Pms?

[Sex and Death]

What you said wasn't radical. Not even outside of the mainstream. There's a book called Our Bodies, Ourselves written 40 years ago. Said pretty much the same thing--without the modern elements of vaginal sponges and such. So, what you said wasn't shocking or going against any entrenched p.o.v. that menstruation is dirty.

The dirty perspective, when mothers would greet their daughter's announcement that they'd gotten their first period by slapping their faces, is not dead, but it's in the minority, certainly for those who come to Lit. The pov of your lecture, that it's natural, etc., is actually the majority. The only question is whether to view the bleeding as "sacred" or as biological. Whether to put life on hold during it and meditate or not. And that...that's a bias on your end as you said.

None of which is the problem. The problem is righteousness...and it still is. Let's go back to what I originally said, as it's IMPORTANT.

Tone and additude. And no matter how right you feel you are, it matters. Because, I assume, you WANT to communicate. What you're saying might align the planets, end world hunger, and bring peace on earth--but what does it do you or anyone else any good if you say it in such a way that no one wants to listen? Or, more to the point, if the people who should listen, won't? If they feel attacked rather than informed?

Think of the Superman origin story. Superman's dad tries to tell everyone that the planet is going to explode. No one listens to him. It explodes. Now just before dad dies he can say, "Nah, nah, I told you so!" But...he kinda failed in what was really important, didn't he?

This isn't about being right, it's about communicating. And right now, communications is breaking down. That's not good. So the question isn't who's problem it is, or who's right or wrong, or if you're a brave martyr and someday everyone will realize it and curse the doubting Thomases who refused to listent to you. The question is, how can you and everyone else change their tone so that WE can all get across what might be some very good and important points on this subject?

My take is that Kittyn's main point, the very heart of her message (omigod...a message...and delivered with conviction yet...save us all!) is that menstruation is inherently sacred and our culture holds it as profane.

Not that it matters, because I don't think her focus was to be radical at all, but that does seem to me to make her position radical in the context of our culture. Radical, but not necessarily new.

Her essay at least suggests that menstruation has been sacred throughout human heritage and that our culture has, at best, forgotten that sacred heritage. I also think it is no secret that Kittyn's essay takes the position that such a repression of the sacredness of menstruation is damaging to our culture and that to redeem menstruation as sacred would be at least enriching to our culture, if not healing.

 

[cloudy]

My take is that Kittyn's main point, the very heart of her message (omigod...a message...and delivered with conviction yet...save us all!) is that menstruation is inherently sacred and our culture holds it as profane.

Yet more condescension.

We've kept trying to tell you that the objection is not to the message itself, but the way it is presented, and you just keep ignoring it.

Oh, wait. We're "sad" and "need to be lectured."

Never mind.

 

[Sex and Death]

Tone and additude. And no matter how right you feel you are, it matters. Because, I assume, you WANT to communicate. What you're saying might align the planets, end world hunger, and bring peace on earth--but what does it do you or anyone else any good if you say it in such a way that no one wants to listen? Or, more to the point, if the people who should listen, won't? If they feel attacked rather than informed?

Think of the Superman origin story. Superman's dad tries to tell everyone that the planet is going to explode. No one listens to him. It explodes. Now just before dad dies he can say, "Nah, nah, I told you so!" But...he kinda failed in what was really important, didn't he?

This isn't about being right, it's about communicating. And right now, communications is breaking down. That's not good. So the question isn't who's problem it is, or who's right or wrong, or if you're a brave martyr and someday everyone will realize it and curse the doubting Thomases who refused to listent to you. The question is, how can you and everyone else change their tone so that WE can all get across what might be some very good and important points on this subject?

What you are describing is called "advertising," and its aim is very different than the aim of Kittyn's essay, in my view.

Who failed, I wonder, Superman's dad or those who didn't heed his message? How noble that Superman's dad was willing to risk being received as a crackpot to serve his fellows, with whom he chose to die.

Methinks this woman has exposed her vulnerable heart in her essay and has been betrayed by her sisters who she wants deeply to serve. Bet that hurts. But, I couldn't possibly be on track with that, being a man and all.

 

[Norajane]

Yet more condescension.

We've kept trying to tell you that the objection is not to the message itself, but the way it is presented, and you just keep ignoring it.

Oh, wait. We're "sad" and "need to be lectured."

Never mind.

I'll add to this, and say I also object to the assumption that "menstruation is inherently sacred and our culture holds it as profane."

Just because our Menstural Hut is online, doesn't mean it's meaningless or less sacred or without raspberry tea, and it doesn't mean we do not reflect on our connection to life, birth, death. On the contrary - we have such a wide range of women to connect with and learn from and discuss both the sacred and profane.

Instead of pontificating about how women need to be saved from themselves and their appalling lack of self-awareness, we're saving each other every day, one cycle at a time, and we're not putting each other down in the process.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Just because our Menstural Hut is online, doesn't mean it's meaningless or less sacred or without raspberry tea, and it doesn't mean we do not reflect on our connection to life, birth, death. On the contrary - we have such a wide range of women to connect with and learn from and discuss both the sacred and profane.

no one said it was meaningless or less sacred... ??
I posted there when it began, and was excited to see it... awed... it's a profound thing, any time women come together in that way... in any way... in a circle, cyber or "real"...

I guess I'm not allowed to be sad that women don't often get that in this culture...

I don't know how words are getting put into my mouth...when did I ever say women needed to be lectured?? (Cloudy?) When did I ever say that if you don't wear cloth pads, you're "unenlightened?" (Shang?)

and S&D is right, I'm very hurt by every woman here who has said that my message was hurtful to them in some way... I still don't get it...

everyone keeps talking about the "tone" of what I wrote... but it was ever so much more gentle than you all have been with me tonight...

g'night sisters...

 

[3113]

Her essay at least suggests that menstruation has been sacred throughout human heritage and that our culture has, at best, forgotten that sacred heritage.

No. Our culture does do not hold menstruation as sacred. But there's a fallacy in the thesis to suggest that it has been sacred throughout human heritage. We know it was held sacred in SOME primative tribes. We don't know that every human tribe held it as sacred. And it's false to assume, as well, that our modern culture is to blame for removal of the sacred as it was removed a very long time ago. Myths about menstruating women making meat rot, etc. have been around for a very long time.

Our culture is actually to be commended on how we've gotten past and removed so much of the superstition and shame and dirtiness that was attatched to menstruation.

Were the women in the huts, for example, because the bleeding was seen as sacred or scary? Because they were holy, or unholy and needed to be removed from the tribe for fear the blood would contaminate?

And all this is based on another fallacy--that it's sacredness of menstruation in early tribes was superior belief to how it is now. Sacred was based on the fact that no one knew why the women were bleeding. That's a belief based on ignorance.

To take a different example, it used to be believed that MEN created life in women because no one knew that there was anything in the woman (an egg) to create life. The assumption was that a man's sperm did the entire job and woman's womb was just a nest. Should we hold a man's sperm as holy, as being the only life-giving seed (women unnecessary or less sacred) because of this ignorant historical belief?

I'm not sure why an ancient belief based on ignorance is necessarily better for any of us than a modern belief based on knowledge. Nothing in the essay convinces me that sitting in a hut during my period is going to be anything other than deadly boring. And sitting in a hut during my period with other women on their period?

I'm not convinced this is a good idea.

 

[Sex and Death]

I'll add to this, and say I also object to the assumption that "menstruation is inherently sacred and our culture holds it as profane."

Just because our Menstural Hut is online, doesn't mean it's meaningless or less sacred or without raspberry tea, and it doesn't mean we do not reflect on our connection to life, birth, death. On the contrary - we have such a wide range of women to connect with and learn from and discuss both the sacred and profane.

Instead of pontificating about how women need to be saved from themselves and their appalling lack of self-awareness, we're saving each other every day, one cycle at a time, and we're not putting each other down in the process.

Here's my bias...there is no such thing as "the profane." "The Profane" is an illsuion. It's not all good, but it's all sacred. Heaven has always been here for those that have eyes to see (and, yes, it's true, some do not have eyes that see).

I happen to think your online Menstrual Hut is beautiful. I respect it, and being a man, would not post there univited. I think the world needs more Menstrual Huts, virtual and otherwise.

I also happen to love the heart I feel in this post of yours. Thank you for showing it.

I don't think women need to be saved from themselves. I think the the sacred feminine is longing to be culturally redeemed, and it will take awesome women (like ALL the women on this thread that care to be part of this dialogue) to make that happen. The world and my 4-yr-old daughter need you desperately.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Nothing in the essay convinces me that sitting in a hut during my period is going to be anything other than deadly boring. And sitting in a hut during my period with other women on their period?

whose essay did you read?

 

[Sex and Death]

No. Our culture does do not hold menstruation as sacred. But there's a fallacy in the thesis to suggest that it has been sacred throughout human heritage. We know it was held sacred in SOME primative tribes. We don't know that every human tribe held it as sacred. And it's false to assume, as well, that our modern culture is to blame for removal of the sacred as it was removed a very long time ago. Myths about menstruating women making meat rot, etc. have been around for a very long time.

Our culture is actually to be commended on how we've gotten past and removed so much of the superstition and shame and dirtiness that was attatched to menstruation.

Were the women in the huts, for example, because the bleeding was seen as sacred or scary? Because they were holy, or unholy and needed to be removed from the tribe for fear the blood would contaminate?

And all this is based on another fallacy--that it's sacredness of menstruation in early tribes was superior belief to how it is now. Sacred was based on the fact that no one knew why the women were bleeding. That's a belief based on ignorance.

To take a different example, it used to be believed that MEN created life in women because no one knew that there was anything in the woman (an egg) to create life. The assumption was that a man's sperm did the entire job and woman's womb was just a nest. Should we hold a man's sperm as holy, as being the only life-giving seed (women unnecessary or less sacred) because of this ignorant historical belief?

I'm not sure why an ancient belief based on ignorance is necessarily better for any of us than a modern belief based on knowledge. Nothing in the essay convinces me that sitting in a hut during my period is going to be anything other than deadly boring. And sitting in a hut during my period with other women on their period?

I'm not convinced this is a good idea.

Good evening!

The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies -- that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms -- of the type so often committed by my wife.

"All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood."

This is, of course, pure bullshit! Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. Obvious one would think.

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition. Consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example: given the premise, "All fish live underwater" and "All mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "All mackerel live underwater", but that "If she buys kippers it will not rain" or that "Trout live in trees" or even that "I do not love her any more."

This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap" and it gets me very IRRITATED because it is not logical!

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home.

"Why not?" I will ask.

"Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made.

"But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got."

"You don't love me any more!" she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms!"

"I will give you one after you have got me my supper!" I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat.

"Fuck supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt....

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell, sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this, but it IS in the same sense that Mount Everest IS, or that Alma Cogan ISN'T.

Goodnight.


~Monty Python

 

[3113]

whose essay did you read?

But there once was a time when women gathered together in menstrual huts, or red tents. In the time of no artificial night lighting and hormone-free foods, women gathered together and bled into the earth, giving their life's blood back to their mother, Gaia, the mother of us all....If you want to connect yourself deeply with the earth, try stripping naked and bleeding into it. It's a powerful experience!)

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but you seem to feel that the hut experience, the unity of tribal women in that hut combined with the "powerful experience" of connecting to the earth by bleeding onto the ground, is a good idea.

Or, at the very least, that the women back then, in that hut, had something special. But nothing you mentioned convinces me that I would find this experience special--either the tent or squatting naked and bleeding on the ground.

I think that doing either, for me, would be really boring.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Who failed, I wonder, Superman's dad or those who didn't heed his message? How noble that Superman's dad was willing to risk being received as a crackpot to serve his fellows, with whom he chose to die.

How considerably more noble to sacrifice one's ego and desire to dismiss the ideas of others in order to make oneself heard. Any idea worth offending others over is infinitely more worth presenting to them pleasantly and making accessible to them. The choice between being passionately committed and being civil and persuasive is a false one; one cannot be the first if one is unwilling to commit to the second. It is the only way in which one's ideas are heard or seriously considered.

 

[3113]

How considerably more noble to sacrifice one's ego and desire to dismiss the ideas of others in order to make oneself heard. Any idea worth offending others over is infinitely more worth presenting to them pleasantly and making accessible to them. The choice between being passionately committed and being civil and persuasive is a false one; one cannot be the first if one is unwilling to commit to the second. It is the only way in which one's ideas are heard or seriously considered.

My point exactly. To say that you can either be passionately committed or civil is a false delemma. You can be both. And if you are both, then you have a greater liklihood of pursuading...which, one assumes, is the goal.

I'm sure Superman's dad would have rather been believed, taken seriously and saved the planet--and I'm sure, fictional though he is, if there'd been a way to get his message across without being dismissed as a crackpot, he would have done so...even if that was a worse risk to his pride and ego than being seen as a crackpot.

 

[Pure]

After reading the thread and the essay, it's hard to untangle what the controversy is. There are learned, reasonable, and amicable people on both sides.

I don't see, from my perspective, anything uncivil about the essay. Nor do I think its tone is condescending or superior.

It seems to me to be a plea to exalt (what selena considers to be) the feminine, and as several have noted, there are similar pieces from the 60s and maybe a hundred years before. There is a popular book of 1978, "The Wise Wound" (Shuttle). I suppose by detailing her view and leaving others vague and general, one could suppose she was exalting her view, but that seems a stretch. It's a bit like reading an essay praising 'sacred' raspberry tea, and responding "I don't see what she's got against black tea, and why she's dismissive of us black tea drinking peasants."

To take just one exchange:

Selena:// But there once was a time when women gathered together in menstrual huts, or red tents. In the time of no artificial night lighting and hormone-free foods, women gathered together and bled into the earth, giving their life's blood back to their mother, Gaia, the mother of us all....If you want to connect yourself deeply with the earth, try stripping naked and bleeding into it. It's a powerful experience!) //


3113: Forgive me if I misunderstood, but you seem to feel that the hut experience, the unity of tribal women in that hut combined with the "powerful experience" of connecting to the earth by bleeding onto the ground, is a good idea.

Or, at the very least, that the women back then, in that hut, had something special. But nothing you mentioned convinces me that I would find this experience special--either the tent or squatting naked and bleeding on the ground.

I think that doing either, for me, would be really boring.

----
Pure: The essay doesn't deal with alternative views other than in a very generalized way (mainly) in terms of 1) demeaning or 'dirty' views. The other view, expressed by 3113 also [p.1], that 2) it's a biological event that shouldn't be taken much note of, was not much explained or addressed or argued against. The 2) view is well known, has merits, and seems attractive to several posters, such as 3113. But I don't see where it's dismissed or condescended to.**

My speculation, reinforced by amicus weighing in as greatly admiring the essay, is that selena's is felt to be a kind of retrograde view, dragging women backwards. It's seemingly hard to endorse the essay and press for equal pay (for one argument has to do with time off work).

But I wouldn't personally want to render a judgement on that point [as to the essay's position]; I would not, right now, jump to the conclusion that she's wanting to campaign with Phyllis Schafly (not to say Robertson and amicus) against equal rights for woman.

I hope tempers will cool, and that more words won't be generated on that most elusive and perplexing of topics-- the 'tone' and 'underlying attitude' of internet postings; they are too easy to read into.


------

**Indeed, S's next posting responding to this 'biological' view was:

//wow, that's a really a good point!

That is definitely my bias... probably should have just said that up front //

 

[Sex and Death]

How considerably more noble to sacrifice one's ego and desire to dismiss the ideas of others in order to make oneself heard. Any idea worth offending others over is infinitely more worth presenting to them pleasantly and making accessible to them. The choice between being passionately committed and being civil and persuasive is a false one; one cannot be the first if one is unwilling to commit to the second. It is the only way in which one's ideas are heard or seriously considered.

I disagree. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Neither do I think being nice, nor being perceived as nice and non-threatening, is an inherently or necessarily better posture than not being so or perceived as so. Many great communicators have been offensive, oppositional, cantankerous, challenging and mean. There is as much value in afflicting the comfortablle as there is in comforting the afflicted. Slaps are as good as kisses, and both have their place.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Thank you, Pure...

was there a full moon last night?

I didn't ever intend to imply that women who didn't follow a certain path were wrong or "bad" in any way, nor did I mean to imply that women should be pushed back in time, to the era of menstrual huts.

When I spoke of the idea, I put it clearly in the past, or made it clear that doing so wasn't culturally supported, but suggested alternatives.

Ms. 3113 took that quote quite out context, this is the full message and meaning:

"But there once was a time when women gathered together in menstrual huts, or red tents. In the time of no artificial night lighting and hormone-free foods, women gathered together and bled into the earth, giving their life's blood back to their mother, Gaia, the mother of us all.

Modern society doesn't lend itself to such. (Well, perhaps only on occasion, or as an experiment. If you want to connect yourself deeply with the earth, try stripping naked and bleeding into it. It's a powerful experience!) Still, there are better choices than bleached, synthetic pads with plastic liners or (bleached) rayon tampons that risk the rare but sometimes fatal toxic shock syndrome. There are ways to collect your sacred moon blood and honor your moon time, even in our modern world."

Thank you again for your careful, thorough, and conscienscious reading, Pure... thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt...

I started this thread for support (thank you for those of you who spoke up for me and "moon time") and found myself in some struggle to stand in the midst of a stoning... :x

Perhaps I should have just ducked and covered

Blessed be, all... meant no harm.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I disagree. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Neither do I think being nice, nor being perceived as nice and non-threatening, is an inherently or necessarily better posture than not being so or perceived as so. Many great communicators have been offensive, oppositional, cantankerous, challenging and mean. There is as much value in afflicting the comfortablle as there is in comforting the afflicted. Slaps are as good as kisses, and both have their place.

Being civil does not require being non-threatening or without power to effect one's goals. Indeed, one may duel while remaining civil. It is true that using "slaps" may draw attention to one's point - but only by alienating those slapped and making it nearly impossible to recruit them to the cause. One also alienates much of the middle ground when one focuses one's attentions on attacking others rather than proving one's point, and on presenting oneself as an unpleasant person unable to understand or show respect to others.

In that light, no, slaps are not as good as kisses, and there is rarely as much value in being unpleasant as there is in being thoughtful. It is a rare circumstance in which genuine good effect is accomplished by offending, as it is a rare circumstance in which the opposition's case is wholly inflexible, utterly without reason, or entirely in the minority - things necessary if "slapping" them is to achieve anything more useful than persuading them. Most people have reasons for believing what they believe or acting as they do, and most of the time the reasons are tied into valid concerns about how they live their lives and how they will be affected by the changes a speaker proposes. "Slapping" them while dismissing their reasons may be quicker for speaker, or perhaps may satisfy the speaker's desire to feel superior to them, but it is unlikely to accomplish anything that persuasion wouldn't do better unless one is speaking to an audience who already intensely dislike the "slapped" person.

Even if I was to go back to Germany in 1936 and try to persuade its people that supporting Hitler was a bad idea, it would be unwise to resort to "slapping" him - however despicable he was. People followed him for reasons that made sense to them; if I don't discover those reasons and offer an option that also supports them while moving them away from Hitler, I don't have any real chance of succeeding. Railing at Hitler for being a murderous fuckhead (to quote Eddie Izzard) is all very well now that he's dead and nothing can be done, but if I wanted to persuade his contemporaries to abandon his cause, I would need a good deal more than a tone of assumed superiority and a disdain for his ideas.

Shanglan

 

[Selena_Kitt]

S&D, Shang ....

please tell me neither of you are equating my little essay with the holocaust and slapping Hitler?

I don't necessarily subscribe to your theory, Shang, that it is ALWAYS preferable to have kisses over slaps... in or out of the bedroom

If my child were about to walk in front of a bus, or eat bleach under the sink, I would scream and shake and tumble and slap to save them...

I guess it comes down to what you really feel is worth fighting for. Sometimes people need to be shaken, to wake up...

and sometimes all the shaking in the world won't do it.

I'm learning, albiet slowly, to differentiate. It's a hard lesson.

 

[Pure]

This is a very puzzling exchange:

Originally Posted by BlackShanglan, seconded by 3113
//How considerably more noble to sacrifice one's ego and desire to dismiss the ideas of others in order to make oneself heard. Any idea worth offending others over is infinitely more worth presenting to them pleasantly and making accessible to them. The choice between being passionately committed and being civil and persuasive is a false one; one cannot be the first if one is unwilling to commit to the second. It is the only way in which one's ideas are heard or seriously considered. //


Sex&D I disagree. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Neither do I think being nice, nor being perceived as nice and non-threatening, is an inherently or necessarily better posture than not being so or perceived as so. Many great communicators have been offensive, oppositional, cantankerous, challenging and mean. There is as much value in afflicting the comfortablle as there is in comforting the afflicted. Slaps are as good as kisses, and both have their place.

Black continuing: //In that light, no, slaps are not as good as kisses, and there is rarely as much value in being unpleasant as there is in being thoughtful. It is a rare circumstance in which genuine good effect is accomplished by offending,//

I realize that both persons may be making abstract or very general points. BUT if we assume the terms are at all, by implication, supposed to apply to Selena's essay, in some significant way, I don't see it:

From Black: dismissing the ideas of others, unpleasant, uncivil, unpersuasive, unthoughtful

From Sex&D: offensive, oppositional, cantankerous, challenging and mean, using slaps more than kisses.

In my perception, 3113 and some others have made substantive points civilly, as did the essay. Downplaying content and focussing a debate on civility v. canterousness as modes of communication surely cannot lead anywhere, nor be resolved.

 

[Sex and Death]

Being civil does not require being non-threatening or without power to effect one's goals. Indeed, one may duel while remaining civil. It is true that using "slaps" may draw attention to one's point - but only by alienating those slapped and making it nearly impossible to recruit them to the cause. One also alienates much of the middle ground when one focuses one's attentions on attacking others rather than proving one's point, and on presenting oneself as an unpleasant person unable to understand or show respect to others.

In that light, no, slaps are not as good as kisses, and there is rarely as much value in being unpleasant as there is in being thoughtful. It is a rare circumstance in which genuine good effect is accomplished by offending, as it is a rare circumstance in which the opposition's case is wholly inflexible, utterly without reason, or entirely in the minority - things necessary if "slapping" them is to achieve anything more useful than persuading them. Most people have reasons for believing what they believe or acting as they do, and most of the time the reasons are tied into valid concerns about how they live their lives and how they will be affected by the changes a speaker proposes. "Slapping" them while dismissing their reasons may be quicker for speaker, or perhaps may satisfy the speaker's desire to feel superior to them, but it is unlikely to accomplish anything that persuasion wouldn't do better unless one is speaking to an audience who already intensely dislike the "slapped" person.

Even if I was to go back to Germany in 1936 and try to persuade its people that supporting Hitler was a bad idea, it would be unwise to resort to "slapping" him - however despicable he was. People followed him for reasons that made sense to them; if I don't discover those reasons and offer an option that also supports them while moving them away from Hitler, I don't have any real chance of succeeding. Railing at Hitler for being a murderous fuckhead (to quote Eddie Izzard) is all very well now that he's dead and nothing can be done, but if I wanted to persuade his contemporaries to abandon his cause, I would need a good deal more than a tone of assumed superiority and a disdain for his ideas.

Shanglan

We disagree. You measure your success in numbers of people persuaded.

You will surely die with more friends than I. That is something for me to reflect on.

Hitler should have been assassinated long before he was killed (all theories of his survival past the war aside). The German people didn't have a clue what was good for them at the time. They were not going to be persuaded at all. They needed to be knocked out of their fog. It took way too long for that to happen.

We're too far from the topic, I think. If you care to proceed on it from here, I yield.

 

[BlackSnake]

Aaaah, the essay is about how to handle being on the rag, not about Hitler.

I think a lot of this is geared towards clouding the point that a really good and thought provoking essay was posted.

 

[Norajane]

Aaaah, the essay is about how to handle being on the rag, not about Hitler.

I think a lot of this is geared towards clouding the point that a really good and thought provoking essay was posted.

That's just it, Snake. It didn't provoke much thought about menstruation and its role in our society, nor did it provoke a debate on women's views of menstruation. As Selena said herself, few people in this thread responded to her actual thesis.

 

[BlackShanglan]

S&D, Shang ....

please tell me neither of you are equating my little essay with the holocaust and slapping Hitler?

Oh heavens no! No, no, very sorry if I gave that impression - I was speaking generally of how to address one's ideas to an audience. I didn't bring Hitler in as a comparison of morality or effect in anyone's argument - only to argue that even the most completely wrong position (Hitler's) can't be solved just by dismissing it. I didn't mean to imply that you had anything in common with him, and am very sorry if I did by not stating that more clearly.

If my child were about to walk in front of a bus, or eat bleach under the sink, I would scream and shake and tumble and slap to save them...

Yes. That works because your child fits one of the categories I mentioned above - in this case, his or her actions would be wholly without reason. It also works because your child is subordinate to you both in knowledge and in social position, and you have the right to correct him/her in that fashion. None of these issues applies to an adult audience with reasoned opinions of their own.

I guess it comes down to what you really feel is worth fighting for.

Yes. Anything worth fighting for is worth being patient, reasoned and persuasive for.

Sometimes people need to be shaken, to wake up...

and sometimes all the shaking in the world won't do it.

Very rarely will any shaking do it, is my suggestion. While it works in 1950's movies, grabbing someone and shaking or slapping him to bring him to his senses very rarely works in real life. Shaking someone roughly awake guarantees that the woken person will be startled, confused, and defensive; slapping someone leaves the recipient angry and more focused on protecting himself than on the theoretical reason behind the slap. Shaking and slapping are, at heart, unfriendly actions; they express exasperation, annoyance, and at heart either a desire to hurt or a disinterest in whether the recipient is hurt. Is it in any way surprising that people do not react well to this?

If all of the shaking in the world won't do it, perhaps it's time to try something else.

Shanglan

 

[R. Richard]

Hitler should have been assassinated long before he was killed (all theories of his survival past the war aside). The German people didn't have a clue what was good for them at the time. They were not going to be persuaded at all. They needed to be knocked out of their fog. It took way too long for that to happen.

We're too far from the topic, I think. If you care to proceed on it from here, I yield.

Let me just thread jack one more time. Hitler died at the end of the war. The USSR had his skull and knew for sure for a long time. They did not reveal the proof of death as they thought it might provide some sort of advantage in the cold war. Google it up!

 

[Sex and Death]

Let me just thread jack one more time. Hitler died at the end of the war. The USSR had his skull and knew for sure for a long time. They did not reveal the proof of death as they thought it might provide some sort of advantage in the cold war. Google it up!

I have no quarrel with that. I just thought I had better add a disclaimer, considering how things seem to go 'round here.

 

[sophia jane]

A question about the essay, and I'll fully admit to skimming cuz I'm tired and lazy. You mentioned several diseases at the opening of your essay (pcos, etc)- are you linking these diseases to current trends like birth control and menstrual products? If not, why did you mention the diseases? Just curious.