Reply #53: science ... it's evil and bad [View All]

In the good old days, women really didn't menstruate a whole lot. They were either pregnant or breast-feeding, which suppresses ovulation/menstruation, for most of their reproductive lives.

Science has affected women's reproductive lives, and thus all aspects of our lives, already, and in only a very few generations -- in a way that most of us are rather pleased with. We no longer spend 30 years continuously producing children, many of whom don't survive -- particularly the later ones, as our own bodies suffer from the enormous strain of repeated pregnancy and childbearing, not to mention childrearing. We live longer, and better.

The benefits and detriments of menstruation are subjects of considerable debate. Here's a very basic introduction to some of it:
http://www.cwhn.ca/resources/menstruation/obsolete.html
The conclusion:

In the end it may not be so surprising to find that the means through which Coutinho suggests that menstrual suppression can be achieved is via regular Depo-Provera injections, the birth control method that he, himself, pioneered. So while the media continues to herald Coutinho's discovery that menstruation is not "natural" and is an ailment that has a ready cure, good feminist studies of menstruation and menstrual history, of which there are many, indicate that such a pronouncement is suspect at best. What is required are independent assessments of Coutinho's work (from those not likely to benefit directly from the wide-spread usage of Depo-Provera). Ideally these studies would begin from a premise contrary to Coutinho - that menstruation is "natural", that is has a purpose, and that its function may not be limited to potential pregnancy. Only when we can first assess the value of the regular processes of women's bodies can we fully understand their role and function in the physical and emotional health of all women.

Of course, genuine scientific studies don't start from any premise at all, and this author has simply betrayed her own bias.

There are risks associated with continuous hormonal contraception (whether interrupted for artificial menstruation or not), and there are risks associated with menstruation and pregnancy and childbearing. Women are entitled to as much information is available about all aspects of the options available to them, and to make their own choices.

Sneering at science and big pharma isn't really an intelligent or woman-friendly approach.

I've heard that when the Iron Age arrived, women stopped suffering as widely from anemia, and started living longer. (We are advised to cook acidic foods like tomatoes in iron pots today, to add traces of iron to our diets.) Science. What a bad thing.