Women today are more knowledgeable about their hormones than ever before, with terms like the “luteal uglies” becoming part of everyday conversation. This shift marks a significant change from earlier decades when female biology was often seen as something to be suppressed or overcome.
From Secrecy to Openness
Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, a Guardian columnist, reflects on her own experience of only learning what a “luteal phase” was in her late 20s, after a mid-fertility panic Google search. She expresses awe at the expertise with which younger women now discuss their menstrual cycles, noting their incredible literacy on the subject.
In the “post-feminist” 1990s and early 2000s, sex education focused primarily on preventing teenage pregnancy, and the emotional impact of hormones was rarely discussed. Being on the pill from age 14, as Cosslett was, further disconnected women from their natural cycles, though it had other benefits.
The Rise of Cycle Tracking and Awareness
Today, young women have access to a plethora of period tracker apps and products, as well as an avalanche of content about menstruation, ovulation, and the luteal phase. Topics like matrescence, perimenopause, and menopause are now discussed widely, extending the conversation beyond younger women.
This increased awareness, while sometimes veering into psychobabble, is backed by good science. Knowing what’s happening in your body can have psychological benefits, helping women understand that negative body image and fatigue during the luteal phase are fleeting and rooted in hormonal changes.
Empowerment and Potential Pitfalls
For Cosslett, understanding her monthly desire to “explode her life” as a mild form of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) has been important. It helps her warn loved ones and prompts self-care, rather than making drastic life changes. Online discussions have equipped many with the language to access diagnosis, though misinformation remains a concern.
However, there are risks. In the US, women’s cycles have been co-opted for patriarchal agendas, such as the period tracker data scandal and attempts to discourage birth control. Cosslett worries less about women adopting labels and more about capitalism’s response, like pills that “cure” the luteal uglies or apps that sell data.
Mainstream media often frames reproductive education in a pro-natalist context, but discussing it for women’s self-understanding and mental health feels radical. This shift is emancipatory, encouraging women to know and control their bodies while being realistic about living in them. It’s a movement, and Cosslett is fully supportive.
