At least now I know ;-0 This does remind me of an article however so here we are:
Assignment 6, Article 19
“A Woman’s Curse” by Meredith F. Small was deeply interesting to me. Small writes about an anthropologist Beverly I. Strassmann and her observations on women’s menstrual cycle.
The article follows Strassmann through her weeding process for an observation group and her final pick of two from the fourteen original possibilities. Strassmann believed she could “see the connection between the physiology of women and the strategies of men and women to exploit that physiology for their own reproductive end” (96) better in a more natural birthing society. The end results and numbers are what I found most surprising.
Strassmann picks two villages for observation over a 2 ½ year time span in which she and her assistant immerse themselves into the culture of the society. They lived in huts without running water and electricity, learned the local language and observed the menstrual huts. These huts proved to be the main object of her study. They were cramped and crowded yet most of the villagers knew who was in them and when. Their way of life decreed it necessary for these women to give up their privacy and take refuge in huts during their cycle, they couldn't even use their own cookware all because of religion. But in all this nightmarish existence there is a silver lining. The findings.
Strassmann found that on average her subjects only had about 110 cycles during reproductive years, compared to our 350 to 400. Not fair I say. Those menstrual huts are looking pretty comfy if it means cutting the amount of cycles by ¾’s, though the eight to nine children is a little much by most western standards. So the woman in Strassmann’s study can keep their huts but they also benefit from lesser chances of reproductive cancers. Whose society ultimately has the better ideology on how to deal with the woman’s curse is unclear or just personal, but one thing is for sure, it definitely makes you think.
“A Woman’s Curse” by Meredith F. Small was deeply interesting to me. Small writes about an anthropologist Beverly I. Strassmann and her observations on women’s menstrual cycle.
The article follows Strassmann through her weeding process for an observation group and her final pick of two from the fourteen original possibilities. Strassmann believed she could “see the connection between the physiology of women and the strategies of men and women to exploit that physiology for their own reproductive end” (96) better in a more natural birthing society. The end results and numbers are what I found most surprising.
Strassmann picks two villages for observation over a 2 ½ year time span in which she and her assistant immerse themselves into the culture of the society. They lived in huts without running water and electricity, learned the local language and observed the menstrual huts. These huts proved to be the main object of her study. They were cramped and crowded yet most of the villagers knew who was in them and when. Their way of life decreed it necessary for these women to give up their privacy and take refuge in huts during their cycle, they couldn't even use their own cookware all because of religion. But in all this nightmarish existence there is a silver lining. The findings.
Strassmann found that on average her subjects only had about 110 cycles during reproductive years, compared to our 350 to 400. Not fair I say. Those menstrual huts are looking pretty comfy if it means cutting the amount of cycles by ¾’s, though the eight to nine children is a little much by most western standards. So the woman in Strassmann’s study can keep their huts but they also benefit from lesser chances of reproductive cancers. Whose society ultimately has the better ideology on how to deal with the woman’s curse is unclear or just personal, but one thing is for sure, it definitely makes you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment