The Bleeding Unobvious
And in radical menstruation news:
I suspect sharp-eyed readers can guess where this is going.
Readers may wish to ponder whether listing special sex-based requirements – taking time off work, every month, for days, and still expecting to be paid, for instance – is the ideal basis for asserting the obviousness of workplace gender equality.
I’m also unclear on how gender equality, a term used many times, is bolstered by the belief that menstruating women may in fact be men – and the implication that men can also become women and can therefore barge into previously female-only spaces.
The crucial signal, I’d suggest, is that the author, Meaghan Furlano, is willing to pretend that menstruating women are somehow not women and are in fact men. One might call that lying. And referring to women as “menstruators,” as if this were a breakthrough and a basis for applause, does not immediately evoke equality or respect.
A shocking twist. How very daring.
Who are all women. Hence the menstruation.
What those “hetero-sexist beliefs” might be remains, rather oddly, a thing of mystery. Few details are forthcoming. They are, however, “deeply concerning.” And I’m inclined to wonder whose responsibility it should be, if not the adult woman concerned, to manage menstruation.
Ms Furlano, a PhD Sociology student at Western University, and “a scholar of feminist media,” goes on to list the special things that must be done by all employers in order to accommodate “menstruating workers.” These menstruating workers who aren’t necessarily women, remember, and while stressing the importance of gender equality, including the equality of made-up genders, and while expressing dissatisfaction with efforts to comply:
I don’t know about taboo. Indeed, menstruation seems a loudly aired fixation of, for instance, scholars of feminist media. It’s practically a credential, a merit badge, all but obligatory. As for shameful and secretive, I can only suggest that most of us probably don’t care to know in any great detail about how you’re bleeding from your genitals.
All well and good, I suppose. But none of this seems obviously supportive of some unassailable claim of gender equality. It’s a list of costs and possible inconveniences.
No laughing at the back. The P-word was inevitable. Also, menstruators.
Ah, educational correction. Another cost.
And it seems to me a little odd to bemoan the idea that menstruation may, for some, have medical connotations while simultaneously expecting days off work, every month, due to being disabled by the very same phenomenon. Those “painful menstrual cycle-related symptoms or illnesses,” to which Ms Furlano refers. If periods leave a woman agonised and unable to work, for days, every month, this may signal some underlying issue – say, endometriosis or some auto-immune disorder. And a visit to the doctor may be in order.
Again, and let me stress this, most of us don’t want to know about the stains in your underwear. It’s not the kind of information that many of us crave. And at risk of being damned for my “hetero-sexist beliefs,” I suspect that many women are quite happy not to draw attention to their menstrual status. Also known as the expulsion of waste product. It being, for the most part, no other bugger’s business.
I can’t recall ever being offended by the visibility of a box of tampons, and these repeated claims of some egregious, crushing stigma seem to be teetering on a pinhead. The customary expectation of some minimal discretion – analogous to not announcing every bowel movement – does not strike me as a Big Ask, or a basis for victimhood.
Or for “a powerful feminist intervention,” “a radical transformation and physical restructuring of workplaces,” with continual monitoring and “interrogation,” as Ms Furlano demands.
Via Jonathan Kay.
[Watches it roll off the edge of the bar and bounce near the baseboards, where it’s snatched by a swift mouse, who squeezes into an impossibly small crevice.]
Ah well. I accept it in the spirit intended.
[ Rummages in bin liner for more peanuts. ]
Good for her! There’s nothing wrong with playing the system to your advantage when it’s been intentionally stacked against you.
Did you fail to read the linked article? The system was not “intentionally stacked against him”. He was unqualified based on traditional and appropriate standards. I certainly do not want unqualified and under-qualified firefighters.
I read it. They had 126 spaces and gave women a boost of a hundred people in the selection process. That’s a system that’s intentionally stacked against
himher and the other men.As the people in charge of the process clearly don’t care if they let in unqualified and under-qualified firefighters then why should he? As all integrity that was in the process has already been thrown out why not just play the system to get what he wants?
I may be late to the party, but most employers have sick leave/sick day/personal leave/vacation policies that cover issues that are the employee’s prerogative to use as the employee’s needs require. The employer having no interest to manage said leave, they simply allocate a number a days per year for the sum total of paid and unpaid absences from work. How it is used it is up to the employee. There is no need to micromanage employees use of the benefits side of their compensation package.
Because every unqualified firefighter endangers the citizens who depend on them.
Sure, but that’s the responsibility of the people who are making decisions designed to hire more unqualified women. If they’ve already decided to hire unqualified firefighters it makes no difference if those firefighters are women, or men taking advantage of lax gender rules.
If anything more men exploiting those rules will increase the overall standard of firefighters.
So men who know they’re unqualified should rush to apply, with zero qualms of conscience.
But they’re not unqualified; they’re just as qualified as the women who are being accepted.
If the only reason they’re not getting in while others are is because of a sexist rule then they should have zero qualms of conscious for exploiting the rules. It’s not immoral to break immoral rules.
@Adiabat: You’re still missing the point.
It’s ****REQUIRED**** I tells you!
The Conversation is “independent” in the sense that it’s two steps removed from the Australian Labor Party.
Which is why it’s like an even slower-witted version of the Grauniad.