Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
broadly.vice.com
Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#2They give another reason that seems reasonable because the religious acceptance hope, that it would freak people out to stop having periods. That seems like a reasonable thing too. I know no one wants to have a period, but keeping close to natural behavior could make people accept it more easily.
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#3Huh interesting I thought the reason was more precautionary principle like they thought that disrupting the cycle entirely would cause other problems. That or being left in as a general health indicator given that disruption is itself occasionally a hint that something is wrong.
I have no personal experience in that department to know how tolerable that would be for a generally fringe 'benefit'.
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#4The pill causes a lot of problems later in life; something only discovered recently, since it is a relatively new creation.
It also changes mate preferences, and what that means for the future is unknown.
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#5Two women I know suffer from Uterine Fibroids [1] and their doctors both have said in so many words "the uterus is good for two things, growing babies and growing tumors".
Both of these women took hormonal birth controls for most of their lives, and learned only after being diagnosed with fibroids that hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer).
They're both pissed, and have both been advised to have hysterectomies.
Through this lens, I get the impression that giving the uterus a break and letting things shed regularly is probably not a bad idea.
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#6The pill causes a lot of problems later in life; something only discovered recently, since it is a relatively new creation. It also changes mate preferences, and what that means for the future is unknown.
> The pill causes a lot of problems later in life; something only discovered recently, since it is a relatively new creation.
Could you be specific here (ideally with links)?
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#7>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes.
I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the population, you should be as simplistic and as helping as possible. Simply because you're dealing with all kinds of people, not just the smart ones.
So I just don't see the reason to paint a picture of a paternalistic conspiracy against women here. It's rather sensible marketing to a massive audience.
How come we've gone 60 years with these pills? There are women who have entire careers behind them in biology and medical science and we're still using these pills.
I remember in the early 2000's meeting some women who were using a staff instead. But at least one stopped because she felt she became too hormonal with the staff under her skin.
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#8Two women I know suffer from Uterine Fibroids [1] and their doctors both have said in so many words "the uterus is good for two things, growing babies and growing tumors". Both of these women took hormonal birth controls for most of their lives, and learned only after being diagnosed with fibroids that hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer). They're both pissed, and have both been advised…
The article you link to literally says the cause is not known and does not mention any links to birth control...
> The exact cause of uterine fibroids is unclear. However, fibroids run in families and appear to be partly determined by hormone levels. Risk factors include obesity and eating red meat.
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#9>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes. I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the populat…
> So I just don't see the reason to paint a picture of a paternalistic conspiracy against women here. It's rather sensible marketing to a massive audience.
Yeah, but try turning it around.
"Easy. For you to explain… for him to use."
I doubt they would have used this language for a male product. Either way, it sounds terribly patronizing.
Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)
#10> The invention of the pill was one of the most significant advancements in the fight for reproductive agency; it allowed us, as a society, to dramatically reconceptualize sexuality and gender relations.
Taken a step further the invention of the in vitro breeding chamber finally frees the genders from each other. Now men or women can decide when they want a child and on what terms. The course that society is headed on these days is in essence to destroy the concept of gender... and it is so far succeeding on this mission.