Women have evolved past the need for menstruation, goes this questionable argument, and now should be relieved of the problem of an unnecessary monthly loss of blood. Coutinho (Gynecology, Obstetrics and Human Reproduction/Federal University of Bahia School of Medicine in Brazil) first advanced this startling opinion in a 1996 Portuguese edition of this work. Here he teams up with Segal (Distinguished Scientist at the Population Council in New York) to make the case that “recurrent menstruation is unnecessary and can be harmful to women. It is a needless loss of blood.” Biologically, the authors contend, women were designed to live shorter lives and to spend most of their reproductive lives pregnant or lactating, and so not ovulating. Longer human life spans and many fewer children mean more menstrual cycles, more cycle-related illnesses, an increased risk of such dangerous diseases as ovarian and endometrial cancers, and a serious worldwide problem of female anemia. “The attitude that menstruation is a ‘natural event’ and therefore beneficial to women has no basis in scientific fact,” conclude Coutinho and Segal, who therefore advise using long-acting contraceptives or continuously using oral contraceptives (with no monthly break to allow pointless bleeding) to achieve “freedom from menstruation.” “Under proper medical supervision,” they further suggest, “it can also be attained through natural means such as a conscientious regimen of rigorous exercise.” It’s difficult to imagine a world in which women would have the time for an exercise regimen of the level required to stop menstruation (literally hours each day), more difficult still to imagine this entire argument holding much appeal or even interest for readers of either sex.
Pub Date: Oct. 1, 1999
ISBN: 0-19-513021-9
Page Count: 208
Publisher: Oxford Univ.
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Oct. 15, 1999
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis...
Privately published by Strunk of Cornell in 1918 and revised by his student E. B. White in 1959, that "little book" is back again with more White updatings.
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis (whoops — "A bankrupt expression") a unique guide (which means "without like or equal").Pub Date: May 15, 1972
ISBN: 0205632645
Page Count: 105
Publisher: Macmillan
Review Posted Online: Oct. 28, 2011
Kirkus Reviews Issue: May 1, 1972
This is not the Nutcracker sweet, as passed on by Tchaikovsky and Marius Petipa. No, this is the original Hoffmann tale of 1816, in which the froth of Christmas revelry occasionally parts to let the dark underside of childhood fantasies and fears peek through. The boundaries between dream and reality fade, just as Godfather Drosselmeier, the Nutcracker's creator, is seen as alternately sinister and jolly. And Italian artist Roberto Innocenti gives an errily realistic air to Marie's dreams, in richly detailed illustrations touched by a mysterious light. A beautiful version of this classic tale, which will captivate adults and children alike. (Nutcracker; $35.00; Oct. 28, 1996; 136 pp.; 0-15-100227-4)
Pub Date: Oct. 28, 1996
ISBN: 0-15-100227-4
Page Count: 136
Publisher: Harcourt
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 15, 1996
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
© Copyright 2026 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Follow
Popular in this Genre
We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!
It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!
Already have an account? Log in.
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
Welcome Back!
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
