Some hindu women are saying that in our culture women could be without clothes lol 🤣 so why mahabharat happened then? If being nude was normal?
😭3
Yes, standardized tampon absorbency testing historically used saline rather than menstrual blood. But saline was used because standardized laboratory testing needs a consistent, reproducible fluid. Menstrual blood varies in viscosity and composition, making it much harder to use as a universal benchmark.
And scientists were not ignoring actual blood. Researchers had been using pads and tampons to measure menstrual blood loss for decades. Studies from 1972, 1987, 1996 and 2010 used blood recovered from menstrual products to quantify blood loss and study heavy menstrual bleeding.
So what changed in 2023?
Researchers asked a different question: “How much actual blood can this product hold before saturation?” They tested 21 modern products with human blood and compared their capacities.
That is useful research.
But if the old saline test was supposedly so obviously incapable of producing useful menstrual products, ask yourself this:
Why did billions of products get manufactured, used and continuously evaluated for decades without the catastrophe your framing implies?
And if women supposedly knew for generations that the products were fundamentally inadequate, where is the historical evidence of women collectively identifying this specific testing problem and demanding blood based capacity testing?
Women were obviously reporting problems such as leakage and heavy bleeding. Those problems were studied. But that is completely different from women knowing that “saline based laboratory absorbency testing is scientifically inadequate.”
You cannot look backwards from a 2023 experiment and pretend everyone before it should have already known the answer.
If you want to claim that the scientific community deliberately ignored an obvious problem, prove deliberate negligence.
Otherwise, stop turning:
‘Researchers developed a better way to measure product capacity in 2023’
into:
‘The scientific community didn’t care about women for decades.’
The first is a scientific finding.
The second is a narrative you added to it.”
And scientists were not ignoring actual blood. Researchers had been using pads and tampons to measure menstrual blood loss for decades. Studies from 1972, 1987, 1996 and 2010 used blood recovered from menstrual products to quantify blood loss and study heavy menstrual bleeding.
So what changed in 2023?
Researchers asked a different question: “How much actual blood can this product hold before saturation?” They tested 21 modern products with human blood and compared their capacities.
That is useful research.
But if the old saline test was supposedly so obviously incapable of producing useful menstrual products, ask yourself this:
Why did billions of products get manufactured, used and continuously evaluated for decades without the catastrophe your framing implies?
And if women supposedly knew for generations that the products were fundamentally inadequate, where is the historical evidence of women collectively identifying this specific testing problem and demanding blood based capacity testing?
Women were obviously reporting problems such as leakage and heavy bleeding. Those problems were studied. But that is completely different from women knowing that “saline based laboratory absorbency testing is scientifically inadequate.”
You cannot look backwards from a 2023 experiment and pretend everyone before it should have already known the answer.
If you want to claim that the scientific community deliberately ignored an obvious problem, prove deliberate negligence.
Otherwise, stop turning:
‘Researchers developed a better way to measure product capacity in 2023’
into:
‘The scientific community didn’t care about women for decades.’
The first is a scientific finding.
The second is a narrative you added to it.”
XoffensiveMan Insights
Voice message
FACT 2: “Almost everyone learns CPR on a male body, and women die because of that hesitation.”
There is a real issue here, but your conclusion goes far beyond the evidence.
A 2024 study examined 20 commercial CPR manikins from 9 manufacturers. 95% were flat chested and only one had actual breast characteristics. But researchers explicitly said it is still unknown whether manikin representation contributes to unequal cardiac arrest outcomes.
The 309,662 cardiac arrest study you cite found that women having cardiac arrest in public had 14% lower odds of receiving bystander CPR. That is a real disparity. But the study did NOT examine CPR manikins or prove that male manikins caused it.
And the picture isn’t as simple as “women don’t get CPR.” A U.S. analysis of 420,671 cardiac arrests found bystander CPR rates of 38.3% for women versus 40.0% for men. Men accounted for 64.1% of arrests and women 35.9%.
Men also experience out of hospital cardiac arrest much more often. A Dutch population study found 87.3 cases per 100,000 person years in men versus 30.9 in women, roughly 2.8 times higher.
Now the hesitation issue.
A 2014 simulation study found rescuers, particularly men, were more reluctant to remove clothing from a female simulated patient. But their initial CPR hand placement was actually better on the female simulator. The hesitation was mainly about exposing the chest and social concerns, not inability to perform CPR on women.
A 2024 study examining perceived barriers found that, when imagining a male rescuer, 36.2% identified fear of sexual assault or harassment accusations and 34.0% concern that touching a woman’s body might be inappropriate. These were perceived barriers, NOT evidence that 36.2% of men had actually been falsely accused.
But stop turning “female bodies are underrepresented in CPR training” into “women die because everyone learned CPR on male bodies.”
Your argument takes several findings:
Women sometimes receive less bystander CPR.
Most manikins are flat chested.
Some rescuers hesitate around exposing a woman’s chest.
And then you insert your own conclusion:
“Therefore male CPR dummies cause women to die.”
No. That causal link has not been established.
You do NOT have evidence proving that male CPR dummies are the cause of women’s deaths.
There is a real issue here, but your conclusion goes far beyond the evidence.
A 2024 study examined 20 commercial CPR manikins from 9 manufacturers. 95% were flat chested and only one had actual breast characteristics. But researchers explicitly said it is still unknown whether manikin representation contributes to unequal cardiac arrest outcomes.
The 309,662 cardiac arrest study you cite found that women having cardiac arrest in public had 14% lower odds of receiving bystander CPR. That is a real disparity. But the study did NOT examine CPR manikins or prove that male manikins caused it.
And the picture isn’t as simple as “women don’t get CPR.” A U.S. analysis of 420,671 cardiac arrests found bystander CPR rates of 38.3% for women versus 40.0% for men. Men accounted for 64.1% of arrests and women 35.9%.
Men also experience out of hospital cardiac arrest much more often. A Dutch population study found 87.3 cases per 100,000 person years in men versus 30.9 in women, roughly 2.8 times higher.
Now the hesitation issue.
A 2014 simulation study found rescuers, particularly men, were more reluctant to remove clothing from a female simulated patient. But their initial CPR hand placement was actually better on the female simulator. The hesitation was mainly about exposing the chest and social concerns, not inability to perform CPR on women.
A 2024 study examining perceived barriers found that, when imagining a male rescuer, 36.2% identified fear of sexual assault or harassment accusations and 34.0% concern that touching a woman’s body might be inappropriate. These were perceived barriers, NOT evidence that 36.2% of men had actually been falsely accused.
But stop turning “female bodies are underrepresented in CPR training” into “women die because everyone learned CPR on male bodies.”
Your argument takes several findings:
Women sometimes receive less bystander CPR.
Most manikins are flat chested.
Some rescuers hesitate around exposing a woman’s chest.
And then you insert your own conclusion:
“Therefore male CPR dummies cause women to die.”
No. That causal link has not been established.
You do NOT have evidence proving that male CPR dummies are the cause of women’s deaths.
Women were entering higher education decades before Curie’s Nobel. Girton was founded in 1869, the University of London began awarding degrees to women in 1878, Oxford had women’s colleges from 1878, and women were attending Oxford lectures and taking university examinations long before they received full degree status in 1920