So there are these people selling milk to save men from women suffering from PMS. (http://feministing.com/2011/07/13/five-ways-to-get-calcium-without-supporting-sexist-milk-ads/). Poor, helpless laddies. My heart goes out to them... NOT!
What. The. Frak?
I have a confession...
The main symptom of my PMS is that I feel really, really good. I am a morose lump of couch potato most days, but right before my period, I kick the ass out of life. Kapow! I do banking! Peow peow! I eat vegetables! VRRRRRRRRRRRM! I CLEAN ALL ZEE THINGS!!!!11
I understand that PMS is horrible for some women. But I know that I am not alone. My informal, anecdotal survey of half a dozen women suggest that PMS can definitely have positive side effects for some. This phenomenon is certainly more common than is portrayed in the media (which is zilch). Which begs the question: why is it not? Am I the crazy one with crazy friends?
The Got Milk? campaign posits that calcium alleviates the symptoms of PMS. It says that we should drink milk. Not because it alleviates the sometimes debilitating symptoms of PMS for women, but because it is annoying for men when women are in pain. And not only is PMS annoying for men, women also become irrational. (One advertisement reads: "I'm sorry I listened to what you said not what you meant.")
I propose that there are two intertwining issues at work here.
One, women do not have control over their own bodies.
I read somewhere (this is good research, yes?) that women were not even allowed to interact with men when they were menstruating some place, some time (please, if you do know what the heck I am talking about, let me know so I can reference this properly)(hint hint nudge nudge, Tove). This is how men dealt with it then. But even in modern societies, with dual income households and more nuanced pomo sexism, it is still useful to have ideologies that give men control over women's bodies.
The picture that Got Milk? campaign draws is one in which men are both the ultimate sufferers and saviours of and from PMS. Women are emotional and irrational, and men are here to save the day. With milk. Which is ever so ironic.
I know that the Got Milk? campaign is not some evil masterplan for men to control women's bodies, but I also know that little bit by little bit, the media is saturated with such messages. And the conspiracy theorist in me truly believes that the subtlety and the sheer volume of these messages is what makes them so dangerous. I believe that these subliminal forces make both men and women doubt women to make the right choices for their own bodies, and, by extension, for others. It takes only sliver of doubt to baby her when she has PMS, to pass her for promotion, to not believe her when she is raped, to not give her custody of her child, to not vote for her in government...
Two, women's bodies are inherently wrong.
PMS is a serious and recognised medical condition. But not for everyone. And, as I described above, clearly not for me, and probably not for vast majority of women. Otherwise, it would not be classified as a disease. We do not say that out legs are diseased when they are reasonably sore after exercise, for example. It is only a part of a natural processes of muscle growth. By claiming that all women suffer from PMS, the media is not making a PSA for the sake of women. On the contrary, it is demeaning to women who actually suffer from PMS, which is (I repeat) a real, serious and recognised medical condition.
There is a tendency to distrust women's bodies, even if they are not diseased. Several years ago, there was a furor over the tragic deaths of Chinese babies who were poisoned by a faulty batch of Nestle baby formula. Their parents (apologies, I almost wrote "mothers" there) were lead to believe that baby formula was cleaner, more scientific, and simply better than breastmilk, and their babies died.
History has shown that we cannot take whatever crap media say about women's bodies for granted. I know my own body, if no one else's, and I refuse to blindly trust in something simply because it started with, "Studies have shown...." Did this study include a good representation of women, including women who did not suffer negatively from PMS? Was it a blind or double blind trial, or mere statistical correlation? Were the symptoms tested objectively or were they self-reported? Were there sufficient participants for statistical significance, and were the results repeated? Is there a good scientific explanation to directly connect calcium intake with hormones or other processes that affect PMS?
Feminism have come a long way, and my foremothers have armed me with science, and you betcha I am going to use it. KAPOW! KK out.
No comments:
Post a Comment