The Great Lawsuit and If Men Could Menstruate

The United States has always feared the demolishing of the family life. From working moms to gays, all we seem to think about are the kids. Right? Or do we fear the deterioration of classical beliefs? The real threat possibly pointed to citizens mentalities? The articles The Great Lawsuit and If Men Could Menstruate both address this fear through the analyzing of masculine prejudice towards women. In their creative and well-developed manner, Margaret Fuller and Gloria Steinem unravel society's sexism.

My personal favorite article was If Men Could Menstruate. Its creativity and originality lightly bring up the realities of sexism. Her article forced a mental change-up in gender roles but not a change in the gender authority. With quotes like "young boys would talk about it(menstruation) as the envied beginning of manhood. Gifts, religious ceremonies, family dinners, and stag parties would mark the day," and "medical schools would limit women's entry ('they might faint at the sight of blood')", the reader accurately pictures this new world; and also judging the real one. Looking at all the things men praise and accept, menstruation isn't one of them. Is it because the first period is women's coming of age? Why is it when men lose their virginity before marriage its praised when for women its repulsive? The superiority and authority of menmin society is greatly emphasized in this article.

Margaret Fuller's text was masterly crafted to undermine a heavy sense within the reader of injustice. When she spoke of women as "helots"and men as "profligate" and "idle", one ascertains her objective: to truthfully depict her world. Men were on top, and women cleaning men's shoes. Even though society has been endlessly affected by a plethora of women (Catherine the Great of Russia, Queen Elizabeth of England, Joan of Arc of France, and countless other undeclared women), their recognition has been minimized in history. Women have always been part of the big picture, but they haven't necessarily been recognized. This article eloquently describes her 1843 perspective.

The question remains of whether we have changed in this century. One might rhetoric a sassy "yes" saying that our clothes are different, so our brains must be too. But this mental change might not be so dramatic compared to the change of our apparel. It seems in today's society we have come to a general consensus of letting women work. They have a right to not stay just at home (though they might still do the majority of the housework) but has society let women be successful? When men look to climb their job ladders, they are encouraged and even expected to do so. But it seems that when women try to do the same, they are put down. They are called bitches. They are called stupid when asking "obvious" questions. They are disfavored when looked at as prospective workers. And when they try to manage high political positions, they are called emotional, unruly, and unreasonable. Yet the men who are siting right next to her are the same ones putting congress at a stand-still and calling it "politics".

I don't think the United States has reached the point of complete equality towards women, but I hope we are working towards it.