I know this topic has come up before, both in posts and comments I've read on this site. I'm feeling the need to share an anecdote that's age old, and to hear some feedback from ya'll.
So here's the story: I'm heading to nursing school in the fall, and am taking an anatomy and physiology course now so that I don't have to once I get there. In said course we're currently covering the reproductive system. My professor is a white man who's been teaching this large survey class for a couple decades. I was mildly offended, yet prepared for and thus not surprised when he covered the male system first, then spent his [much more brief] time on the female system describing its various parts as "analogous" to male parts (ie: the clitoris is analogous to the glans penis). Classic, right? Great pedagogical technique. I rolled my eyes, decided not to pick this battle, and reminded myself that when it's my turn to be a health educator and care provider, I'll be trying to mess with the patriarchy in everything I do.
However, he then went on to describe menstruation in a way that I haven't heard before. He described menstruation as "an abnormal physiological event," stating that once women reach reproductive maturity, we are designed to be "either pregnant or lactating." Yes, he said that. He then went on to talk about how those two states (pregnancy and lactation) aren't designed to happen at the same time, since they are both extremely metabolically costly. He then breezed on to some other portion of his lecture, though I honestly don't remember what it was because I was trying to come up with some sort of appropriate response. While the design of the lecture (male system before female, analogies, etc) seemed like something I could let go, I just could not let the lecture end without challenging the way he talked about menstruation and the "natural" female state of being pregnant or lactating for the entire course of our reproductive lives.
And this is where my question to you all comes in: how would you have handled it? Have you had to handle something like this in the past?
It felt incredibly difficult to do because of the power relations in play here. The most obvious issue is that the prof controls the grade. While I should be free to point out sexism where I see it, I'm not going to kid myself about being immune from even subtle repercussions. Another issue, though, is the intimidation of trying, as an introductory student, to go up against someone who knows the technical material front and back. While I know that the perspective he presented was completely sexist, and know there's a looooong history of sexism in science and medicine to back me up, I'm well aware of how easy it would be for him to authoritatively state something like "Well, I know it's not pc, but those are the facts: menstruation is an abnormal event. Women are designed to be lactating or pregnant. Those are the Objective Facts of Science." (This is what kills me about science as a discipline! I regularly miss my gender studies, liberal arts undergrad experience; but the ability to bring that background to a field in the sciences gets me really excited. I digress...)
Anyway, rather than directly call out his sexism, I tried to come at it from a "wait, that argument is flawed based on what you've taught us" perspective--I pointed out that if we're worried about being energetically efficient, then it would seem that menstruation is the least costly of those states for a woman's body to be in and thus, perhaps, not so "abnormal." He agreed with me, but I still couldn't muster up the ability to say, "So, perhaps you should reshape the way you present that material to the class. The way you did it was SEXIST." Or some such sentiment.
I came away from class pissed at the prof, and frustrated with myself that I had hesitated in the face of this prof/student/knowledge power dynamic, despite all my educational and professional experience with calling out the instances of patriarchy and oppression. Maybe it was enough that I resisted a little bit--a couple women after class expressed with me that how he had talked about those points was totally antiquated, so the solidarity was nice. But none of them felt ok speaking up either. And I fully plan on taking up the issue in the course reviews and letting the school know my thoughts, but I wanted to feel like I had a way to deal with it then and there.
Arg.
Thoughts, ya'll? Thanks for listening/reading.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Speaking Truth to Professorial Power?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14234
I guess, historically menstruation is abnormal in that, historically women did have a lot less periods due to later onset of puberty (partly linked to nutrition), more pregnancies, and longer periods lactating, and shorter life spans overall. So to some extent, I don't have a problem with periods being portrayed as "abnormal".
My gynacoligist (sorry about spelling!) didn't tell me periods were "abnormal" but certainly told me the above information when I was looking in to trying to manage my periods(I have heavy periods that make me ill and unable to do anything for two days (I vomit, faint, am feverish, shaky and then there's the pain which painkillers do not seem to help much). Despite having tests done there is no underlying problem causing these symptoms (no endometriosis / cancer/ PCOS / STD etc). I now take the pill continously so that I rarely have periods (I am not sexually active so don't need it for contraceptive purposes). However without knowing that women previously had a lot less periods than most women now, I would have been reluctant to do this.
Not having periods has really helped me. I don't miss as much work. I know when I try to lift something, I can do it. I can make plans and reliably make them. I am not taking potentially dangerous anagesic pain medication. I don't have to worry about getting my period in the middle of the night and having to change the sheets / have a shower...so many good things. Surely feminism in many ways means taking control of our bodies, whether that be pregnancy, appearance, contraception, abortion rights or periods. I choose to not have periods. So for me... periods are abnormal.
I guess, historically menstruation is abnormal in that, historically women did have a lot less periods due to later onset of puberty (partly linked to nutrition), more pregnancies, and longer periods lactating, and shorter life spans overall. So to some extent, I don't have a problem with periods being portrayed as "abnormal".
My gynacoligist (sorry about spelling!) didn't tell me periods were "abnormal" but certainly told me the above information when I was looking in to trying to manage my periods(I have heavy periods that make me ill and unable to do anything for two days (I vomit, faint, am feverish, shaky and then there's the pain which painkillers do not seem to help much). Despite having tests done there is no underlying problem causing these symptoms (no endometriosis / cancer/ PCOS / STD etc). I now take the pill continously so that I rarely have periods (I am not sexually active so don't need it for contraceptive purposes). However without knowing that women previously had a lot less periods than most women now, I would have been reluctant to do this.
Not having periods has really helped me. I don't miss as much work. I know when I try to lift something, I can do it. I can make plans and reliably make them. I am not taking potentially dangerous anagesic pain medication. I don't have to worry about getting my period in the middle of the night and having to change the sheets / have a shower...so many good things. Surely feminism in many ways means taking control of our bodies, whether that be pregnancy, appearance, contraception, abortion rights or periods. I choose to not have periods. So for me... periods are abnormal.
I don't think this is a problem with science, I think it's a problem with your professor's wording. I'm familiar with the menstruation theory, and I've heard it explained in a non-sexist way. I'll try to paraphrase my prof's words, but I'm low on sleep and coherency right now.
Picture human society before birth control was widespread. Early marriage, lots of babies, die rather young = little time spent menstruating versus pregnant or lactating.
Actually, maybe it's best to picture a non-human animal. Gorillas, for example. Female gorillas generally hit puberty at about 10, get pregnant within a couple years of that, nurse their young for 4 years, and repeat until they're no longer fertile or they die. That doesn't leave much time for menstruating. It's not that the body isn't "designed" for menstruation. It just means that menstruating every month may not be necessary, given that historically, periods didn't happen so often.
I've honestly only ever heard a professor bring up this argument in reference to contraceptives such as Seasonelle that reduce the frequency of periods. From your post, I can't really tell what the context was, other than your professor being kind of rambly and old.
As for your question of how to address sexism in the classroom, I really think it depends on the class and the professor. I think you need to estimate the likelihood of having a productive discussion versus a total derail of the classroom. For a straight-up anat&phys course with a professor who seems pretty set in his ways...well, I'd question how productive a discussion would be. I'd also take into consideration your classmates, who are probably there to learn basic anatomy. I can understand dragging social science into a topical biology seminar, but not necessarily an intro course.
The easiest ways to point out the flaws in his argument is to point out the error in describing something that is or was less common as inherently abnormal. Would he call red hair abnormal just because it is relatively rare?
Furthermore not every woman reproduces. There are always women in a population that don't reproduce and therefore can still experience a monthly menstruation. Sure most women who made it to adulthood probably reproduced, but this fact still doesn't warrant the social judgement of menstruation as being physiologically abnormal.
Lastly I noticed that a lot of people use the "past" as a benchmark when describing what is normal, especially when it comes to reproduction. That's going to be a losing game for everyone.
Roy F. Baumeister's address to the American Psychological Association, 2007 makes the following claim (slightly paraphrased):
Recent research using DNA analysis indicates that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
If people want to argue that 4 out of 10 men reproducing as being the normal state of existence, then have at it folks.
I really think the words "normal" and "abnormal" are being misused here. I've never heard a biologist use that term when discussing this particular topic, and it saddens me that the OP's professor did. Even so, I think it's possible his words are being misinterpreted. So often people use "abnormal" when they really mean "atypical" - even here at feministing (the asexuality thread, for example).
I think you are missing the point about why people are looking at past human behavior. In this particular case, looking at the frequency of menstruation in the past demonstrates that contraceptives like Seasonelle do not cause unnatural cycles. When Seasonelle hit the markets, there was a lot of resistance because people assumed a monthly period was necessary for a woman's health. Historical perspective is not meant to demonstrate a human's "natural" or "ideal" state.
I'm a bit torn on the resistance to using "abnormal" as synonymous with "atypical." While I understand that (for a lot of people) the word abnormal carries with it a value judgment, the strict denotation of the word does just mean "atypical."
I think it's important to note this, since it means that some (perhaps many) people regularly and correctly use "abnormal" to signify, without value judgment, something that is seen infrequently. Spike the Cat asks a question above regarding whether the professor would call red hair "abnormal" just because it is statistically rare for people to have red hair; I think it's entirely likely that he might. I know that I have regularly used and heard abnormal in exactly that fashion before.
Well, the problem with the term "normal" is that multiple accepted definitions exist. Although "atypical" is a legitimate definition for normal, so is "not deviating from a norm." The latter is pretty clearly a value judgment, so in instances where such a judgment is undesired, it's probably best to choose a different word.
I think you are missing the point about why people are looking at past human behavior.
Perhaps I wasn't very clear, but I do think it is perfectly reasonable to look at past human behaviors to understand science and the world we live in.
What I'm objecting to is the cherry picking and then implicit value judging (often facilitated by using imprecise language)
As far as Seasonale the only thing that should have mattered to the science community and layfolks is the current data on safety. Women have been skipping periods by taking back-to-back packs of pills for decades! The data was already around that this practice was safe and effective.
I doubt that safety was the overwhelming motive behind the concern over skipping periods on Seasonale. It appears that the scientific questions that even get asked are tainted by the lens of culture.
What I'm objecting to is the cherry picking and then implicit value judging (often facilitated by using imprecise language)
Are you referring to the OP's professor, or the scientific community in general? If it's the latter, this discussion has gotten way too vague for me to follow.
As far as Seasonale the only thing that should have mattered to the science community and layfolks is the current data on safety.
I don't think the average woman was/is totally aware that skipping periods is safe, given my personal experience with ill-informed peers and online sex-related forums. It wasn't until this pill became popular that I started hearing about the "menstruation is atypical" theory. It seemed to me that biologists were putting that out there to show the everyday, non-biologist woman that skipping a few periods won't harm her.
It appears that the scientific questions that even get asked are tainted by the lens of culture.
Well, yeah. It's impossible to view things with 100% objectivity. I don't think science is the only culprit of this, though.
Are you referring to the OP's professor
Yes.
I don't think the average woman was/is totally aware that skipping periods is safe, given my personal experience with ill-informed peers and online sex-related forums
And I suspect that intentional misinformation campaigns, such as "the pill kills", and lack of basic reproductive health and sex ed had more to do with this. Not because women woke up one day and started wondering about how "natural" periods are. Most women contemplating skipping periods on the pill likely wanted to know 2 things: Will skipping periods on the pill be harmful and will the contraceptive effect still work.
Well, yeah. It's impossible to view things with 100% objectivity. I don't think science is the only culprit of this, though.
While it may be 100% impossible, we should still call bias out when we see it--which is what I feel the OP was trying to convey. And science should be held to a highest standard in this regard. The fact that other areas are "culprit" shouldn't be relevant.
are you kidding me? why do women get their feelings hurt so much?
yes, if you look at history, women are intended to be pregnant often - between pregnancy and nursing, women can spend a good portion of their life not getting their periods
and guess we, women who do not get pregnant often have more cancer, have more endo, have more problems - it's the hormone issues
too much estrogen and fluctutations, and not enough progesterone
instead of trying to make nature into some kind of man, do some real research
be mature, and learn what synthetic hormones do to a woman's body, and how they are harmed
if you think med school is rough now, it was worse two decades ago - if you learned something about reality, instead of the made up fantasy of some feminists, you might be able to help women
otherwise, you're just living in la la land
people don't like when women complain about their hormones, but they really do affect us, including our rates of cancer and disease
yes, if you look at history, women are intended to be pregnant often - between pregnancy and nursing, women can spend a good portion of their life not getting their periods
Women were not "intended" to be pregnant often, lol. There is considerable debate on historical fertility rates, but your statement is not a fact. Many hunter gather communities had pretty low birth rates, suggesting that the environment (e.g. diet, disease and stress) influenced fertility rates throughout history.
instead of the made up fantasy of some feminists, you might be able to help women
Sounds like the only person making up fantasies here is you?
people don't like when women complain about their hormones, but they really do affect us, including our rates of cancer and disease
And? Hormones affect heart disease rates and some cancers in men too. What's your point, exactly?