Tampons too "woke" for conservatives.

[Alien826]

Why would an 8 year old prepare for their first period?

This thread desperately needs some humor.

A little boy, aged around 4, goes into a Pharmacy and asks for tampons. Puzzled, the assistant asks "Is this for your sister?"

"No".

"For your mother then?"

"No".

"Who are they for?"

"Me".

"Why do you want them?"

"It says on TV that you can ride a bike when you use these, and I can't ride a bike".

 

[SkepticThinker]

The notion that female hygiene products are somehow less necessary than the rest of hygiene products provided on the regular by the school should be criticized as selective bias that is frankly sexist. A the very least shows ignorance about what young girls go through.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!! Perfectly stated.

 

[Kathryn]

All I know is that it seems a shame that basic menstrual needs are so expensive at the store. Whew, I am so glad that's all behind me now.

 

[Alien826]

This all seems to hinge on the word "essential". OK, let's try a thought experiment.

Imagine a one room country school 100 years ago. Hard benches to sit on, one teacher, multiple ages among the pupils, probably an outhouse shared by all. Was it a school? I guess so.

We can argue then that adding anything to that would not be "essential" to an organization being called a "school".

So, maybe "desirable" would be a better word, with the criteria being related to the quality of education provided, with affordability thrown in as an unfortunate but necessary limitation. I'd suggest that anything that contributes to the ability of the students to learn is desirable. Thus, I would say that the availability of "sanitary" products for girls would certainly fall under the heading of "desirable". Now I suppose we can talk about affordability, but please leave politics out of it.

 

[VoidCat]

Those kids should be responsible for themeslves! Get your own epipens kid!

I will add regarding epipens...only a few states require them in school. My state is one that does. All states however have laws that allow schools to have them and to my knowledge most schools in states that dont require an epipen in the school still have them on hand just in case it's needed because who wants a dead kid on their hands? If you school is open long enough a kid will likely have an allergic reaction and they may not have a prescription to one. So schools carry them for those kids.

 

[Shaul]

"Most girls start their periods when they're about 12, but they can start as early as 8, so it's important to talk to girls from an early age to make sure they're prepared.

Respond to questions or opportunities as they arise and do not be embarrassed. Periods are natural."

Starting your periods

Most girls start their periods when they're about 12, but they can start as early as 8, so it's important to talk to girls from an early age to make sure they're prepared.

www.nhs.uk

"Menarche refers to your first period, or your first time menstruating. Most people get their periods between 11 and 14. Signs of menarche include light bleeding, cramping and mood swings. Menarche marks an important milestone during puberty when you’re capable of becoming pregnant."

Menarche (First Period): Overview, Age & What To Expect

Menarche refers to your first period, or your first time menstruating.

my.clevelandclinic.org

These cases are not exceptions.

So what? I never claimed that girls could not start their periods that early.

 

[Shaul]

This all seems to hinge on the word "essential". OK, let's try a thought experiment.

Imagine a one room country school 100 years ago. Hard benches to sit on, one teacher, multiple ages among the pupils, probably an outhouse shared by all. Was it a school? I guess so.

We can argue then that adding anything to that would not be "essential" to an organization being called a "school".

So, maybe "desirable" would be a better word, with the criteria being related to the quality of education provided, with affordability thrown in as an unfortunate but necessary limitation. I'd suggest that anything that contributes to the ability of the students to learn is desirable. Thus, I would say that the availability of "sanitary" products for girls would certainly fall under the heading of "desirable". Now I suppose we can talk about affordability, but please leave politics out of it.

Works for me.

 

[Jose Fly]

What you're seeing in this thread is the modern US conservative approach to society and government. From their viewpoint, government exists to do only the bare minimum, and most certainly doesn't exist to help people or make their lives better. That's especially the case when it comes to things that any specific conservative doesn't need themselves, such as what we see here.....a man doesn't need tampons, so why should the government take money from him to provide them to school girls?

Basically, their view is one of systemic selfishness.

 

[Shaul]

This applies to hand soap and toilet paper, too right?
Also, reallocating a portion of funds from sports programs isn't "taking from people" since the money is already there.

I never argued that. So if you want to argue that soap and toilet paper aren't essential then go ahead. Assuming that spending for sports programs come from public coffers assumes facts not in evidence. Also funding isn't necessarily fungible. So, no, it may not be feasible to simply shift the funding.

 

[Shaul]

What you're seeing in this thread is the modern US conservative approach to society and government. From their viewpoint, government exists to do only the bare minimum, and most certainly doesn't exist to help people or make their lives better. That's especially the case when it comes to things that any specific conservative doesn't need themselves, such as what we see here.....a man doesn't need tampons, so why should the government take money from him to provide them to school girls?

Basically, their view is one of systemic selfishness.

More like seeing the modern US liberal mindset of spend, spend, spend on "free" stuff for everybody all the time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what? I never claimed that girls could not start their periods that early.

You stated it as the exception, when it actually falls within the average. You also told other posters that you didn't believe them when they stated that they got their first period at a young age.

 

[Jose Fly]

More like seeing the modern US liberal mindset of spend, spend, spend on "free" stuff for everybody all the time.

Yep, that's the conservative response to any sort of public spending they don't like. Kind of an odd thing to say really, since if we're using taxpayer dollars to fund a program, it can't be "free" then, can it?

You remind me of a conversation I had with one of my conservative friends years ago, where he questioned why he had to pay federal taxes to the US Dept. of Education. When I described why it was created in the first place (to help reduce the wide discrepancy between public schools in poor vs. wealthy states), he explained that he saw no reason at all to care about the quality of education any kids get other than his own. When I said it's in our country's interest to have a well-educated populace and a good public education system, he just shrugged and said "We'll have to disagree on that".

Like I said....systemic selfishness.

 

[Jose Fly]

You stated it as the exception, when it actually falls within the average. You also told other posters that you didn't believe them when they stated that they got their first period at a young age.

That seems to be his pattern....when confronted with facts that run counter to his views, he just declares them to be lies....without a shred of supporting evidence of course.

 

[SkepticThinker]

More like seeing the modern US liberal mindset of spend, spend, spend on "free" stuff for everybody all the time.

"Idaho is projected to have a $1.4 billion revenue surplus this year. ...

The bill would have funded free menstrual product dispensers for sixth through 12th grade students in girls bathrooms at a cost of about $300,000 per year, or $3.50 per student, after a one-time installation cost of about $435,000."

 

[Shaul]

You stated it as the exception, when it actually falls within the average. You also told other posters that you didn't believe them when they stated that they got their first period at a young age.

Wrong. Acknowledging something happens as an exception actually means acknowledging that it does happen. Which agrees with what I wrote. "I never claimed that girls could not start their periods that early." No, I didn't say I didn't believe them[sic]. What I wrote was that I didn't necessarily believe a poster that said she has a personal experience. That is different.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong. Acknowledging something happens as an exception actually means acknowledging that it does happen. Which agrees with what I wrote. "I never claimed that girls could not start their periods that early." No, I didn't say I didn't believe them[sic]. What I wrote was that I didn't necessarily believe a poster that said she has a personal experience. That is different.

You made it out like it's the exception and not worth consideration. You flat out said it's the exception. Pretend that you didn't if you want, but we can all read back through the thread.

Ohhh, you don't necessarily believe them. That's completely different. Whew!

 

[Shaul]

"Idaho is projected to have a $1.4 billion revenue surplus this year. ...

The bill would have funded free menstrual product dispensers for sixth through 12th grade students in girls bathrooms at a cost of about $300,000 per year, or $3.50 per student, after a one-time installation cost of about $435,000."

A surplus means the state is collecting too much in revenue. It doesn't follow that such a surplus should be spent. Whether the particular proposed expenditure for the dispensers is good or not is open to discussion. There are many aspects that need to be looked at when spending public funds. The Idaho legislature is currently split on this proposal. Some want to go ahead. Others want to table the discussion to look more into it before deciding.

 

[Shaul]

You made it out like it's the exception and not worth consideration. You flat out said it's the exception. Pretend that you didn't if you want, but we can all read back through the thread.

Ohhh, you don't necessarily believe them. That's completely different. Whew!

So you now admit I didn't say it never happens. Yes, it is completely different. Glad your comprehension level is catching up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A surplus means the state is collecting too much in revenue. It doesn't follow that such a surplus should be spent. Whether the particular proposed expenditure for the dispensers is good or not is open to discussion. There are many aspects that need to be looked at when spending public funds. The Idaho legislature is currently split on this proposal. Some want to go ahead. Others want to table the discussion to look more into it before deciding.

The money is available, and it's just a tiny fraction of the surplus. That's what that shows.

 

[Secret Chief]

I had friends in 4th grade get their periods.

There you go again with your facts.