Menstruation In America

There has always been a stigma surrounding the topic of women’s health, especially the reproductive kind, as the world has set standards for a how a woman’s body should be. The stigma begins where, unfortunately for the world, women’s bodies oftentimes do not comply with these standards. Because of the rifts between expectation and reality girls are shamed, oftentimes unconsciously or via systemic responses and interactions. It becomes an ingrained and understood conduct, teaching girls that their bodies exist for objective purposes, and it lays the foundation for developing insecurities. Bodily insecurities tend to run so deeply that even women in adulthood shy away from taking proper care of themselves. Because of how taboo discussing women’s

“In the United States, 15 states have laws that fail to protect women with disabilities from involuntary sterilization” (Against her will). Sterilization of disabled women in the United States should not be allowed. It denies disabled women the rights of having children. It is sexist to force women to get sterilized but men do not have to get sterilized. Women should have the right to have children, no matter if they have a disability or if something is wrong with her. The United States has used forced sterilization along with other countries in North and South America, along with places such as Asia and Africa.

In our culture, girls become women at the average age of 12. The right of passage is bloody underwear and feminine products that never seem to fit right. This means, as children, women are given a heavy responsibility: the ability to create a human life. While straddling childhood and adulthood, we are meant to learn how powerful that responsibility is and how to protect our bodies from experiencing it too early. Yet, in our culture, girls are sent so many different messages on how to accomplish this. The message sent loud and clear today is, “your body does not belong to you.” Through all the blood, tears, and sacrifice . . .my body belongs to my government and will be treated however middle-aged white men see fit.

“Sir James Clarke’s Female Pills” and other similar products were part of a class of patent medicines targeted at women and advertised as a cure to a universe of “painful and dangerous diseases incident to the female constitution” (Fig. 5The Daily Globe 1856). They offered hope for women in search of relief from monthly discomforts. In actuality, patent medicine manufacturers were capitalizing on the increased demand for abortifacients by advertising products that restored the regularity of the monthly period. To avoid prosecution, veiled language was used to advertise their nature, which compelled women to consider them for the purpose of removing what was described as “irregularities,” “suppressions,” and “obstructions” of the menses and to deal with all causes of the cessation of menstrual flow (Fig. 5; The Daily Globe 1856; The Star of the North 1855).

In this article the Author talks about how girls are often too embarrassed to even ask their moms for clean cloths and end up getting serious infections because of it. () She even mentions a case that led “to a 13-year-old having to undergo surgery to remove her uterus.” () In an interview author Chris Bobel talks about the need for menstrual activism and the negative way we (women and men) as a society are accustomed to talking about periods. She addresses the fact that girls are trained to hate their periods before they even have one, and men and women alike are conditioned to make jokes about raging PMS. In fact, sometimes it seems the only "OK" way to talk about periods is by making PMS jokes or going on and on about how horrible and painful periods

State governments have passed legislation to regulate this so called ‘gender gouging,’ but protecting the pocketbooks of women requires making many more changes. Legislatures should change current regulations and create new legislation to protect women from gender-based pricing, and consumers should buy from manufacturers and retailers that have similar prices for products marketed to men and products marketed to women and should purchase the lower priced men’s versions when possible. This problem affects millions of Americans every day. Subsequently, many have attempted to change this injustice for many years and have had mixed results. The average person can help persuade the government, manufacturers, and retailers to change their actions and their policy regarding the issue of sexist pricing in many ways.“Pink Tax” is a general term used to describe the overall difference in price of women versus men’s goods and services. Ordinarily, this phrase encompasses several separate types of pricing and legislation, though. As previously mentioned, retailers charge different prices on items that are substantially similar based on a definition found by the New York City Department of Consumer

In the article "If Men Could Menstruate," the author Gloria Steinem starts with a quick disclosure on how from centuries white people aim to make us believe white men are superior, when they are actually "subjected to ultraviolet rays and to wrinkles. " She then explores the topic of menstruation in our current society; and how it would be different "If Men Could Menstruate" rather than women. She essentially presents a mental image of a world in which men have a menstrual cycle; it would be celebrated and gloried, rather than seen as nasty. Men would brag about periods and product such as tampon and pads would be made free. She then addresses if men could menstruate, "menstruation would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event.

In today’s up-to-date culture, where everything is evolving, from fashion to technology. One thing has remained the same: Double Standards in the workplace. Although women have managed to make impressive advances in the workplace to match their male counterparts, the unfortunate and ineluctable reality is the double standards they regularly face in the workplace. Distinguished Shampoo Company Pantene aims to bring to light this appalling truth through its short one-minute commercial, “ Labels against Women”, which communicates the disparity between men and women in the workplace through these so-called “ labels”. The combination of irony, repetition, ethos and pathos incorporated into the commercial as well the appropriate backdrop allows Pantene to effectively address the double standards faced by women, while also cleverly publicising its products.

Yet again, there is no singular answer, but it may be rooted in traditional perspectives of women’s health. Until very recently, women’s bodies had been perceived as analogous to those of men, aside from reproduction, and therefore they did not merit study. It was not until 1993 that women were even included in medical trials. The uniqueness of individuals was completely overlooked, despite the impact of individual experiences have on every aspect of health (Goldstein, 2002). Meanwhile, women’s reproductive health has been viewed in western medicine as “difficult” and described as “natural abnormal.” (Wiley, 2009). It is clear that this stems from male domination in the biomedical field over the years - it is a sort of ethnocentrism of the sexes. Women’s health has been medicalized for years, from hysteria to premenstrual syndrome. Because these syndromes do not appear worldwide, it appears that they are cultural constructs developed to explain women’s bodies in a way that medical science can easily understand. Even the mundane of women’s health is treated medically: menstruation is regularly described in negative terms, focusing upon the associated problems; the experience of pregnancy has become increasingly medicalized, with extensive testing, hospitalization, and surgery; and menopause is treated as a disease of aging, with hot flashes being described as an “estrogen

The female body is highly misunderstood. Men as well as some women do not understand how the body fully works. This understanding however, allows for individuals to fully empathize for the functions that their body undergoes. When an individual is put in a position where they do not understand something fully, they usually result to judgment first. By looking at Aretxaga’s work we can see, when one scrutinizes menstruation, they are not only judging the process but they are also being passive towards the entire female sector. Not only do those who do not fully understand the idea of menstruation belittle females, but so does the government when they placed a tampon tax on sanitary necessities. It is upsetting to hear the attempt to validate

Like stated before, many times it’s a choice between food and feminine supplies, where each time food will take priority. On top of this, the excessive tax on tampons and pads make it even more difficult to be able to fit these products into the budget of an extremely poor individual. It is obvious that lowering or getting rid of this extra tax will not just benefit middle and upper class women, but “exempting things we need to buy at least provides some modest relief to the poor” (Brunori). This huge debate regarding the “tampon tax” finds many opposers who make bold statements claiming it will make the government lose all its money. This is a true statement to an extent, but we are not aiming to completely abolish this tax on menstrual products. Instead it would be more intelligent to simply lower the tax to make them more affordable (Anderson). Then we can easily make up for the lost money by applying sales taxes to items that aren’t already taxed or not essentially necessary to survive, such as the popular drug of Viagra (Brunori). By placing a sales tax on more items regardless of the item, it will decrease the price of products for all while ensuring the government maintains its needed income from the sales tax. In addition, it will lower rates across the board for other items, no “favoring” of products would be embraced, and the distortion of preferences and production by companies will be eliminated

I would hope that you would support HB 63 – Tax Exemption for Feminine Hygiene Products. The bill has been passed through the Appropriations Committee and Way and Means Committee recently and is now ready for the first reading of the bill. HB 63 is important because women such as myself should not have to pay taxes on feminine products. Being taxed on something that we were biologically born with such as menstrual cycles, is absurd and the state of Florida should bring an end to is at once. Removing a sales tax from feminine products will help lower-income women who cannot afford to pay eight to eleven dollars every month. Feminine products are already expensive and adding on the sales tax is just outrageous.

I, Rhen Sandner, am paying a tax on my body. And so are you and you. 10 million women in Australia are also paying tax on their bodies. Currently in Australia the 10% goods and services tax is applied to women’s sanitary products, being classified as a luxury item. Yes, that’s correct, according to our society - tampons, pads and moon cups are a luxury item. By definition, a luxury item is purchases that are not necessary for living, but are deemed to be desired within society. This needs to change. Essentially, classifying sanitary items as a luxury purchase is enforcing the idea that women chose to have a uterus, women chose to menstruate and society denying the obvious fact that menstruation is a fundamental part of human nature. Yet women

Throughout history and even today, women have been affected by standards held up by society. Women stayed silent about how men and even the media over sexualized their bodies. The perspectives women had for themselves was consumed by outside views. These standards for women were based on beauty, their ability to be a good wife, and childcare. Before the 20th Century, women were not seen as individuals that were able to make their own decisions because they were seen as too fragile for many tasks. Women had the right of education and many women obtained their bachelors degree, but were only offered smaller

Tampons are simply too expensive for them to afford so that’s why many people are working to help these women who can’t afford to pay for them by holding drives and fundraisers. Margo Seibert and Caroline Angell started an organization in New York that holds “regular drives to collect hygiene products and package them for delivery to shelters and other places that have limited access” (Shen 1). Though this organization exists, it can not reach every homeless woman. This is why women are also working to cut the tampon tax entirely.