Gloria Steinem’s work regarding the consequences of a hypothetical world where men can menstruate and women can’t raises important questions about the construct of a sort of reproductive handicap; that is, the view that women are more useless to society due to their ability to reproduce. If men were able to get pregnant as well as women, the sphere of influence of society would move into the home, and the child bearer would become the dominating figures in society. I disagree with Miss Steinem that men would still dominate sectors such as business and other high paying jobs, as I believe that the partner stuck at work would be considered the weaker partner of the couple. The emphasis placed on reproduction in society would be much increased, and I believe that people would be granted more legitimacy as members of a society and a polity once they have given birth. The borders between men and women would like fade slightly, but the differences between the sexes would still be noticable and exploited.
    Joan Scott speaks to this important distinction between equality and difference, and when applying her work on the matter to this hypothetical scenario, we must examine the differences between genders based on societal norms, and question whether these norms are perpetrated through pregnancy. One such norm is the myth that women are naturally more nurturing than men. This myth has its ground in pregnancy, as women are generally stuck in the house taking care of children, or are relegated to careers that speak to this nurturing nature (nursing, teachers, etc.). In order to decide if these norms would be pulled away if everyone could get pregnant, we must first decide if norms such as these are intrinsically tied to pregnancy, or if these mechanisms are in place for other reasons, such as keeping women in the house to limit any type of economic power. In other words, if we eliminate the difference between men and women reproductively, does equality result? My answer for this question is no, as I believe that, while pregnancy is a useful mechanism to the patriarchy in order to keep men in power, men would find other differences and ways to keep women out of power.
    The debate between equality and difference is applicable to this scenario when societal norms are brought into play, then. The important distinction between biological difference, and how this plays into societal norms, is a useful tool for examining these differences. For a long time, women were kept out of the workplace because of the risk of maternity leave, and this would not change under a world where everyone could get pregnant. Instead, I believe that women would be put into work in order to fund their husbands, and the husbands would be considered the leader of the home, and the head of the home. In this hypothetical world, working would be seen as more callous and heartless decision, and the rhetoric of “Why would anyone want to work when they could spend their time at home with the kids?” would be continually repeated. The men who chose to work rather than care for the children would be considered less manly than those who stayed home, and men who chose not to have children would be considered “less of a man.” As a whole, society would shift to inside the home in order to continue to disenfranchise women, and women would continue to need to fight for equality. In this scenario, however, women are fighting for equality with a lack of difference, rather than fighting for equality because of difference.