In all civilizations and still in our day women inspires man with horror: it is the horror of his own carnal contingence, which he projects upon her. The little girl, not yet in puberty, carries no menace, she is under no taboo and has no sacred character… but on the day she can reproduce, woman becomes impure… since patriarchal times only evil powers have been attributed to the feminine flow… Woman is part of that fearsome machinery that turns the planets and the sun in their courses… and of which men must undergo the disturbing radiations… menstrual blood is… halfway between matter and life… and this is less because it is blood than because it issues from the genital organs… through menstrual blood is expressed the horror inspired in man by woman’s fecundity” — Simone de Beauvoir (1949) The Second Sex, pp. 180 - 182.
Over the last year, the topic of menstruation has exploded on social
media as performance artists, sports personalities, and the like, have publicly
grappled with their daily lived experiences of, what our mothers called, ‘the
crimson tide’ (or more endearingly ‘my granny in a little red car’). You may
recall the outcry caused when marathon runner Kiran Ghandi deliberately decided
to participate in the London Marathon while menstruating without wearing a
tampon, thus allowing the public to see her menstrual flow! Or when Rupi Kaur
entered into a head-on battle with social-media giant Instagram for removing
thought-provoking images depicting her soiled bed-sheets and
clothing—Instagram’s reason for doing so was that these images did not follow
their ‘community guidelines’ and somehow made Instagram unsafe for its members! And of course, who could forget the vaginal
knitting of Casey Jenkins—a performance artist from down-under. The
overwhelming responses to these women suggest that while Beauvoir appears
shocked (above) that “still in [her] day women inspires man with horror”, there
has been little attitudinal shift in contemporary society when it comes to the
sight of menstrual blood (come on, we still use blue liquid in adverts for
sanitary products)—and in particular, a public display of it.
But why hasn’t this
changed given successes in other areas of the women’s liberation movement? Why
is it that menstruation is still such a taboo topic? Beauvoir’s suggestions in
1949 are echoed in research findings at a global level indicating that, while
stigmatised responses may differ according to context, there appears to be an
abiding, universal culture of silence and taboo surrounding menstruation. In
the South African context, in particular, this is evidenced by the fact that it
is seen as inappropriate for mothers to discuss menstruation with their
daughters, that menstruation is to be concealed from men and boys (including
one’s father and brothers), and that young boys are either not taught about
menstruation at all or are taught not to discuss menstruation with girls. It is
precisely this culture of silence that is broken and challenged by the actions
of Kaur, Gandhi, and Jenkins, and it is perhaps unsurprising that the public
largely responds with fear when what has previously been confined to the
‘private’ realm (where so many of women’s experiences are confined) is brought
to public light and is used to begin a conversation across and between the
genders. It is also not surprising that those who are trying to maintain these
networks of taboos have condemned these actions, while those who are trying to
break them down have celebrated them.
Whether or not we
should condemn or celebrate the actions of these women, they nevertheless have
managed to spark interest in what remains a very real, pressing social issue
for women today. In our research, for example, we have found that one of the
most pressing needs of young women (and men) in contemporary South African
society is for reliable, non-stigmatised information about menstruation. A
second, and equally important need, is to open up spaces for dialogue which
foster understanding of, and empathy for, the challenges faced by menstruating
girls and women in our societies. While actions and artworks like these have
the potential to open up these spaces, the shock value entailed by these
particular examples can cause reactionary responses, which can lead to the further
stigmatisation, shame and humiliation of vulnerable members of society, and,
ultimately, could close down networks of communication which need to be built.
In all our attempts to open up these spaces, then, we must be cautious not to
finally reinforce and perpetuate the very problems we seek to undermine.
Posted by: Lindsay Kelland and Sharli Paphitis
Rhodes University, South Africa
No comments:
Post a Comment