IF MEN COULD MENSTRUATE

     A white minority of the world has spent centuries conning us
into thinking that a white skin makes people superior -- even though
the only thing it really does is make them more subject to
ultraviolet rays and to wrinkles.

     Male human beings have built whole cultures around the idea
that penis-envy is "natural" to women -- though having such an
unprotected organ might be said to make men more vulnerable, and 
the power to give birth makes womb-envy at least logical.

     In short, the characteristics of the powerful, whatever they
may be, are thought to be better than the characteristics of the of the
powerless -- and logic has nothing to do with it.

     What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men
could menstruate and women could not?

     The answer is clear -- menstruation would become an enviable,
boast-worthy, masculine event:

     Men would brag about how long and how much.

     Boys would mark the onset of menses, that longed-for proof of
manhood, with religious ritual and stag parties.

     Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea to
help stamp out monthly discomforts.

     Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. (Of course, 
some men would still pay for the prestige of commercial brands such as
John Wayne Tampons, Muhammed Ali's Rope-a-dope Pads, 
Joe Namath Jock Shields -- "For Those Light Bachelor Days," and Robert
"Baretta" Blake Maxi-Pads.)

     Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious
fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("MENstruation") as proof that 
only men could serve in the army ("You have to give blood to take blood"),
occupy political office ("Can women be aggressive without that
steadfast cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priests and ministers
("how could a woman give her blood for our sins"), or rabbis
("Without the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean").

     Male radicals, left-wing politicians, and mystics, however,
would insist that women are equal, just different; and that any woman
could enter their ranks if only she were willing to self-inflict a
major wound every month ("You MUST give blood for the revolution"),
recognize the preeminence of menstrual issues, or subordinate her
selfless to all men in their Cycle of Enlightenment.

     Street guys would brag ("I'm a three-pad man") or answer praise
from a buddy ("Man, you are lookin' good") by giving fives and saying,
Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!"

     TV shows would treat the subject at length. ("Happy Days":
Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still "The Fonz,"
though he has missed two periods in a row.) So would newspapers. (SHARK
SCARE THREATENS MENSTRUATING MEN. JUDGE CITES MONTHLY STRESS IN
PARDONING RAPIST.) And movies. (Newman and Redford in "Blood Brothers"!)

     Men would convince women that intercourse was more pleasurable
at "that time of the month." Lesbians would be said to fear blood
and therefore life itself -- though probably only because they
needed a good menstruating man.

     Of course, male intellectuals would offer the most moral and
logical arguments.  How could a woman master any discipline that
demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics, or measurement, for
instance, without that in-built gift for measuring the cycles of the moon
and planets -- and thus for measuring anything at all? In the
rarefied fields of philosophy and religion, could women compensate for
missing the for their lack of symbolic death-and-resurrection every
month?

     Liberal males in every field would be kind: the fact that
"these people" have no gift for measuring life or connecting the
universe, the liberals would explain, should be punishment enough.