TOPIC: "If men could menstruate... sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free..."
             Since history was recorded, 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, logic has nothing to do with it. What would happen, for instance, if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not? Then, why would stuff like sanitary supplies be federally funded and why would menstruation become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event.
             I have two cases to support my argument. Firstly, about two-three decades ago, men were considered as a stronger sex. The reason for this judgement was because men were physically stronger and they didn't menstruate. So, if men could menstruate? And women could not, then the earlier society instead of being male dominant would be female dominant or at most a neutral society and things like sanitary supplies wouldn't be federally funded, as it was for the women during those days. Secondly, talking about the present world, at least in North America men and women are considered equally to the most extent, eg: a women can do the same job what a man is doing, even though women menstruate. So, asking ourselves the same question again, that if men could menstruate? and women could not; the society would have still remained neutral rather than being male or female dominant and the issue of sanitary supplies would be as it is today.
             Some women complain that they have to shell out money for each period. They say that tampons (also known as sanitary supplies) should be given away in welfare boxes. That doesn't seem so unfair to me. I do understand that, what if a guy had to put out a dime every time he took a piss. It would be nothing at first, but after a while those dimes
             ...