Bloodless coup
Now, I’m a good girl. I’m no menstrual activist. You won’t
catch me at a rally swinging nunchucks made of tampons or at a roundtable
discussion of store-bought panty liners vs. reusable organic cotton pads. I’m
not one to make waves.
But the new extended-cycle oral contraceptive pill that
suppresses the period indefinitely has me thinking. Using low doses of hormones
like the Pill and Seasonale — the new-ish pill that limits periods to four a
year — this new pill, called Anya, raises concerns.
As with marketing efforts for Seasonale, ads for Anya will
probably promise all kinds of freedom. Though Anya sounds a little like “hello”
in Korean, it’s more like goodbye. Goodbye to tampons and pads. Goodbye to
cramps and bloating. But is it goodbye to other things, too?
The young women being targeted by marketing campaigns for
these pills already live in a society where the acceptable amount of body hair
for women is zero. So they wax the bejesus out of themselves. Now, thanks to a
skewed big pharma ad campaign repeating the fallacy that 68 percent of women
don’t like getting their period, girls learn that menstruation must be
discarded. Sure, some women have so much pain and blood loss that this option
will be a blessing. But in fact, only one-third of the survey respondents were
unhappy with their periods, according to the National Women’s Health Network.
Perhaps some of my
concerns are due to sour grapes. When I first got my period, despite my low-key
approach — “Ma, don’t tell Dad. Just give me a tampon” — I was the subject
of an impromptu initiation rite. Shrieking with joy, she trumpeted the news to
my father and little brother and led them on a fertility dance through the house.
No girl should be deprived of this kind of family
celebration, which ideally continues as the whole family stands outside the
bathroom door offering unsolicited advice on how to insert the damn thing and
your brother hisses “looozah” through the keyhole. This marks a critical phase
in a girl’s life, kicking off the era of realizing how stupid parents are.
The era typically ends years later when you’re at college
making sculptures out of panty liners painted red as a feminist statement and
you realize, suddenly, that your parents weren’t so bad after all. Later, when
you find a life partner, you’ll start plotting how to embarrass any future
daughters you may have. It’s a cycle, get it? Just like the menstrual cycle.
Judging from recent press reports, everyone’s pretty psyched
about a period-free future. Glowing articles trumpet the end of the “curse” and
quote ecstatic gynecologists who use loaded terms like choice and power, slyly
invoking feminism. Of course, few actually analyze the underlying assumption
that all periods are bad.
In the blogosphere, however, it’s a different story. Many
women say it’s cool to have choices but they’ll keep their period, thank you
very much. It gives some a feeling of healthiness and reassures others that
they’re not pregnant. They report having bouts of creativity and feelings of
supersexiness during their periods.
Watch out, because big
pharma isn’t the only one with its grubby hand down our pants. Some
conservative Christians are, too, especially the ones who want to do away with
contraceptives. That’s right: not just abortions but condoms, diaphragms, IUDs,
pills, you name it. Contraceptives, the argument goes, encourage extramarital
sex and homosexuality.
There even seems to be prudishness about sex within a
marriage. Like the Catholics of my childhood, the Christian Right may be
turning the clock back to a time sex was acceptable only as a grim, babymaking
venture. Not that anyone is ready to admit it. But the signs are there: when
pressed about whether President Bush supports contraceptives recently,
spokesman Scott McClellan refused to answer.
For now, sex-obsessed meddlers and other conservative
activists are working to undermine the public trust in contraceptives, like
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn’s specious claims that condoms don’t stop some
STDs.
So what’s a good girl to do? Well, just that: be a girl, not
a woman. Both the Anya approach and the Christian Right approach promote
childlike qualities in women.
There’s the meddle-with-nature, period-suppression approach
that leads to an adulthood lived in the hairless, menstruation-free state of
childhood. And there’s the no-contraceptives, get-and-stay-knocked-up Christian
tack which requires women to lose control of their bodies and submit to
male-dominated theology.
What’s a good girl to do? If I eschew contraceptives, that
means when I’m not pregnant or nursing (which suppresses menstruation) I’ll get
my period. But that’s all wrong, and I can prove it. While the pope was in
Poland recently, the advertising chief for the state-run TV network pulled all
“frivolous” ads from the airwaves, including ads for alcohol and, wait for it:
tampons.
I get it. The church says my period is bad. That means I
need to be pregnant or nursing all the time. Right? But I can’t nurse in
public, where I’ll be the target of dumbfuck mall managers and leering creeps.
And that’s another confusing message for girls: massive knockers are associated
with beauty, but nursing itself — which causes massive knockers, if
temporarily — is taboo.
Does the pope secretly want me to suppress my period so I
won’t seem so, well, icky to him? Does pubic hair gross him out, too? If I
can’t get pregnant, then I won’t be able to nurse. I can’t imagine he’d want me
to get breast implants, but then, who knew the pope ever gave a thought to
tampon ads? This is confusing. It’s so hard to be a good girl.
This article appears in Jun 7-13, 2006.
