"If Men Could Menstruate" by Gloria Steinem took a radical approach in this article that centered how society is apparently catered to men. Steinem obviously feels strongly that even in today's age, men still have the upper hand in society. She brings up several examples by comparing what the world would be like if men menstruated. Some of these examples are plausible, while others are over the top.
Early on in the article after the introductory paragraphs, Steinem writes about men menstruating, "Men would brag about how long and how much." No doubt presides that some men would, just as some women may brag about special features in their lives, but to throw every man in this category would be prejudiced. Steinem may have been better off incorporating the word "some" before "Men" to dodge an obvious prejudice idea. After Steinem throws this idea out there, she proceeds to let her mind run free with possibilities that might occur. This is reasonable to let the imagination go to work, but Steinem includes a whole page of these self-thought-of scenarios. There comes a point where the reader has to question the rationale for this abundance of information. It essentially transforms from an informational utopia to an attack on men, and how the world is not just for women. Steinem does not come out and directly say, "The world is unfair for women", but she uses her examples to steadily attempt to prove that the world is unfair for women because of men. A fine example of this idea arises when Steinem writes, "Medical schools would limit women's entry ("they might faint at the sight of blood")." This is simply a preconceived idea that Steinem holds in her mind assuming the worst in men, and failing to recognize that a truly genuine man may hold a higher up job at the Medical school. Unfortunately, according to Steinem, this man would be a pain even if he was the most sincere man ever, because she states later on, "For instance, here's an idea for theorists and logicians: if women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long?" Let's leave further improvisation up
to the reader, but Steinem wrote this, so it can be assumed she means it.
Steinem's article encompasses much that may appeal to women, and not to men, but who's to decide right and wrong? No one person deserves this power for it is His power.
I agree, Chad, how this may seem like a biased article to you. But the sad truth is, Susan Steinem was only making real life observations. You had seemed very frustrated by the idea of male doctors not letting women join the medical field because they wouldn't be accustomed to the sight of blood. In truth, that has happened in the past. Women weren't allowed to become doctors because men believed they would be too faint. In addition, women were just supposed to be housewives. Men for the past centuries have always found ways to put women beneath them. As you said, Steinem assumes "the worst in men", but in truth only stated observations. It's true that there were better men in the past but there were also very worse ones too. In the end, I would say she was being reasonable.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Steinem did write this article in the 80s, so things have most likely changed.
It was interesting reading a guy's perspective on this essay! It was definitely different than what a girl, or at least myself, would say. I think with this essay it is important to remember that it is just someone's imagination running wild on a piece of paper! Yes, many of Steinem's claims were far fetched but it is just one lady letting her feelings out on paper. But like Naomi said, she has a right to do so as women have been oppressed in the past.
ReplyDeleteHey Chad, you articulate yourself very well. I was very curious on how the male would interpret Steinem's article. I can agree that it was difficult to take seriously, but you have to admit that Steinem made some pithy, humorous proclamations. I appreciate you drawing attention to the fact that not all men would behave or react the same way, and to conclude so would be prejudice. However, I'm sure that you can agree that in today's society, there are still double standards, and that men and women are not considered equal. We have come a long way in promoting equal rights, but still have a ways to go. See you soon!
ReplyDeleteHey Chad, I had read multiple blogs about this article and all of which were written by girls. So I was interested in what a guy's point of view was like. Even though I totally agreed with everything Steinem said I did find myself wondering how the guys would feel reading this. I agree that the author shouldn't have put all men into one category. I'm glad that you stood up for yourself and wrote about it. See you in school!
ReplyDeleteChad, I have do admit that you did take away different points than I did from this article and you made some very interesting points. Your belief of the fact that Steinem was generalizing men is actually quite interesting and I did not catch that before. It is, looking back on it, pretty harsh on men in some respect as we all know that no one really has the same views thus such a varietous amount of standards around the world. Overall, good job on thinking differently and bringing up new ideas, well done.
ReplyDeleteHey Chad, this was a very well-written response. Not a point was unjustified. I do agree with what you say when there are instances where sometimes it plays out that a man has garnered more qualifications than his woman counterpart, such as applying for a job. However, I think that Steinem wanted to put a stop to pure discrimination. If an employer immediately discarded all the resumes of women applicants because of their sex, that is discrimination. I think she supported a fair system like the one you proposed, but all the pent up emotion found its way into the essay too. Nice work on this one
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean by Steinem's use of heavy satire becoming less factual and more fantasy, but I think that is what Steinem aimed for. She wanted to take these hypothetical situations and propose how far men would go with them. Can anybody say she is right or wrong in these hypotheses? Perhaps not. But, as Naomi said, she was basing many of her ideas of facts on arguments men have made in the past to prove their hierarchy. Some of these examples may seem illogical, but I believe she did this to prove her point that "oppression has nothing to do with logic." The oppressor will take whatever they're given and use it to their advantage-- this is why her hypothetical situations seem so far-fetched.
ReplyDeleteTo address your concern over Steinem's choice in using "men" rather than "some men" in her essay-- she is again proving a point. In our history, there was no time where men said, "Only SOME women shouldn't vote, because some women are intelligent," or "Only SOME women shouldn't be allowed jobs, because some women are strong." Women have been generalized and oppressed in real life for centuries upon centuries. Yes, men we're generalized in this essay, but this was done to show the irony in the juxtaposition of how men are treated versus women in today's societies around the world.
One thing I came across in your response that confused me was when you said that Steinem "uses her examples to steadily attempt to prove that the world is unfair for women because of men." If men are not liable for the maltreatment of women, then who is? By saying this, you imply that women are at fault for sitting at a lower social ranking than men, which didn't make sense to me. (Please correct me if I misunderstood.)