16.9 million menstruators
The Guardian makes a point of insulting women some more.
Not everyone in the US can afford period products: an estimated 16.9 million menstruators live in poverty, sometimes having to choose between buying food and pads. Those who can may still be using the first type of pad or tampon they ever bought.
In the 2010s, there was some innovation marketed to millennials who craved a more comfortable way to deal with menstruation. Period underwear brands led by Thinx cropped up, often using suggestive advertising like yonic-looking fruit to hawk the panties. (Knix, Aisle and Bambody are other popular labels.) Suddenly, menstruators had a bit more choice, though many still felt that their best choices were uncomfortable tampons or bulky pads.
On the one hand “menstruators”; on the other hand the annoying diminutive “panties.” The people who menstruate are women, and women wear underpants. Don’t erase us and don’t belittle us. Really don’t do both in the same damn paragraph.
“What someone uses for menstruation gets decided early on, and people typically stick to one brand, or product,” said Ida Tin, the co-founder of Clue, a period tracking app. “But what you need when you’re 12 is not the same as what you need just after you gave birth. Or what you want on a camping trip is different than what you use when you’re at home.”
What “someone” uses – gee, I wonder who.
According to Candice Matthews, who invests in the period care brand Femi Secrets, the average woman will only switch menstrual products four times at most in her life. “If that’s the case, a brand has got her for 10 years,” she said.
Such devotion may be why people feel so emotionally connected to whatever they use. In January, Thinx settled a class-action suit with customers regarding its supposedly “organic, sustainable, and non-toxic” panties.
You almost had it! The average woman – but aw damn you lost it again, back to people feeling emotional about what they use. And the god damn “panties” again. Women are now the People who wear Panties.
Activists say that the stigma around periods, and the idea that a woman’s cycle should be a hidden, discreet experience, means that people are not conditioned to take a closer look at what’s inside their products.
Is this how the author – Alaina Demopoulos – decided to work it? One “woman” balanced by one “people” per mention?
No, she’s fine with omitting “woman” altogether.
Okamoto initially thought she would sell menstrual cups or period underwear. But then she started talking to people about their menstruation.
“Ninety-nine per cent of people were only interested in tampons and pads,” Okamoto said. “They cared about sustainability, but they were like, ‘I don’t want to use anything that requires me to touch my period blood. Some of my most progressive, feminist friends think that reusing any item for their period will cause a disease or illness.”
“Feminist” sneaks in there at the end, but, you know, they could be feminist men.
Ugh, I hate the word “panties”. It has a real “disgusting, drooling paedophile trying to get into a little girl’s knickers” feel.
I hate it too, but for me it’s the baby talk that’s so infuriating.
I don’t wear underpants; I’ve always worn underwear. Well, I did wear panties when I was about six or so. But I outgrew them.
Er…tmi…
Well, I’m a feminist, but I guess I’m also one of the 1% of people who aren’t interested in either tampons or pads.
I don’t get a pedo vibe (as in, underage) from the word ‘panties’, but I absolutely do get the idea that this is supposed to be a ‘sexy’ garment. I think I was first confronted with the implications of using that specific term during a sports-figure rape trial; the defense kept using the word ‘panties’ in reference to the victim’s underwear, because it made it seem more like she was wearing a garment meant to entice and invite sexual activity.
So, yeah, it’s still gross in most contexts.
Freemage, that very conversation was part of the movie Anatomy of a Murder in 1959, where they were trying to decide what to call the woman’s undergarments (did she entice the man, or not?). They decided on panties. At that point, I got the feeling it was simply considered less prurient, or something. I’d have to watch it again to see if that was really what it was, but everything proposed was objectionable to someone until they agreed on panties.
If the article had not led with ‘menstruators’, I could forgive it for dropping ‘women’ for ‘people’ or ‘my friends’ here and there. Repetition of a word can feel clunky, even if that word is directly pertinent to the topic of discussion.
But. It led with ‘menstruators’.
There are exceptions to the repetition-clunky problem though – words that are so basic we can’t help repeating them, so no one notices. Is, are, have, will, did, and, but – words like that. I think women & men, girls & boys, are pretty close to being in that category…especially when the subject is specific to women or men. I think it’s the clumsy bizarro-world “people” that sticks out here.