Vaginas want—no, demand!—to be free!

+1 on the ibuprofen. And I love my Diva Cup, so I guess I'm part of the cult! Although can I tell you, having just been pregnant, I did not miss my period ONE BIT. Not even a brief monthly twinge of "where is it?" before remembering that, ha ha, no, I would not be getting it. Not even once. Been menstruating for 15+ years and once it was gone, it was like I never had it.

My, I've saved a lot of money on . . . certain things.

I am an Aleve gal myself!

Seconding not missing my period at all while pregnant!

Yeah, and (coming to you from the department of way TMI) just wait until you get to a Certain Age. I'm going through menstrual supplies like there's no tomorrow. I actually spend almost $30 a month at this point and that is before factoring in the extra laundry, toilet paper, etc. Just another joy of being an older woman, an existence that is just so chock fucking full of joy in general.

Well, since we're doing TMI, let's just say I use more pantiliners pregnant then I did before I was pregnant.

MGL, my Certain Age came early to me by way of surgery a few years back. The surgery set me back a cool US$ 15,000 (that was after insurance paid their part), so add that to my total. I do save on menstruation supplies, though. I don't miss my period, or the money I used to spend on OB.

My cramps were never that bad. When I first got my period it felt like there was an air bubble that wouldn't come out.

I use organic cotton tampons because ob and similar give me vaginitis
(my TMI input ;-p).

Wait, why are things like deodorant more expensive for women?

The extra cost for being female doesn't help, but it's the cost of being single that really puts a dent in my pocketbook.

I definitely agree that being married has been better for me financially than being single.

Well, my undercarriage may be expensive to own, but I wouldn't trade her for the world.

P.S. Didn't miss menstruating AT ALL while pregnant. I'm hoping the breastfeeding will keep the sharks at bay for months to come.

Add me to the not missing it at all camp.

At some point I had to switch from Advil to Aleve as the Advil wasn't doing a thing. But then I had surgery to clean up a bit of stuff inside and the two periods afterwords were delightfully pain-free. I have my fingers crossed that it continues to be the case once it comes back.

That was a good article.
I'm annoyed at the people in the Jezebel comments getting all hung up on the minutiae of shaving costs and missing the larger point, though.

Advil can be my best friend, some days.
In fact, I have a headache right now and I might go take some!

YEah, it was kind of hilarious they all went into the shaving.

Wait, why are things like deodorant more expensive for women?

If you buy the brands marketed to women, they just are more expensive than "men's" brands. Same is true for shaving cream, body wash, etc.

Man, my Diva Cup changed my life. Not exaggerating at all. I am a total evangelist now, too.

If I were a younger woman I would totally get one. At this point I'm not sure I'll break even.

As a woman who lives in the UK where hormonal contraceptives are available on the NHS (not technically free as we pay for it out of taxes, but no out-of-pocket payment either as contraceptives are exempt from the usual £7.65 prescription charge) and who spends very little on shaving because the weather is rarely good enough to show my legs and I don't care about the other bits, and who has an £18 Mooncup, I nonetheless sympathise.

I've been quite lucky when it comes to PMS/cramps, as well.

I've been lucky when it comes to PMS and cramping, too, but my unique situation is that I actually don't have periods like a regular person does. The jury's still out as to why I'm not ovulating regularly and I probably have to see a gynecologist soon before I start my new job. So they didn't factor that kind of emergency cost in as well.

If I were a younger woman I would totally get one. At this point I'm not sure I'll break even.

Oh, there's definitely more to it than saving money! The convenience of not having to run around buying tampons/pads every month, the comfort factor (much less drying than tampons). Saving money is nice, too, though. There is a learning curve, though- the first month or two I tried I didn't think I'd ever get it to work out right. If you try it, backup with pads for awhile!

As a vagina owner, I object to limiting it/labeling it to vagina ownership. Being a woman is more costly overall, inside and beyond the visible difference in genitals. Being a woman is more costly, even if we just talk about dry cleaning and skin care. And it's because they get away with the price inflation.

It's not just about the expense, but about the inconvenience. I don't know if anyone else here was affected by The Great O.B. Shortage of 2010/2011. I was beside myself. I tried to think of a comparable product so The Fella could understand why I was doing a hard-target eyeball search of every store in the driving distance instead of just buying another brand immediately, but I just couldn't think of any unisex or male-specific item that is as personal, as recurrent, and as terribly inconvenient and uncomfortable if it doesn't suit you.

The closest I got was "Imagine if you had to wear uncomfortable shoes 'round the clock for a week once a month... only you're wearing them in your vagina and they might spot your pants with blood if they don't fit." But even that leaves out the social weight of leaking menstrual blood, which much more taboo than, I dunno, foot blood.

I finally settled on a simpler explanation: I'm particular about tampon brand BECAUSE I AM STICKING IT IN MYSELF and I'm extremely particular about that small family of items. That, he understood.

I was days away from buying a Diva cup when O.B. tampons came back into stores. As Miko says, at this point, I don't think I'd break even on a cup --- or even have time to get habituated to it --- before I stop needing it.

Despite there being more women, except where they consciously reduce us (infanticide, abortion, etc.) we are still considered the other: men are the norm, women, the exception. And so there is a tax on being a woman. And so WOMEN BEAR IT, for deviating from the norm. And this is total bullshit BUT IT'S CALLED PLAYING THE GAME.
FUCK THE GAME.
More women survive. Women live longer. Women are conditioned to care for others, and so are more aware of others, and health care for ourselves and others. So we pay the price, and that is utter bullshit.

TPS, I didn't mean to discount other reasons for the cup. In addition to everything you mention, there's the environmental factor. (That's part of the reason I started using O.B. as a young woman: to eliminate the bulky plastic or cardboard applicator that every other tampon came encased in, but of course the cup eliminates even the fabric waste).

And hey, this is weird, because I've never really had bad PMS cramps or anything (not to the point of needing a painkiller), but when I started using the diva cup even those minor ones went away. Who knows what the mechanism for that is, but it's awesome.

A cup is so much better in every way. And if the Diva doesn't work for you, there's a whole range of other makes and models.

Never been much of a cramper, praise to all relevant imaginary entities, but I agree with gaspode: the cup put whatever tiny twinges to rest.

I'd say it's absolutely worth doing even if you aren't likely to have a lot of periods left.

So, since I can't see this site due to this can someone say if they broke down the things a vagina gets you? Like free drinks if the vagina is attached to an attractive body, free membership to many dating sites, a more expensive wedding ring (generally), and the ability to get on the boat with the children? You have to offset the liabilities with the gains if you're going to make these kinds of statements.

And if it's not apparent I am making a joke.

Women live longer.

Another reason they are more often in poverty than men. Among many reasons.

if the vagina is attached to an attractive body

A big "if." And the gender aspect of this isn't really something that benefits just women. Extremely attractive people of either gender get more rewards for that.

The 'getting in the boat with the children' is about both responsibility for the children and presumed helplessness which doesn't allow you defend others, even when you'd like to.

I'd trade any amount of "ladies nights" and free dating site memberships for a just society. And I know you're joking, but since I've had all that stuff offered at me seriously in life, as an argument for how great the gals have it, I can't really separate my responses.

Not being able to go whereever you damn well please without some schroedingers rapist crowding up behind/ getting in your face and babbling at you.....

I was told the one last night was gay. He is still on my shit list for not respecting my space.

I too would give up a lot for a just society. I'd also give a lot for an honest one.

It is frustrating when people aren't allowed to acknowledge that there are advantages to being a particular gender or race. Pointing out privilege is acceptable and desirable to me. Shaming people for something they have no control over not so great. Inequity exists in all sorts of manners.

There are advantages to being a woman. It would be great if there weren't. There are advantages to being a man. It would be great if there weren't. Women have further to go then men to eliminate inequity.

cjorgensen, this sounds a lot like you are telling us how wrong it is to complain about the inconveniences specific to our biological sex.

If you're not open to women complaining about biologically gender-specific aspects of life, that's fine. You have no obligation to engage in that conversation. But I don't need instruct from you on how lucky I am to be a habitually marginalized, discriminated-against, disadvantaged, and occasionally biologically-inconvenienced person.

Similarly, if there were a thread here about how very inconvenient and potentially embarrassing it is for men to have public erections --- and especially if, hypothetically, public erections occurred for a week out of every month and cost you 10 bucks every month, for example --- I wouldn't come into that thread and start telling men that with their statistical likelihood of greater height and physical strength, they shouldn't complain about erections because it's not fair to complain about biologically-specific physical inconvenience without also recounting your existing and arguable gendered advantages! It might be accurate, or it might be arguable, or it might be statistically irrelevant to the group in question, but more than any of that, if would be utterly tone-deaf and irrelevant to the actual ongoing conversation.

Furthermore, those "advantages" advantages you list --- and many others! --- are byproducts of a sexist system that consistently values us as sexual creatures and as baby-making/baby-caring machines and devalues us as actors with agency and power.

And some of us --- on this site and off it --- are doing our best to remove the inequities for everyone, even when they are in a small way advantageous to us. I've never taken advantage of any of the "advantages" you list:

To quote you:

So, since I can't see this site due to this can someone say if they broke down the things a vagina gets you? Like free drinks if the vagina is attached to an attractive body, free membership to many dating sites, a more expensive wedding ring (generally), and the ability to get on the boat with the children? You have to offset the liabilities with the gains if you're going to make these kinds of statements.

I've turned down every drink from a strange man since I was a girl. Sadly for me, the societal convention that strangers should offer me free drinks means it's all but impossible to sit in a bar alone or with other women without being repeatedly pestered by someone trying to buy us drinks, even after we've repeatedly turned them down.

I've never signed up for a free dating membership (or gone to "ladies' nights" before the internet. Unfortunately, the societal expectation that I am a target for dates (rather than an initiator of them) means that I am all too often asked out --- sometimes politely, sometimes impolitely, sometimes in downright frightening ways --- by men I don't know, even after I got married.

In times of emergency, I've been in the fray: bailing out the boat, fighting the fire, and keeping the danger at bay. Unfortunately, the expectation that I should sit back and wait for men to save me has sometimes incurred a social cost on me for taking charge when I'm the best qualified, or allowed men to prevent me from helping at cost to our combined interests.

I wear the same plain silver ring as my husband (and by the way, I bought them both, because HEY FEMINISM IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE!), and I paid for our wedding. When dating, I asked men out and paid for my dates. You know why? Because the unfair, sexist system that marginalizes women and places disproportionate emphasis on our worth as sexual objects also places an undue burden on men to pursue and win those objects, and I don't like dating in a way that relies on that system, or dating men who feel it's a valuable system to reinforce, and I do like giving men equal treatment.

And if it's not apparent I am making a joke.

Yes, right up until you weren't. That's often how these conversations go: it's a joke until someone points out how not-funny it is, then we're accused of being dishonest and unfair for complaining about aspects of our lives that men aren't privy to without a long disclaimer about our societal privileges.

I acknowledge privileges that you haven't even addressed, but I also see the ones you list as disadvantages. But chief among the disadvantages to being a woman is how every time we have the cheek to complain, a man is quick to come along and correct us.

Right on Elsa.

I can't identify a single "female privilege" that isn't a flip side or structural support for male privilege. Ladies' nights and free online dating sign-ups don't result from a desire to provilege females. Far from it. Those structures are specifically design to aid males in overcoming deficiencies and produce a greater number of targets for romantic/sexual overtures, for instance. If they didn't serve male privilege, they wouldn't exist at all. They wouldn't need to.

I have yet to meet the man who has come out of a moment of experiencing what a woman goes through on a regular basis unscathed.

The other day some guy tweeted about suspecting a hint of what a woman goes through in a bar after walking into a car dealership.

Generally, I hear a lot of stuff that says men want to be treated like objects because it must be great, but not yet met a man who enjoyed the experience.

Sorry for typos. On phone.

Generally, I hear a lot of stuff that says men want to be treated like objects because it must be great, but not yet met a man who enjoyed the experience.

I have heard men who enjoyed being sexual-objectified, either by men or by women, as well as men who found the experience deeply uncomfortable. I'm not discounting their experience, but it's a different dynamic when men are sexually objectified.

And y'know what? Being treated a as sexual object might be a pleasant thing under certain circumstances --- in a hypothetical world where it's not built into the larger societal construct and part the legacy of a long history of repressing and controlling women.

I can imagine a world in which I might enjoy it, but it's hedged with a whole lot of IFs. I might enjoy being treated as a sexual object IF:

- IF it occurred in a culture where my personhood, not my sexi-hood, was viewed as my primary trait by most people
- IF it occurred in a culture where rape and other sexualized violence were rare, non-existent, or at least better policed
- IF my perceived sexiness were not likely to be used as a cudgel to devalue [my work/ my family values/ my right to prosecute sexual assault/ my character/ my intelligence/ etc.]
- IF my perceived attractiveness would not be used as evidence of my sexual availability regardless of my consent
- IF the sexual objectification focused on my sexual pleasure too, not just the pleasure-giving aspect of my body (though I suppose that would be "treated as a sexual agent," not "as a sexual object")
- - IF my perceived sexiness were assessed by my own statements and overt sexual acts, not by the size of my breasts, the color of my lipstick, or the hemline of my skirt (though again, that would be agency, not objecthood)
- IF being cast as a sexual object were a rare diversion, not a constant occurrence
- IF I were able to politely resist the treatment when it's unwelcome without the reasonable experience-based expectation that the person issuing the treatment would be insulted, offending, angry, or violent

and of course

- IF it didn't almost always come from someone who is statistically likely to be bigger, stronger, and more socialized to violence than I am.

Which is to say, if I were a big strong man, unaccustomed to come-ons by women and statistically unlikely to have experienced sexual assault, I might (that's "might," not "would" or "should" or "must") enjoy the occasional sexual objectification. Hypothetical Big Strong Male Elsa would almost certainly be less annoyed by them than Actual Elsa is, if only because BSE would find sexual objectification a surprising and unusual event, not an inevitable one likely to derail my [commute/ library study time/ work shift/ grocery shopping/ walk through the park/ entire sexual persona for the next five years*].

*Because it's always a distinct possibility that this objectifying person is the one who will sexually assault you and possibly traumatize you so you can't engage in the most intimate, delicious, loving acts with your partner without bursting out into sobs. Or maybe that's just me and thousands of other women.

Hear, hear Elsa!

There are people who can transform anything into something self-esteem building, just like self-esteem crashing, but I don't even mean sexualized object so much as just object, an inhuman thing.
I guess it is always in a sense a lesson.

As a side note, in the way a thing can be less than human, a thing can be more than human. One can discount a thing, or a thing can be unknowable in its scope and size: a thing to be feared.

Humanity is a vastness, and how often are people conscious of that in a sea of bodies?
Right now, I'm far more often ascribed a thing than a human. A thing is either dismissible or put on a pedestal, neither position can take much detailed, intimate thought. And people do not want to think; anything but that!

Heh, ducked out too soon I guess.

cjorgensen, this sounds a lot like you are telling us how wrong it is to complain about the inconveniences specific to our biological sex.

Fuck no. I say speak up whenever there's inequity. Loudly. Too many people just shut up.

That's often how these conversations go: it's a joke until someone points out how not-funny it is, then we're accused of being dishonest and unfair for complaining about aspects of our lives that men aren't privy to without a long disclaimer about our societal privileges.

Yeah, I know this. And the flip-side is often someone engages in good faith there's always someone that needs to be dismissive and disengenous and the purveyor of the one truth. I can make jokes or I can be serious. Neither should be off limits (especially if you aren't making jokes at the expense of another group/sex/race). If one takes the time to point out it was a joke denies the fact that I was specifically pointing out that's shit I know women deal with.

I posit that when you don't engage with good faith, or you attack those who do, you're giving up making a difference in the discussion.

Do you have any response to my argument --- which I think is both persuasive and comprehensive --- that the putative benefits you identify as female-only advantages are actually by-products of a sexist system that largely disadvantages women, or to my statement that many women chose to disengage from the system's small benefits?

You don't get to unilaterally define what constitutes "good faith." I have absolutely been engaging in good faith: I am speaking as clearly and honestly about my experience and viewpoint as I can. If that is not of interest to you, or if you disagree, or if that is incomprehensible to you, or if you simply don't enjoy hearing it, there's absolutely no requirement for you to do so. But I absolutely don't see where you're identifying bad faith.

I could sloppily attribute bad faith to you for insisting upon shutting down a group of female voices telling their personal experiences, but notice that I have not done so because, among other things, I think it's often a cheap rhetorical tool used to shut down unwelcome arguments. I'm not trying to shut you down, just telling you as clearly as I can why I think you are dead wrong in this case.

Do you have any response to my argument --- which I think is both persuasive and comprehensive --- that the putative benefits you identify as female-only advantages are actually by-products of a sexist system that largely disadvantages women, or to my statement that many women chose to disengage from the system's small benefits?

No I do not because I agree with you.

That was my point. You can lecture to bring enlightenment to the ignorant if you want, but if your response is indicative of how you treat people who agree with you I'm not sure how persuasive you'll be when face with those who don't.

I could sloppily attribute bad faith to you for insisting upon shutting down a group of female voices telling their personal experiences, but notice that I have not done so because, among other things, I think it's often a cheap rhetorical tool used to shut down unwelcome arguments.

There's also the fact that I never did so. Not once. You keep putting words in my mouth. You have also attributed motives to me that just don't exist. This is what I would call bad faith.

There's also the fact that I never did so. Not once

I read this quote from you [emphasis added by me, no other editing]:

And the flip-side is often someone engages in good faith there's always someone that needs to be dismissive and disengenous and the purveyor of the one truth. I can make jokes or I can be serious. Neither should be off limits (especially if you aren't making jokes at the expense of another group/sex/race). If one takes the time to point out it was a joke denies the fact that I was specifically pointing out that's shit I know women deal with.

I posit that when you don't engage with good faith, or you attack those who do, you're giving up making a difference in the discussion.

as you stating that I was arguing in bad faith. I also read this most recent one:

This is what I would call bad faith.

as a statement that accuses me of bad faith. I cannot see any other way to read that.

Jokes are great! Jokes are delightful! I love jokes! But to say I'm making a joke! isn't a fireproof shielf from criticism. Saying something is a joke doesn't provide blanket immunity:
A) It doesn't mean a particular joke isn't tiresome or unwelcome to a population who, as you say, have heard this every time we complain about gender-specific or sex-specific disadvantages;
and
B) Your self-described joke was in this case followed up by not-joking (or, at least, not apparent-to-be-joking) dismissal and annoyance when Miko and I disagreed with the premise of your joke.

This conversation doesn't seem productive to me --- and since you think I'm

putting words in my mouth.

even when I am directly quoting you, I'm prepared to walk away if you are. And maybe even if you aren't.

This is tiresome, in part because it's so inevitable. I know that the next time I am in a conversation with women about some gender- or sex-specific inconvenience, a man (not every man! not even most men! but a man) will come along to tell us how lucky we are, and then to chide us if we didn't find his [possibly joking] insistence diverting.

You wrote:

[...] this sounds a lot like you are telling us how wrong it is to complain about the inconveniences specific to our biological sex.

And yet I'd said no such thing.

And if it's not apparent I am making a joke.

Yes, right up until you weren't.

Except I was. I even stated so. So to deny I was applies motives to me that don't exist. If you believe I was serious that's fine, if you are tired of such jokes that's fine, if you want to criticize the jokes that's fine, you want to criticize me for making them that's fine, but to say I wasn't is saying I am lying. I think anyone that reads those lines can see them for how they were intended. If you disagree or if you're receiving the message in some other manner...I'm not sure what to say.

I'm sorry you exist in a world where you can't hold a conversation about sex or gender issues without someone coming along and belittling your views. If you believe I did that here I do know what to say: I'm sorry. That was not my intention.

cjorgensen, play fair. Your first comment, in which you took care to say "I'm joking!" might have been just a joke (that's a good faith interpretation for sure, because jokes like that very rarely have an only-joking, mocking-the-straw-man-who's-not-even-here intent.

But your second one was serious and asked people to consider their female "advantages."

To that, enough already.

I'm sorry you exist in a world where you can't hold a conversation about sex or gender issues without someone coming along and belittling your views.

I'm really sorry about that too. I sure wish my only couple of online hangouts were places where it didn't happen, but we don't get that luxury either.

I wasn't trying to make a case that "Oh boy! Look at how lucky you are." I was trying to say that if people can't freely and honestly discuss where one sex does have an advantage over another without being ridiculed or stepping in it then it's hard to make any kind of progress.

I'm taller and stronger that most women (not all). It's an advantage. Males in general (whether through socialization or biology) tend to be more aggressive (can be debated if this is an advantage). Women tend to have better reaction times. Etc. There are biological differences along a curve. To pretend that either can be slotted in for the other is ignoring realities. There are measurable objective metrics one can point to show the sexes are not identical. This is an argument for why the merits or each individual should be examined, not why one gender is inferior

Then there are societal "advantages" (and I put that in quote because I know a surface advantage isn't always so once you look at it). I'd have to look to see if it's changed, but I where I work a woman gets off 6 weeks for maternity leave and a man gets 3 days. Advantage: Woman! Well, unless you look at the fact that this disallows the male from proper bonding with his child, perpetuates the myth that only the woman can care for an infant, forces the woman to be the one that takes the hit in employment opportunities, etc. You can go on for a long time about why this is suckier for the woman than the man. Being stuck at home alone with an infant isn't for everyone (I'd say it isn't for anyone). When I try to say it's in everyone's best interest if both parties get the same maternal leave I'm usually told I don't have a dog in the fight since I don't have kids or told I need to move to a socialist country if that's what I want.

If you don't want to call them advantages you can try for another word that doesn't have baggage like "differences," but in my mind as soon as you do that, as soon as you define a difference there is usually an associated advantage in most people's minds (i.e. Taller = Better).

I wasn't trying to make a case that "Oh boy! Look at how lucky you are." I was trying to say that if people can't freely and honestly discuss where one sex does have an advantage over another without being ridiculed or stepping in it then it's hard to make any kind of progress.

No, it's really not.

It's 100% clear to me you don't have enough goodwill or enough basic knowledge to have this conversation appropriately. That's why no one is really willing to have it.