Nidah, Feminism, and The Menstrual Taboo of (Post-)Modern Society

I have recently been watching a Mechon Hadar series on Nidah, taught by Rabbi Ethan Tucker*. One of the themes that keeps popping up, is that in antiquity, men knew when women had their periods. Furthermore, in pre-diaspora Jewish society, not only did people know when one had her period or irregular bleeding, they also knew when different men had different types of seminal emissions, which, like female bleeding, require immersion in a mikvah before one can engage in taharah.

I find this very interesting. The typical (post)modern narrative of Nidah goes as follows: Those primitive people had menstrual taboos. I would like to posit however, that there was not a taboo specifically around menstruating women in ancient Israelite society, rather; there was a taboo about a variety of bodily fluids from both males and females, primarily fluids related to sex. Two possible theories for this taboo are: 1. Judaism is a religion of life, the bodily fluids that have taboos associated with them are all loss of potential life. That contact with a corpse or even in some cases, dead insects, constitutes tumah, is evidence for the loss-of-life=tumah theory. 2. A recognition of the sexual nature of said substances, which responds by forcing the individual to abstain from taharah in order to have time to ponder their sexuality. Sex can be a distraction from focusing on God, but people can't not think about sex, so simply create time-spaces for each type of thought: thoughts about God, and thoughts about sex. This is analogous to two things: 1. Giving the metzorah time to ponder their actions by sending them outside the camp. The metzorah too, is tameh and must immerse to become tahor 2. Shabbat, which** is about creating a (sanctified) space within time. The second theory is much more interesting in light of idol worship cults that used sex in the sanctuary, whereas Judaism is drawing a clear geographic and space boundary within the two (the tameh is not allowed within certain geographic places deemed holy, and then there is the time-space of abstention from holy activity), while emphasizing the holiness of sex within the home, the mikdash meat, and of course, because marriage is kidushin, which comes from the same root as the word "kadosh"***. So there is the paradox of sex as holy and uplifting - but only within the home, and to be separated from places of worship, whereas you would expect something holy and uplifting to be encouraged in places of worship.

Anyhow, back to Niddah: The very publicity of one's Niddah status that the rules of Niddah necessitated during the times of the temple, mean that periods can not have been taboo. The entire concept of taboo is something one can not talk about, something shameful. But in the times of the temple, periods and seminal emissions were public knowledge, openly talked about, and because everyone knew when you had your period or when you had seminal emissions, there could not have been shame associated with it - because just like your neighbor knows what happened to you last night, you know what happened to your neighbor last week. Usually, shame comes from fear of disclosure, because your behavior is considered not normal - but if everyone does something, or has a certain bodily state, and everyone knows about it, then by nature it can not be shameful.

By contrast, in our society, there is a menstrual taboo: Having one's period is not considered shameful per se, but it is certainly considered unattractive/unsexy, and it would not be considered appropriate to say "I have my period today" to a mere acquaintance, especially in a professional setting, the way that it would be considered appropriate to say, "I have a headache." If one has terrible menstrual cramps, one could not email a professor to say one will be absent, the way one could if one had a stomach viruses.

The very message of the pad/tampon industry is, "A woman must hide that she has her period in order to function in society during that time. A woman must hide her menstruation in order to appear sexy. Look how well we can help you hide the fact that you have your period. Buy our product!'

The second part of this equation is that women are expected to function normally when they have their period. Part of this is due to modern medical science, which has medicine women can take when they have their period to mitigate physically limiting or uncomfortable side effects of menses. Part of it is that women have had to prove to a patriarchal society that they can function as well as men in order to gain equal rights****, especially in the areas of education and employment. Women already have to deal with fears that they are less productive than men because they may be incapacitated for a few weeks if they choose to have a child; imagine if they also had to deal with fears that they would be less productive a few days of every month, whether or not they choose to have a child.

As a feminist however, I wonder: Does equality mean treating women as if they did not have periods ie were the same as men, or does it mean acknowledging that women have periods, that even with modern medicine, there may be days when a woman is not feeling well due to her period, and should that be as legitimate an excuse to take off from work as a migraine - assuming the woman already tried anti-menstrual sympotms medicine and it failed, and the symptoms were bad? I feel that at the very least we should live in a world where it is acceptable to talk about periods, where there is no more stigma attached to the sentence "I have my period" than there is to "I have a headache."

Some feminists will say that women can not afford to acknowledge the potentialy physically limiting factor of periods, because it will set back the struggle to equal rights. But then, why acknowledge the potentially physically limiting factor of childbirth, which also sets back the struggle, since a man who chooses to become a father does not have to take time off from work (but perhaps, should have the right to do so.) I think in general, feminism, in its struggle to prove that women are equal to men, has forgotten that a woman's body is different, in terms of menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation, and that a major stumbling block to equality in the workforce is lack of legal accomodations for those diffferences - the US does not even have mandatory maternity leave. That is a huge issue for women who want to have children, and it is discriminatory in that a man wanting to have children does not face the possibility of being laid off for needing time to physically recuperate from the biological ramifications of his fathering offspring.

As a matter of fact, I protest to the very concept of having to prove that I as a woman am equal to a man. In proving myself to patriarchal society, I acquiesce to that society's right to demmand proof, and recognize the validity of the assumption I am trying to disprove. True feminism must seek an overhaul of the entire power structure, as opposed to trying to change the position of women within a pre-existing patriarchal framework.

Lastly, for those who may think menstrual taboos have vanished: I can not tell you the number of times I heard (mostly) males make jokes about how if Hillary Clinton became president, she could screw up America's diplomatic ties with certain countries, because if she was in a diplomatic meeting and had PMS - bam! There went America's good relationship with whatever country the poor unfortunate diplomate who had to endure her PMS belonged to. What I find especially interesting is that no one ever suggests that male presidents might make diplomatic concessions to countries represented by hot women, even though our society has this concept that when a man sees a beautiful woman his tongue falls out, and he loses the power to say no to anything she says. If you wonder why I am not mentioning men falling for beautiful men, the answer is that I would not expect society to discuss that, because society is heteronormative.

*http://www.mechonhadar.org/yeshiva-courses

** I think this might be according to Rabbi Heschel, and remember learning about it in Ms. R. Weinstein's 12th grade Tanach class.

*** same root as kedesha, prostitute. Also, Rashi on "kedoshim tihiyu" - "prushim tihiyu" - kadosh has a sense of being set apart. The Jews are set apart for God, the wife and husband are set apart for each other. The kedesha is set aside for sexual functions - this word might also be connected to cultic prostitution.

**** And society has a long way to go before full equality is achieved.