The use of menstrual blood to make art. The removal of the “woman” symbol from advertisements for menstrual products. The call to eradicate the “tampon tax.” Period leave as national policy. Global corporate philanthropic campaigns advocating the end of period poverty. These cases exemplify the ongoing shift in conversations around menstruation from secrecy to sanitation, from private to public, from women-centric to health-centric. These developments notwithstanding, the accessibility and inclusivity of menstrual products are hardly equitable. The idea that menstruation is “dirty blood” and requires sanitation is encapsulated in the very name of the products: “sanitary pads” or “feminine hygiene pads.” Further, in various communities, those bleeding may be forbidden from praying, mourning their dead, or letting anyone – including family members – know that they are menstruating. And, of course, “sanitation” and “hygiene” echo the disturbing premise of colonial and philanthropic civilizing missions to make “clean” purportedly dirty and defiled communities.
Inspired by Scotland’s 2022 Period Products Act, which legally mandates the provision of free menstrual products in government and public spaces, the following Conversations piece takes up how selling menstrual pads on public transportation became a hotly debated issue in China, especially for cis-men who do not bleed. Ming Zhang and Chi Zhang share an important case study about digital feminist activism and education around menstruation and the backlash against it. They focus specifically on how China Railway refused to sell menstrual products on high-speed trains, framing menstrual products as a private affair and not a public good. The authors highlight the deeply entrenched misogyny, the sheer ignorance surrounding menstruation, and patriarchal ideologies around who can bleed, and when and where, and thus who should have access to menstrual products. Why should the state have to pay for such products? Why does the discourse around menstruation move easily between blood as sacred for fertility and blood as a dirty monthly secret? Examining social media posts, men’s willful miseducation, and patriarchal bias in public policy, our authors situate this debate within larger Chinese feminist movements and ask important questions around shame, fertility, stigma, access, dignity, inclusion, and rights.
The Conversations section is an innovative intervention by IFJP which aims to offer space and opportunity to make strong theoretical and practical contributions to feminist debates that do not necessarily take standard academic forms. It may include interviews with prominent or early-career scholars, practitioners, and activists; narratives and short stories; photo essays, artistic pieces, and poetry; film readings; conference reports; and other “non-traditional” modes of scholarly writing.
Interested authors should submit their articles via ScholarOne: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rfjp. Please also upload a biographical note and five keywords. Make sure to edit it thoroughly for language and clarity, format it to correspond to the Taylor & Francis guidelines, and identify it as a submission for the Conversations section.
For further information, please refer to the journal’s FAQ page at: https://www.ifjpglobal.org/submit-to-us/#anchor_conversations_shortcut.
Inquiries should be directed to both Conversations Editors.