![\"Tina](\"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/files\/2016\/10\/ballettampon.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n[Caveat: The discourse around bodies with uteruses is most often framed in cis-sexist binaries of women and men. The essay below is an analysis of that discourse, and as such occasionally slips into this language to accurately present the arguments therein. Trans and non-binary people are notably missing from this discourse. I’ve tried to avoid cis-sexism where possible. \u00a0Comments and criticisms are welcome whether in the comment section or by writing to me\/messaging me on Twitter: @bsummitgil. I hope I have done this conversation justice.]<\/em><\/p>\n You may have seen the recent hubbub about 19 year old self-proclaimed meninist Ryan Williams, who recently declared that women should just hold their menstrual blood in<\/a>. Specifically, they should just keep that nasty stuff in their bladder until they get to a toilet. The argument was primarily an economic one: women do not deserve free tampons (though his response was actually in regards to the movement to end taxes on tampons, not to make them free). If women are so weak that they cannot hold in, they should see a doctor to have a \u201cprocedure\u201d that will give them the \u201cself control\u201d they need to stop using menstrual products, as any demand to reduce the cost of these products makes them \u201ccheapskates.\u201d<\/p>\n Williams has since set his account to private, but I can assure you that I saw these tweets personally and they have been quoted in many articles about his public display of ignorance. I cannot prove that Williams is not a troll, but he was interviewed<\/a> and did not back down on his comments. At any rate, Williams is not alone in his grave misunderstanding of reproductive anatomy. A quick Google search of \u201ccan women hold their periods in\u201d reveals\u2026 well, a lot<\/a>. Some folks seem to think, like Williams, that periods come from bladders, or perhaps that there is a sphincter around the vaginal opening capable of holding in the menstrual tissue. Others think you can kinda poop it all out at once. Clearly, the health education system is failing our young people.<\/p>\n There is a long history of using technology to help (or, in many cases, make<\/em>) women control their bodies. One of the oldest and well-known examples is that of hysteria<\/a>, a condition in which a wandering uterus causes women to have uncontrollable emotional outbreaks. Obviously, these emotions were very inconvenient to men, and so, had to be treated. Ancient treatments often required hysterical women to place various good or bad smelling substances around their mouths or vaginal openings. A lack of sex and the build up of \u201cfeminine semen\u201d could also be the culprit, so sex and pregnancy would cure hysteria. Or maybe sin and witchcraft were to blame. The cure for this was obviously \u201cpurification\u201d by fire. Later we got to plain old masturbation, a tried and true method for relieving period cramps to this very day.<\/p>\n In the modern age, particularly as scientific research became more effective at regulating bodies, the processes of menstruation and pregnancy fell under the jurisdiction of technology as popularly understood today. By that I mean the ways we think about (or with) technology\u2014not as good or bad smelling substances, but as tampons, vibrators, and hormonal birth control. Whether or not these technologies are liberating or oppressive remains hotly contested. Feminist Technology<\/em>, a volume edited by Linda Layne, Sharra Vostral, and Kate Boyer, lays out many of these debates, as well as the history of and current state of technologies related to reproductive health. What makes a technology feminist? What is liberation of, or from, the body?<\/p>\n The foundation of many of these arguments is rooted in the Enlightenment split that characterized men as rational and civilized and women as emotional, tied more to nature. Embracing, controlling, concealing, and otherwise manipulating the \u201cnatural\u201d bodies of people classified as women has been and continues to be the focus of much of this discourse. Science must conquer the uncontrollable effects of women\u2019s reproductive systems. These technologies are often just as rooted in patriarchal notions of inconvenience, danger, and, frankly, \u201cgrossness,\u201d as they are in feminist liberation from the body and social control over it.<\/p>\n Take, for example, the first tampon. As Sharra Vostral writes, the earliest tampons were not for menstrual application at all, but for stopping up wounds. However, when soaked in mercury chloride they could be used to treat vaginal problems, such as yeast infections or other discharges. After the turn of the 20th<\/sup> century, \u201cpart of displaying a modern identity for women meant managing menstruation with sanitary napkins\u201d (Vostral, 138). But of course, these napkins were bulky and often harbored bacteria, causing infections. Tampons, or \u201cinternal sanitary napkins,\u201d were invented\u2014as with so many technologies\u2014by more than one person at the same time. Two patents, one by a woman named Marie Huebsch and another by a man named Ives Marie Paul Jean Burril, were submitted in 1927. Others were submitted later by various people, and while the reasons stated for product and some basic designs varied, all served the same purpose\u2014plugging up the menstruating vagina.<\/p>\n The arguments for tampons at this time were far from liberatory\u2014tampons were developed and patented largely by men who \u201cfelt sorry\u201d for women who had to endure menses, and to keep things like bed sheets and clothing free from staining. The inventor of Tampax<\/em>, patented in 1931, said he \u201cjust got tired of women wearing those damned old rags\u201d (Vostral 139). The lack of feminist design in these tampons (ex: being difficult to remove), and the market-driven forces that made them profitable (the use of cheap synthetic materials) led to many problems with their use. Infection, pain, and Toxic Shock Syndrome were common.<\/p>\n Later, as feminism became more widespread in public discourse, tampons were re-scripted as a liberating technology, particularly in advertising. This narrative endures in commercials featuring women swimming and playing soccer, or wearing white skirt suits to very important professional meetings. The shame of having a visible period stain in public continues to play a prominent role in advertising, and in the larger public discourse around menstruation.<\/p>\n