Are you sure "pickle"wasn’t an euphemism here?
Okay, make it simpler. Are there female flower vendors of reproductive age working? Do they take off one week a month? Do they get more complaints about their product wilting at certain times of the month which correlate with their menstrual cycles? Believe me, even a corner store mom ‘n’ pop flower seller is going to notice a pattern like that, and refuse to hire women.
Right. And the way I read that is, “Nope, nothing like proof of correlation has been consistently found in research.” There were some letters written in in which some people supported the theory, much like Montagu did, not studies done which supported the theory. How do you read it?
Well, I guess “simple” is in the mind of the beholder.
The hypothesis still doesn’t explain the economic dis-incentives for breweries, florists, dairies, farms, etc to employ women with no fear that their yeast, flowers, milk, fruit, etc won’t die, wilt, curdle, or rot faster than the competition.
So, while I don’t have a scientific cite to prove menotoxin doesn’t exist, the US economy alone is sufficient to prove that menstruating women have no economic impact on any of these fields. Given the difficult time women have had trying to gain equal economic standing with men in society, you can bet an actual menstrual effect on industrial efficiency would have been noticed somewhere.
I recall reading when I was a kid, late 70s/early 80s a claim that the skin of menstruating women was more acidic and that wilted plants, therefore women shouldn’t garden around then without gloves. I haven’t run across any similar claims recently though.
Ah, well that hypothesis should be easy enough to test. Get some pH strips and a woman! (I have the later, but not the former. And, honestly (TMI alert!) I’ve been spotting so much lately that my “cycle” isn’t so cyclic right now. So I’m afraid I’m not the best Doper to run this experiment.)
Nope, it wasn’t. Ozarkers in those days used “dillybanger” instead.
Actually, while I don’t believe this crap, I can actually see some wisdom in women perpetuating it. I mean, look, you’ve got a woman in the, oh, late 19th century. Her daily life is one chore after another. Until she (trumpets, please) gets her period! Then, it can be “Oh, my, I should be doing the gardening, canning, housekeeping, baking, whatever, but since I’m ‘delicate’ right now, everything I touch just turns out badly. I suppose I’d be doing the household a favor by just taking to bed!” So here’s a woman who typically works 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week, with a (supposed) legitimate excuse to just Go Lie Down in the middle of the day! Score!
You’d better not allow menstruating women into the workplace or you’ll have ALL sorts of trouble.:rolleyes:
I don’t think very many employers are aware of the menstrual patterns of their employees. Also, as long as there is more than one pre-menopause woman there, there will be no pattern.
I don’t know what whether there were letters or studies. But the impression I get from this is that it was a question which was taken seriously by scientists, and not, as some have suggested in this thread, a bunch of obvious nonsense supported only by blatantly flawed quasi-studies.
See above. In addition, as a practical matter in a modern society it’s not politically feasible and most likely not economically viable for an employer to establish a policy of not employing menstruating women. (You would have to not employ pre-menopausal women altogether, or rotate women in and out based on their menstrual status.) And as it stands now, all competitors are in the same boat. And since most employers are not exactly experts on this subject anyway and would have to run some sort of exact testing to figure out if it’s so, it makes a lot more sense for them to just leave the current situation in place.
Hold on, the Museum of what??? And no one has commented on that yet?!?!? :eek::eek: I’m shocked enough to know that this is only an Internet site, if it’s actually a bricks-and-mortar location too, well, please don’t tell me!
Reminds me of a comedy routine by Simon B. Cotter, mentioning the study that bears are attracted to menstruating women:
I have nothing to add except… great username/thread topic combo.
Hold on, so my menstrual powers of oblivion are counteracted by another woman’s *not *being on her period?
There are plenty of small flower shops where the owners are women who staff their own stores most of the time.
This one was clearly started by some very wise woman who didn’t feel like standing around working in a hot kitchen while the cramps were wrenching her guts out.
I’m still not seeing where you get that impression. Other than a “gee whiz” quote from a book which appears to wildly inflate the gravity of the experiments and the significance of their results.
JSTOR subscribers – can you summarize the contents of this?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2808578
You seem incredibly attached to the idea that women do in fact give off poisonous miasma. Does that strike you as some obviously true revelation? Does it comport somehow with your own observations? Have you been shown to your satisfaction that it has been thoroughly proven and accepted by modern science? Or that any scientist in the last 40 years gives it any credence at all?
Ashley Montagu was fairly respected in his day. However, any respected scientist can say something stupid, and say it many times. Just look at Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.
As has already been noted, if the hypothesis is true, there are plenty of tiny businesses that would be at a significant economic disadvantage due to primarily female ownership.
And in sufficiently large companies, even if there was an averaging effect due to having many women with non-overlapping cycles, there should still be a hit in efficiency and wasted productive capacity (more spoiled food/milk/flowers, etc).
So, since the 50s, if the hypothesis is true, the relevant companies (agricultural, dairy, brewing, etc) that held out on hiring women should have had a competitive economic and production advantage over their rivals. There’s no evidence this occurred.
It’s not like we’ve always had women working alongside men. There was a long time when there was NO political or social cost of having explicitly misogynistic HR practices. It took time to get to where we are now, and there’s been no economic evidence the slow introduction of women (most of whom menstruate) has hurt the bottom line.
So, either the hypothesis is false OR the benefit of having women in the workplace at all economically outweighs any menstrual effect.
As has been noted by other posters, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Should I buy fresh milk next week only to have it go immediately sour or should my teammates from my high school football days have gone blind or my mother develop 100 cracks in her back, I might take that as evidence that there may be something to menotoxin or the dangers of masturbation or sidewalk cracks and mothers’ backs.
On a slightly related note, I was just earlier today wondering why it seems like one of my houseplants is dying. Now I know. Thank you again, SDMB.