From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: education
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:19:42 GMT

lafollet@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Lafollette) writes:


>I had some interesting thoughts the other day, and wanted to share
>them and solicit comment.  It all began with an ad on the radio
>for a contest.  Open to children, those wishing to participate were
>to pick up an entry form from a local drug store and fill it out.

>I personally would not look forward to either of these 
>"prizes", but it was clear that the boys were going to be
>given a chance to be part of the action, and the girls part
>of the scenery. 

Walk down the aisle of your local toy store.  Take a look at a box containing
a chemistry or science set.  You'll see the boy doing the experiment while a
girl looks on.  All the "boy" toys are action toys.  When girls are pictured
on the boxes, they are usually in passive roles.

[Author notes that Kimberly-Clark, maker of tampons, sponsored this
contest.]

>Well, I decided I would do a little informal research into how
>the makers of Kotex and other similar products communicate with
>their customers.  I found as many recent ads for menstrual products
>as I could, and also got ahold of some materials published by
>Kotex, Modess, and Tampax desigend to prepare girls for menstruation.

Examine the ads in women's magazines too!

>While the contents of this material is, I am sure, nothing new for
>the women reading this newsgroup, I, who have never paid much
>attention to either of these kinds of literature, was fascinated
>and disturbed.

I wonder if it has changed since I got these cute (not!) little pamphlets
in grade school, pamphlets filled with misinformation about a woman's
"cycle."  

>The educational materials provided lots of facts, 

When I was in sixth grade, these little pamphlets informed me that most
women don't have cramps -- something I don't believe.  Why do you think that
Advil and other makers of ibuprofen make so much money?  Every woman I know
has cramps.

The prevailing "wisdom" of the time (mid-seventies) was that a woman doesn't
cramp physically but that it is psychologically rooted.  This is what I was
told.

>but what seemed
>to me to be distressingly little discussion of feelings.  Also,
>some disturbing implicit messages were prevalent.  Much was made
>about how this was a natural and normal process, and about how
>it marked the transition from girl to woman.

When I first got my period I was about ten years old.  I managed to get it
before I had to take "sex education" and so I knew what they were telling me
was untrue.  But I always wondered why they made such a big deal about it
being "natural and normal."  Getting my period was not a trauma for me.  But
over time, I grew to dislike it because the messages I got were that it was
a negative thing.

>At the same time,
>there were often comments which made it clear that it was important
>that no one should know that a woman was menstruating.  Nothing
>was said about shame, but the implication was plain that this is
>something to hide.  Now, it seems to me that the message here is
>that menstruation is natural, is the defining event of womanhood,
>and is embarassing if not shameful.  It does not take much imagination 
>to conclude that there is something embarassing or shameful
>about being a woman.

You have definitely hit upon something here.  Only within the last year
have I realized that menstruation is not dirty, in a psychological sense.
I refuse to call it "the curse" as I was first told when I was a young
child.

>In addition, the issues of peri-menstrual discomforts were dealt with
>in a sort of Pollyanna-ish way.  The message seemed to be that
>you might not feel great all the time, but menstruation is normal,
>it shouldn't hurt too much, if it does - it is probably your fault
>(exercise is mentioned almost ad nauseum as THE solution to
>dysmenorrhoea) and it is up to you to go about your business
>as normal and "smile sister smile." 

What always bothered me about those pamphlets is that when I was young, 
they would tell me that I shouldn't take a nice warm bath.  When I was 
young, before Advil and before I was able to get the pill, the only
relief I did have was with a warm bath.  I would laugh when they would
tell me to exercise during my period.  I couldn't move!

>Even the medical profession
>seems to have come to the understanding that dysmenorrhoea, for instance,
>is a physical and sometimes incapacitating problem.

Thank goodness!  At age fifteen I finally was able to see a gynecologist
who told me that the pain was real and who prescribed medicine to counter
the cause of the problem.

>To send the
>message that "you can cope if you just put your mind to it" seems
>evil.  Now, to be fair, the literature that I have is several years
>old, and perhaps things are better today.  Can anyone enlighten me
>on that point?  Also, of course, I can only react to this as a man,
>and I would appreciate hearing what kind of reactions the women
>in this group have had to the same sorts of material.  Maybe I
>am way off base in my interpretation.

No, I think you're on base.  Of course, where I went to school, the girls
went in one room, the boys went in another and we never got to see each
other's pamphlets.

>What makes me suspect, however, that newer material may not be
>much different is the content of the ads I have recently read.
>Almost all of them concentrate on how their product can assure
>one that no one will ever know one is having a period.  I am
>sure this is a good marketing strategy, but it seems also to
>perpetuate the idea that there is something wrong with menstruation,
>something shameful, and thus (since menstruation marks the transition
>from girl to woman, thus defining womanhood) there is something 
>wrong with being a woman.

There have been similar theories related to anorexia nervosa: that some
women are seeking to prevent their bodies from maturing by starving 
themslves.  Anorexia nervosa does lead to amenohrrea (cessation of the
period) as well as giving one the body of a child-woman (small under-
developed breasts, no curves, etc.)

Consider shaving as well: adult women are naturally hairy on the legs
and under the arms, just as a man is.  Is removal of this hair a way to
infantilize the woman?  Some would argue that it is.  Consider the ads
which compare a smooth woman's legs to a baby's bottom.

>Incidentally (flame protection) in the last sentance above, *I* am not
>saying that "menstruation marks the transition from girl to woman." I
>am saying that this is what the educational materials seem to teach.

I wouldn't say it marks -the- transition, but it is an important milestone
as far as I'm concerned and I think that it is great that there are some
cultures which have great celebrations for women when they have their first
period. 

>Incidentally, to end on a more positive note, while I was poking
>about in the library I did find one or two instructional books which
>I felt (in my ignorance perhaps) were well written, sensitive, and
>accurate.  The one that stands out in my mind was called "period."
>I would not under any circumstances, however, suggest that my
>opion on such matters means anything.

Well, of course your opinion means something.  If you had a daughter, I would
hope that you would keep this in mind as a parent.  

BTW, "Changing Bodies, Changing Lives" is a good book too.

Sharon

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion