My forthcoming book ‘Sweetening the Pill or How We Got Hooked on Hormonal Birth Control’ began to take shape on the pages of this blog and much of the process of its development was spurred on by the work of members of SMCR. As such, it seems only fitting, with the release date of September 7th soon here, to share for my post this month an excerpt and to say thank you for the support of this community. I hope to have added something of interest and value to this on-going conversation.
Women often discuss menstruation and birth as happening to them, rather than as part of them and their experience. Emily Martin remarks in ‘The Woman in the Body’ that women often see their self as separate to their body. Women’s central image is that “your body is something your self has to adjust to or cope with” and therefore, Martin concludes,“your body needs to be controlled by your self.”
Martin explores the idea that women did not fit into the structure of the jobs that were open to them in industrialized society. These jobs most often required monotony, routine and repetition. Although in reality no more suited to men than they were women, it was women that were judged as innately unable to succeed in such positions due on the constantly changing and supposedly unpredictable nature of their physical state.
As Martin states, “Women were perceived as malfunctioning and their hormones out of balance,” especially when experiencing PMS and menstruation, “rather than the organization of society and work perceived as in need of transformation to demand less constant discipline and productivity.”
The rigidity of society was forcefully imposed on women as it was on men. For all, both men and women, it is inhumane but it was women that were required to adapt in a more dramatic and overt way. Men are viewed as naturally given to the industrious and disciplined way of life demanded of them and the structure of society is built on these assumed capabilities.
If we admit that women do change through the month, that we do menstruate, experience PMS, have differing moods week to week, we fear that this admission will be used as justification for negative judgment.
Martin counters the feminist refrain of “biology is not destiny”; “I think the way out of this bind is to focus on women’s experiential statements – that they function differently during certain days. We could then perhaps hear these statements not as warnings of the flaws inside women that need to be fixed, but as insights into flaws in society that need to be addressed.”
The idea that men are otherwise unchanging is falsified. Men also experience hormonal changes with studies suggesting they experience a cycle daily that is equivalent to the monthly cycle of women as well as changes in hormone levels across their lifetimes.
Women’s “experiential statements” as Martin describes them are often silenced in the discourse surrounding hormonal contraceptives. It is a betrayal of the feminist cause to speak out with openness about the side effects of the pill.
When Yaz and Yasmin were released the marketing strategy co-opted the idea of word of mouth. In a commercial women were seen passing along the “secret” of these new drugs with their host of beneficial yet superficial side effects. Receiving messages of increased physical attractiveness as the result of a drug that many women were using anyway, only a different brand, increased the transference of this experience from one woman to the next.
In the face of such powerful manipulation, what place does a skillfully worded informational insert have in women’s decision making process? The time of the Nelson Pill Hearings was a very different to today.
Naomi Wolf mentions the pill briefly in ‘The Beauty Myth.’ She remarks that it was originally marketed as a drug to keep women “young, beautiful and sexy,” concepts parallel to those promoted by Bayer through its contemporary advertising. Wolf quotes, in the context of the beauty industry, John Galbraith, “Behavior that is essential for economic reasons is transformed into social virtue.”