Women should be given time off when having a period

And please, women, stop thinking that merely your being a woman, entitles you to speak for your entire gender!

One would take it, from your deprecating attitude, that because you never needed prescription meds-- and you had some truly bad menstrual pain-- that therefore no woman alive could benefit from them. If I may explain medical fact, without being charged with "mansplaining"-- a term, like any other, which loses its effectiveness, from its blatant over usage, FYI-- not only is each woman's menstrual experience NOT applicable, to all other women (and one wonders what kind of basis you could possibly have had for your foolish boast, that your own cramps were among the worst that any woman might experience-- look at your comment: if that is not meant to be your implication, then what the hell is the point of your saying it?) but also, everyone experiences pain SUBJECTIVELY. The implication of that, is the same pain that a tough soldier like yourself might rate as a tolerable 4, another woman-- or man, to show that this is not a sexist comment, but merely a statement of fact-- might gauge to be a 6, 7, or even 8, on the pain scale. There is no objective way, for physicians to measure this!

Once more, for everyone here, I was, actually, making the comment, in a half-joking way, but it is ridiculous of any of you to interpret it as meaning to apply to any but SEVERE, EXCEPTIONAL, cases. More likely, 800 mgs. of Ibuprofen (Motrin) would suffice;. but what about the patient who is hyperacidic, or has other stomach/intestinal-- or for that matter, kidney-- issues, which make this an unworkable solution? Too bad for her? S.O.L?

I am one who does not believe in making people suffer unnecessarily, when we have the means to alleviate that suffering. As I explained, this is naturally contingent upon responsible prescribing, and monitoring of patients, not just throwing pills at them, without properly evaluating their situation, and first trying the treatments with the lowest degree of potential side effects. But presenting a treatise on this philosophical approach to pain management, had not been my intention, when I posted my casual remark, nor would this thread be the appropriate venue.

Is it not conceivable to you, that a man has lived with, or dated, or known, a woman who had-- in her own opinion-- debilitating menstrual symptoms?
SHEESH-- get over your sense of omniscience!

 

The opioid epidemic that led us into the fentanyl epidemic we're suffering now started because of people getting addicted to opioids (that were being prescribed irresponsibly to drive pharmacorp profits...) that they couldn't get enough of because of prescription limitations. Which is to say- prescriptions clearly arent a reliable method to prevent addiction.

And Im not saying opioids arent useful or even arent useful in treating symptoms of menstruation. I'm just saying that I think (in the context of the OP) using opioids to help women with severe symptoms of menstruation make it into work probably isn't a wise use of opioids.

 

Oh FFS. I’m a freaking women. I know lots of women. We talk about this stuff starting in the 4th grade. I know everything you said, so much so, that it was TLDR.

The suggestion that women are fragile flowers who need a few days off a month while they are on opioids, is utterly ridiculous for all but a very, very small percentage of women.

Please stop mansplaining what it’s like to have menstrual cramps. Lmao.

 

If opioids aren't your thing, then what are you on, that makes you unable to read? Because I said nothing at all resembling what you just depicted me saying. Let's check your scorecard:

1) Women: "fragile flowers?"--- × No
2) Need opioids, generally?-- × No
3) The rare, severe cases, which might benefit from a relatively mild opioid-- this would cause them to take off work?-- ×No, in fact it might allow them to work, through their period.


But wait! That's "mansplaining," because, didn't you hear Curious Always: she is a woman. She's talked to women (at least since the 4th grade!). And she has been accusing you of mansplaining, because she knows, from her extensive research, that no woman has ever needed to miss a day's work, due to menstrual cramps. What can you say to that, DEFinning?

Actually, after my making this point a couple of times--

DEFinning said: ↑
Your post noted the variable nature of symptoms, did it not? I, therefore thought it would be understood that I did not mean to suggest that all women in the country, of child bearing age, should be on Vicoprofen-- I am not a sales rep, for that Pharmaceutical manufacturer. So, sorry, if that was the impression you'd had. I had meant, in severe cases, specifically. And no, pot would most likely not do the trick, in those instances. Also, if a person only gets say 15 or so pills a month of this, to manage severe cramping pain which would otherwise be debilitating, it would only suffice them for their period, and would not be sufficient enough for them to develop a tolerance, from continual usage-- as they'd only have enough for 1 week per month-- which is what would be required, for this to lead to physical addiction. Psychological addiction can form with any substance, most certainly including marijuana.


DEFinning said: ↑...
Once more, for everyone here, I was, actually, making the comment, in a half-joking way, but it is ridiculous of any of you to interpret it as meaning to apply to any but SEVERE, EXCEPTIONAL, cases. More likely, 800 mgs. of Ibuprofen (Motrin) would suffice;. but what about the patient who is hyperacidic, or has other stomach/intestinal-- or for that matter, kidney-- issues, which make this an unworkable solution? Too bad for her? S.O.L?


-- and her initially denying the fact that there might be anyone who might benefit, while sprinkling her cutesy, little girlie term around, like it was some after bath powder (does Jean Naté make those?)--

Curious Always said: ↑
I never once needed opioids for cramps, and I had a few truly bad ones. Pot or a muscle relaxer does the job fine.

Please, men, stop mansplaining our cycles to us.

-- she is now actually representing what had been my position, all along, as her position:

Curious Always said: ↑
Oh FFS. I’m a freaking women. I know lots of women. We talk about this stuff starting in the 4th grade. I know everything you said, so much so, that it was TLDR.
The suggestion that women are fragile flowers who need a few days off a month while they are on opioids, is utterly ridiculous for all but a very, very small percentage of women.

Please stop mansplaining what it’s like to have menstrual cramps. Lmao.


So, does that mean that she is "mansplaining," if she steals a man's explanation, to present as her own?



Thank you so much, Curious, for womansplaining to me, what I have been saying for a couple of posts, now, including in response to you, while you have been laughing your ass off over something-- my explaining "what it's like to have menstrual cramps"-- which, of course, I never did, despite your continuing to throw that baseless charge in my direction;

from that evidence, I am going to guess you are more a fan of mescaline or other hallucinogenics, than of opioids.

 

Right, well that irresponsible part makes all the difference, including making it foolish to reject the drugs, because of poor practice. You say you do not feel this way, but that is not how your opinion reads:

You do not go into details but, as long as everybody wants to turn my little comment into a big deal, it is worth pointing out that we had been using hydrocodone (derived from codeine) for a very long time, without it leading to a crisis. What actually precipitated both the irresponsible use, and the addiction epidemic, was the development of extended-release oxycodone (similar, synthetic codeine analog, though not derived from codeine but from thebaine, and containing one more oxygen atom, than does hydrocodone) under the brand name OxyContin, by Purdue Pharma, which was very aggressively promoted by their sales force, and touted as being "non addictive." And, though it was a narcotic-- if you can believe it-- doctors actually fell for it! What a bunch of dopes! Smarter than me, my ass! Common sense dictates that any narcotic is addictive, by nature. But this was the load of goods that Purdue was selling, and medical professions we're buying, which led to an over-prescribing of this higher than required dose of narcotic, to cover a longer period of time, at a strength that might have only been required for the worst part, of that span of time. This is why there was a crisis. It was due to misrepresentation, by the manufacturer, improper oversight, by the FDA which, to be fair, has no ability to do anything but basically trust whatever the Pharma company tells it, and incredibly naive just stupidity, by medical practitioners, to not have the sense to realize that what they were being fed, did not add up.

Note, none of these things, would contraindicate the minimal use of traditional hydrocodone, for short periods, with several weeks, in between each. So the difference between our opinions seems to be that mine is based on fact, and yours seems more just a going along with the alarmist backlash, towards overly restricting meds, following a foolish over-prescribing of them.

 

That's how a lot of people started out who go on to buy opioids from the street corner pharmacist.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court handed down a decision on how women should handle their periods.

 

WRONG. Or, rather, how are you defining "a lot?" More than ten?

Please see my post that immediate precedes your reply, as it describes, in broad strokes, what was actually the most typical circumstance, in the recent opioid addiction crisis. In earlier times, as during the Vietnam War era, it was offen soldiers who had been treated for their injuries with much stronger narcotics, such as methadone, for long, continuous periods. This is a far cry from a low dose hydrocodone regimen, for a week or less, once a month. I mean, sure, theoretically anything could lead to addiction, or be a "gateway" but statistics do not hear this out to be true for pot, nor would they for the almost miniscule amount of hydrocodone I suggested, for very short, discrete periods. That is just not enough, to become physically dependent. It would be like writing you a prescription for 15 cigarettes a month. As a matter of fact, though, nicotine and alcohol, have been statistically shown themselves to be two of the top gateway drugs out there.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...having-a-period.604859/page-3#post-1073801657

 

My point is is that people who turn to opiates they get on the street often start on pharmaceuticals. This is a known fact.

 

No no no no they don't want equal treatment they want to take home the same salary as men but work less, and of course only in the high paying prestigious jobs in air conditions climates not none of that plumber nonsense because that's gross men's work.

 

And my point was that your point, was a grossy indiscriminate over-generalization.

 

So how did we get where we are today?
Why did the government crack down on them?

Because at one point doctors were handing them out like Skittles on Halloween for any little thing.

 

Didn't you know if a doctor's prescribes it as in one of those wellness clinics that's a glorified drug dealer it's perfectly legitimate and on the level and not addictive at all.

Here kiddies have some Ritalin. It's like methamphetamine and cocaine at the same time

 

Did you bother to read the post, which I already told you, answered that question? Your argument makes no sense, since we'd had hydrocodone for a fairly long while, without these more recent problems. I do not wish to reiterate the entire explanation, I just posted in post #55.

If you understand the meaning of "indiscriminate" and "over-generalization," then you should not still be so confused about my objection to the fallacy of lumping all these things together, as if they are the same, regarding the likelihood of their leading to addiction.

 

You just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Menstrual cramps don't need opiates.

Over prescribing opiates is how we got here today as a society.

And because of that many doctors hesitate to prescribe them for actual legitimate needs.

Please go back to explaining the menstrual cycle to the women.

 

Completely appropriate that you end on that point, because it has precisely as much accuracy, regarding my posts, as everything else you posted: namely, 0%.

That is almost like a gift you have, to be able to write so many things, and not mention anything, even accidently, with an once of truth to it. An odd, useless gift.

Since we both know where this is going-- your simply denying the truth of what I just said, which gets us nowhere-- though, for you, who is offering nothing but B.S., this must seem very much a victory-- I am laying down a challenge:

In your reply, prove just that one thing, by quoting any of my posts "explaining the menstrual cycle to women." Do this, and you prove that you are not 100% full of schitt.

If instead, you reply with nothing but excuses-- "I don't have to prove anything to you, ehhh" -- and everyone will know that all your little bitchy whining, is just as full of it, as everything else, in the load you just dropped.

 

Too long didn't read and don't care. Congratulations you have succeeded in "winning" the argument.

You have finally grinded me down to where I no longer have any interest in continuing the conversation with you. Have a good day! I said good day sir!

So go ahead and have the last word and enjoy your victory here!

 

....

Popcorn

 

You're basically saying women are not as capable as men.

 

No, but you are definitely saying, your reading comprehension is sub par. Here's a thought: why don't you explain your reasoning, citing my specific words, supporting your conclusion. Some people call this, by the way, putting forth "an argument."

Your post, quoted above, however, is nothing more than your tossing of an inflammatory accusation, without offering any basis for it. As such, it is worthless, and should be beneath the notice of any self-respecting person.

If you would find it helpful, I am willing to give you examples of things I could say about you, which would offer just as much of a foundation, as you have provided for your dubious allegation (namely, none).

 

But it was not beneath your notice?


I quoted the wrong post by the way. I intended to quote the origin poster.

It seems my accidental reply/quoting of your post has upset you.

Would an apology from me help ease the way you're feeling ?

 

You are mistaken, once more-- this time, in believing that I was "upset." I had only been treating what seemed your utterly ridiculous & unsupported charge, in the condescending manner of which it was deserving. I accept your explanation, though (just to point out what I consider to be proper etiquette) an apology for mistakenly accusing someone of bigotry, or however you want to label the attitude you'd alleged-- chauvinism, etc.-- should have come with that explanation, as a matter of course, not as a supplementarily dangled offering, for which I need grasp out at, like a ring of keys, in front of a child.

Words are not as important to me as the sincere sentiments of those with whom I converse. As you have made yours, now, quite clear, a further "apology" from you would be, obviously, of little meaning.

 

You're welcome. I'm glad you understand and we've managed to clear the air .

 

Yes this sort of thing infantilizes women but I think that's the primary thrust of feminism today. I want all of the privileges and none of the responsibilities.

 

Sigh. The feminist that created this thread is male. It’s he who thinks women are fragile.