vagina. She’s decorating her vulva. But cutesy terms like precious lady and vajayjay obscure women’s anatomy even more than Swarovski crystals and pink colorants. Vajayjay entered the pop culture lexicon because network censors would not approve a Grey’s Anatomy script using the word vagina too many times:
Shonda Rhimes, the creator and executive producer of “Grey’s Anatomy,” who brought the word into full public view, never intended to promote a euphemism or slang term for the female anatomy. Rather, she fought to use vagina in the script.
“I had written an episode during the second season of ‘Grey’s’ in which we used the word vagina a great many times (perhaps 11),” Ms. Rhimes wrote in an e-mail message. “Now, we’d once used the word penis 17 times in a single episode and no one blinked. But with vagina, the good folks at broadcast standards and practices blinked over and over and over. I think no one is comfortable experiencing the female anatomy out loud — which is a shame considering our anatomy is half the population.”
When grown men start referring to their penises as “pee-pee” or “winky”, I’ll consider vajayjay an acceptable label for my vulva. As for vajazzling, I’m with Madeleine and the other Lunapad ladies:
At the end of the day, for all the language of self-love and empowerment used in the marketing copy for these products, I still can’t get around the underlying implication that our vulvas are not in fact just fine, thanks, without smelling or looking any different than they already do. To my way of thinking, even planting a seed of doubt of this kind in a woman’s (let alone a girl’s) mind about her bodily self-esteem is to perpetuate a dangerous climate of self-loathing against which most girls and women will struggle at some point during their lives.
RSS