It is a curiously ironic debate but I dont think the above article really exposes any poor science. The study referred to above as 'The Canadian Study' was a meta analysis indicating that women experience a wide range of symptoms, moods and experiences associated with mensturation. Some women experience negative moods, but many do not according to the review's findings. Not exactly a controversial or suprising finding I wouldnt have thought.

What seems to be controversial is the interpretation that PMS is a myth when the study only really concluded that perimenstrual hormonal changes do not always cause negative moods in women.

So, best to read the actual science rather than rely on the media reports, particularly when journalists and the ensuing commentators clearly have not.

In reply to David's clever question below, I think given there is so little comparable research on male hormonal fluctuations and mood I suspect it might actually be safer to employ female pilots :-).

If she's suitably qualified, that's all that matters.
I understand that in addition to training and licensing, particular personality traits help with the stress of flying. The capacity to menstruate is unrelated.

I also understand that if a GP provides a medical certificate, whether the leave is paid or not is irrelevant, under Australian law that employee can take sick leave.

Thus, if a suitably qualified pilot succumbs to any illness, including PMS, all they need do is take the day off.

After all, just as you don't want a pilot cringing in agony and stressed, you don't want a pilot half asleep spreading snot all over the instruments.

Also different women experience a wide range of 'emotional/physical' responses to their menstrual cycle. Some experience highly predictable and consistent PMS; some experience no change whatsoever; some have experienced some change a few times in the past, none recently, and so on. I'd say the best way to be informed is to listen to the individual women in one's life. In this day and age, something like PMS and how it does/does not affect female employees is an issue we can surely take in our stride without fearing the whole business will collapse.

Exactly.

Also I have heard, and perhaps this site could cover this issue in appropriate depth, that men also have a hormonal cycle that alters their moods and it varies from male to male.

There's also a kind of manopause, when testosterone levels drop during the aging process.

Other than female hormone cycles being directly linked to fertility, I'm not seeing any gender difference.

It's called 'andropause', not 'manopause', when testosterone levels drop dramatically. I seem to remember an article in Scientific American a couple of decades back where the authors had measured testosterone levels in a study group. I think they identified a male hormone cycle which was locked into the seasons. Will have to do some Googling.

Slightly off-track but related: Also of concern in terms of mood and aggression is the growing use of synthetic androgens in the quest for a bigger body - used to be largely confided to the professional "body builders" and wrestlers, now commonly bought through gyms.

This area of body image could be a target for men's health advocates.

Well that there " female hormone cycles being directly linked to fertility" is a HUGE difference. In fact, it is what makes the world go round; at least the world of mammals. There is no such thing as andropause, precisely because human males do not have a fertility cycle, and thus do not experience a sudden cessation of fertility in the way that female humans do. And unlike other mammals, human males can get sex/reproduce 24/7 365 days per year. For human females, the cessation of the menstrual cycle leads to a whole host of physical/emotional reactions, which differ in intensity and degree.

Male fertility can continue on to a male's 80s and even beyond. What men experience is a very gradual, basically linear, decline in testosterone levels from about age 30. "Andropause" is a con, pushed more by non-medicos, who are basically talking about "getting old". Sure, declining testosterone can combine with generally body cracking up and breaking down, but females experience that as well, in addition to the menopause.

I'm all for dispensing lotions, potions, pills, and needles to ease the ageing process for all of us. So long as we have a reasonably good insight into the risks and benefits, and so long as the costs are not onerous on the rest of society, then I say give menopausal women, ageing males and females, all the hormone tablets/injections that prove to work as a 'pick me up'. But please, don't and try to justify it with some bullshit story like "Andropause".

Thanks for clarifying that the concept is a linear, gradual decline which is distinct from menopause....although the perimenopausal period is the gradation before the cut off.

Yes men gradually age and never become infertile. Once that switch is on so to speak. However, they do run out of juice and the factory starts up again. The factory is reliant on a hormonal cycle not all that dissimilar from the idea that women's fertility is cyclical. Difference is speed and quantity.

We have one or two big ovum pop out once a month. It's maintainence cost on our bodies are massive. But it was with us from when we were born. After awhile, when we age, our bodies can't maintain that cost anymore. Too much work. So we become infertile.

Men pop out millions if not billions of the little sperm every day. It's maintenance cost is cheap and on demand, they're not born with it. Their bodies can keep the factory open for longer, and generally, they don't become infertile. But the factory gets worn out too, and the quality and quantity of sperm reduces over time even though the factory stays open.

That is a massive difference to be sure, but....to say men don't get moody or have cyclical variations in the quality or quantity of sperm, sexual interest, or are not effected by that through aging is bogus.

A man can get moody and hormonal and it effects his judgement.
A woman can get moody and hormonal and it effects her judgement.

Focusing on PMS alone is...inaccurate. It distorts the picture. Men's moodiness is not understood and their health suffers. Women's moodiness is used as an excuse to say women are just plain moody, and women's health suffers.

In reply to you all. My comment made it sound a bit 'boys vs girls'. Sorry, that's not it. We're all in this together, regardless of our body bits, and whatever hormones are impinging on our brains!

Fred - why would it be strange that some people are more reactive to hormonal fluxes than others? Ever heard of pre-menstrual migraine? Not every woman gets it, and migraines tend to diminish after menopause. It's not not secret women's business, it's just physiology.

Oh, and some people ARE more susceptible to hypnosis than others - ask any trained clinical hypnotist.

Hi Sue,

I don't have a problem with the supposition that some folks will react differently to a hormonal stimulus. What bothered me is that, to me, the tenor of the argument was suggesting that some data should be discarded. i.e. only those people that respond to hormonal stimulus should be considered in the question of whether mood can be correlated to premenstrual hormonal changes.

In other words the meta analysis is supposedly flawed presumably because it integrated findings gathered over a broad swathe of people and consequently found no statistically significant correlation. To my thinking the meta-analysis seems to have been conducted in precisely the right way to look at a supposed serious and broadly experienced effect.

So the inference from the meta-analysis is that for the bulk of the population there is not a marked effect - if there were the meta-analysis presumably would have found it. This suggest that PMS is not evidenced across the broader population.

The author here is not comfortable with this inference and has suggested a couple of reasons why the study might be flawed.

These reasons, which seem quite possible, could be developed into alternative hypotheses framed in such a way that they could be tested by the usual scientific standard of falsification from evidence or experiment.

But, in my understanding, this is not what the author did instead she claimed the high ground of not having subjective political or philosophical bias and then in the next sentence made political and philosophical claims with little more than anecdotal support. This diminishes her arguments - regardless of whether they are fundamentally correct or not.

OK Fred. The better study design then might be to take a group of women who perceive that they DO react to hormonal changes, and track their mood and hormone levels in some sort of blinded way.

I don't know about you Sue but I'm pretty sure when I'm menstruating!

That would be a methodological challenge and it would be interesting to see what people come up with.

Emma - not everyone tracks their cycle - participants could be asked to diary their mood/sensations while having daily blood samples taken and not tracking their menstrual due date - or women on hormonal contraceptives could participate in different ways. Not impossible to have some sort of "blinding" - otherwise the reporting of subjective feelings would be just that - subjective. It would also be interesting to correlate mood changes with physical changes - such as weight gain or breast soreness.

I think you'll find that gender studies tends to have just as much of a problem with Freudian ideas as it is incline to use it in a mangled fashion. Not to mention much of it has naught to do with Freud at all.

Psychoanalytic piffle tis not the same thing.

Emma, Gender Studies is very much based on Lacan, who was a souped-up Freudian. But it's not just Lacan. Most neo-Marxism, and its offshoots - Gender/Cultural/Media Studies - is just Marx's superstructure drowned in a swamp of Freud-inflected - as you so profoundly say - piffle!

I'm sure there are people drowning in the neo-Freudian Lacanian soup with a splash of piffle who teach gender studies, collect a bunch of neo-marxist books on women's collectives in south america and even smugly chat about poverty on to their facebook friends using their iPhones

But to say Lacan or Marx or Freud is the limit to gender studies is also piffle.

No field has one theorist. Ever. It's like saying that because Modern Physics began more or less with Isaac Newton that the Einsteinan Revolution never happened.

So how does someone decide what is "emotional" and what is "irrational"?

It also seems to me from my reading, men have made up the vast majority of those developing diagnostic tools for PMS, and in finding treatments.

I believe it's very arbitrary to apply dualism to anything. Rational and irrational are labels based on individual judgements - not actual states. What seemed terribly rational 200 years ago, say bleeding patients to cure them, is irrational today and the same will most likely apply to many things considered rational today, like burning fossil fuels to create energy maybe. Equating irrational with emotional as opposed to rational being based on sensory data maybe (I.e observable or 'scientific') disallows those acting 'rational' their emotions - an ethical dilemma. No one is all irrational or rational, both are always present, no matter whether the subject is aware of their motivations. I think those making the distinction between what's ir/rational are served most since it can justify their own views and judgements about another and promote prejudice.

Exactly. And how 'rational' are men, when they experience testosterone surges?

'Exactly. And how 'rational' are men, when they experience testosterone surges?'

Is this true? Does it really happen outside of the world of bodybuilding, where (mainly men) consume androgens at a level which is an order of magnitude above their endogenous testosterone levels?

I would agree emotions are important, or we become automatons.

Interestingly, men actually have emotions, but an important factor is if someone becomes too emotional to be able to carry out certain tasks (such as driving a bus or driving a taxi in heavy traffic)

What hasn’t been mentioned in the article or the comments is the Pill, and the way it has reduced the effects of PMS. New forms of the Pill may do even more.

“Today, "the pill" has been finessed even more, with lighter-period or no-period birth control pills as well as no-PMS, no-acne pills.”

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/new-no-period-no-pms-birth-control-pills

It would appear that if a woman doesn’t like PMS, there are treatments.

A more controversial area would be, what happens if someone living close to the woman can not cope with her behaviour during PMS.

What should they do?

If I look at teenage boys, I'd say there's plenty of observations to suggest their testosterone surges affect their rational capacity :) - I would also go so far as extending these observations to adult males in certain situations... Maybe there has been some study into this.

The pill reduces PMS symptoms? Did not know that, thanks for the info. Also no periods pills are an interesting concept, I wonder if female astronauts, and people on 'Survivor' type programmes use those?

If someone is living close to a woman with PMS and is struggling to cope, it would probably be advisable to keep a wide berth and not get up her nose about the PMS. Like it is usually advisable to not poke a hornet's nest...be it an actual hornet or otherwise.

Not until she's ovulating and then maybe, politely suggest, that there is concern that this is going beyond normal periods and help is available, let's go get it. Hormone fluctuations would mean this part of the cycle likely mean more likely to listen...as not so ravaged by the PMS.

Because if PMS really is not really a healthy thing and it's translating into serious difficulties it should be treated. But like any illness, it has adverse effects on all concerned, and is not really anyone's fault. So the person who is not coping shouldn't be hard on them selves or her either, it is what it is and can be helped.

I agree that sometimes women's emotions are dismissed as PMS. It's like being told, you're upset because you're female, not because I'm acting like a jerk.

But I also know that hormone fluctuations do have consequences and even though every person has their own biochemistry when the fluctuation is severe the physical/emotional consequences can be quite serious.

Hormone cycles are also important in other indisputibly real conditions. So ignoring a relationship with the menstrual cycle is probably inadvisable.

It would be nice if we talked about men's hormone cycles as well. That way we'd be acknowledging that it can happen to anyone and will find that lovely, real middle ground where real illnesses are not ignored and neither are people's emotions.

I couldn’t help but notice your little quip, and I think it should be balanced by “And if I look at teenage girls, I'd say there's plenty of observations to suggest their estrogen surges affect their rational capacity :) “

I have noticed a distinct desire to denigrate males as much as possible, and this extends to teenage boys, pre-teenage boys, and even baby boys. It does seem to occur “ALL THE TIME” in our society.

Note that every remedy for PMS I have read about has been developed by men, and women have much to be thankful for men.

I'm not sure if the study was more a medical science study or a social science study, but widespread use of the Pill may have reduced the incidence of severe PMS, and the results of the study are actually accurate.

Instead of complaining about it, the best situation would be to find solutions to the problem, and of course men would be instrumental in finding a solution to the problem.

You were doing so well!

I have noticed the responses to the article have included blaming teenage boys, male weightlifters and of course men in general.

Only I have provided solutions to the problem, and I would think this would be typical of many situations now occuring.

If there is a problem -> blame a male.

The chances of men solving problems for women are bound to decrease in time, should this type of thinking continue.

NB. Gregory Pincus and the Searl pharmaceutical company developed the first contraceptive pill.

Actually, according to that page

"Gregory Pincus was an American physician, biologist, and researcher during the 20th century. Early in his career he began studying hormonal biology and steroidal hormones, but his first breakthrough came in 1934 when was able to produce in vitro fertilization in rabbits. In 1953, Margaret Sanger and Katherine McCormick confronted Pincus with the idea of creating an oral contraceptive. He sought out Searle, a pharmaceutical company, about funding for their plan. Searle's initial reaction was 'no' because it jeopardized his company due to the austere birth control laws. Despite the fact that Searle had no intention of creating an oral contraceptive, Frank Colton, a chemist at the company, accidentally developed a type of one. Pincus was allowed to have samples of the drug for his research and in 1957 The Pill was released as a treatment for gynecological disorders. Finally, in 1960, it became FDA approved and by 1963, 1.2 million women were using it. Although Searle was originally reluctant to fund research for an oral contraceptive, he soon reaped the rewards of the newly invented Pill, and monopolized the industry for a short time."

Searle wasn't interested, Colton did it by accident, Pincus used it and it was Sangar's idea all along.

Sounds like a team effort to me.

Exactly.

Without the men involved, women would not have their contraceptive pill, which has been further developed to reduce PMS and even achne amongst teenage girls.

This article offers no solutions to anything, except complaints about some paper in Canada.

That is also typical of where Australia is heading, which is to be a country filled with individuals pointing their fingers at men, but rarely solving any problems.

And so many men who have wanted to do things have left the country and started their families elsewhere.

It is called brain drain.

Agreed on all points.

On your final point: it comes down to the usual problem of society acting as though "sometimes" is the same as "always". It makes discussion of the actual issue at hand very difficult, when you have to constantly navigate the irrelevant (to the topic) reactions of people to anything implying a given gender.

I see a similar problem with discussions of race. It is very difficult to address issues such as (for example) a higher incidence of alcoholism within a given minority, when people interpret the merest mention of that minority group in relation to alcoholism as though it's a statement that all members of the minority group are alcoholics.

That's true.

And as people become more sensitive to the issues at hand, the use of language becomes more important. Of course that sensitivity does also distort what is read and heard. The question then is, are people really open to discussion?

The other thing though - ok let's start with the alcoholism. I'm going to call a spade a spade. Yes there is a problem with alcoholism in *some* Indigenous communities and it needs to be addressed. However, it gets up my nose that the *some* isn't made clear. And it is actually presented as though it's an exclusively Indigenous issue. *Some* non Indigenous communities have problems with alcoholism too. So just focusing on a given group or minority is only addressing *some* of the problem and is quite easily taken as racist.

Perhaps this is where Dale (in particular) is coming from vis feminism (Dale please correct me if you think otherwise). It is true that feminists have done a lot of work concerning violence against women and it is also true that a lot of that violence has been perpetrated by males. HOWEVER it's just as true that women commit violence against males and females and men are the victims of both male and female violence as well. I can see why *some* people would be inclined to think of feminism as sexist.

"So just focusing on a given group or minority is only addressing *some* of the problem and is quite easily taken as racist."

To go even further down this rabbit hole - different groups face problems for different reasons. For example, there are indigenous communities with alcoholism, and there are also rural communities, remote communities, remote rural communities with high numbers of immigrants, and young urban people, all of whom face problems with alcoholism.

Addressing alcoholism in any one of these groups is going to require a combination of different solutions. Therefore we MUST be able to discuss "alcoholism in indigenous communities" (for example) because the solution must be specific. A community in a metro area faces different issues than a community in the outback, and we need a language that can point to that community before we can craft a solution relevant to it.

There will of course be common threads, and parts of various solutions that can be re-applied elsewhere, but eventually you are going to have to say that you are "addressing alcoholism in this remote rural community that has a high number of indigenous people, immigrants, and bored young people". And the minute you do that, any number of groups is going to come out swinging about racism/sexism/ruralism (is that even a thing yet?!) and distracting from the real issue, which is that this *particular* community faces certain problems due to certain attributes.

We need a way to get specific without being labelled racist or sexist. Perhaps it's a problem with our language, but more I think it's a problem with our preference to put emotion before thought.

Maybe everyone has PMS!

Tracy & Suzy, thanks for this. I think the more open communication the better. The level of intimate/personal discussion I have with women in my life about these issues - friends, colleagues, family - would have been unheard of even one generation ago. As this kind of stuff becomes more and more domesticated, the less people will be spooked, and the more flexible the workplace will become.

In the late 19th century all of this (PMS or 'irrational' behaviour) would have been labelled women's'hysteria' - of course a diagnosis based on male observations, not sure how scientific they were :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J7Akwy4pxF0

Dale is going to love this one

Oh right - back when women's wombs went wandering around inside their bodies...!

"Sorry darling, I'm acting crazy today because my womb is prodding my frontal lobe."

I know it led to some truly terrible cruelties, but the idea of a wandering womb still makes me laugh. Irrational indeed!

LOL A man with a sense of humour :)

These secluded people got angry because they were hypoglycaemic, or got angry in order to have an adrenaline surge and release glucose, or both?