The Controversial Menstrual Leave Policy

Photo: Polina Zimmerman / Pexels

Menstrual leave is not a new concept, but has always been a controversial one. It originally served the purpose of preserving women’s fertility from the physical demands of labour in early 20th Century Russia – driven by fears of population decline. Following Russia, Japan implemented the policy Post-War for population reasons too. However, this reasoning isn’t relevant anymore for most contemporary workplaces and nowadays, it is more focused on the productivity and wellbeing of women.

The menstrual leave policy allows women to take leave off work when needed during menstruation. More countries and companies are adopting this policy, yet the effects of the policy aren’t sufficiently researched. The intention behind the menstrual leave policy nowadays is to improve inclusivity, the wellbeing of women, and reduce menstrual stigma at work.

But is the policy truly fulfilling its purpose? This blog will explore how the workplace is unsuitable for women’s bodies, examine the effects of the controversial menstrual leave policy on gender equity, and offer suggestions for making the workplace more inclusive.

THE ‘ECONOMIC BURDEN’ OF WOMEN’S BODIES

The workplace is modelled around men’s bodies. As menstruation is not factored into the structure of modern work, theories suggest that women are expected to perform additional ‘bodywork’ on top of their duties in order to manage their periods at work. This is hidden labour which spends physical and emotional energy. It involves concealing any signs of bleeding in order to conform to professional and social standards established by non-menstruators.

Menstruating is still taboo in almost all settings. The taboo surrounding periods impedes progress towards gender equity and reinforces the idea that women must be ‘discreet’.

In the workplace, periods can be difficult to manage, especially for some who experience extremely painful periods, heavy bleeding, or emotional dysregulation. This can lead to less productivity or time off work, resulting in women’s bodies being objectified as being less valuable and an economic nuisance.

GENDER EQUITY

As women are perceived as an economic burden in the workforce, employers may hire male candidates over their female counterparts in order to supposedly guarantee productivity and efficiency.

This objectified view of women’s bodily efficiency contributes to wider gender disparities when employed women take menstrual leave. When women are absent from work, it opens more space for their male colleagues to receive more opportunities. Their menstrual leave can also have a negative secondary impact upon progress reviews and wages - reducing their chances of climbing the corporate ladder within the labour market and increasing gender inequality.

Because of these unfair disadvantages, women are avoiding utilising menstrual leave by using medication to manage pain and manipulate the start date of their periods. Women avoiding the menstrual policy due to concerns about position in the labour market shows that the policy is failing to achieve its intended purpose.

Some women may be unable to work at all during their periods as several menstrual disorders can cause severe pain or other debilitating symptoms. But most women are able to work by improving flexibility and would benefit from making the workplace more ‘period-friendly.’

EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY

To make the workplace more suitable for menstruating people, the menstrual leave policy should additionally focus on the employer being responsible for making the workplace more inclusive and providing flexibility with working location/time.

This could include but is not limited to: wellbeing rooms/places to rest, workplace flexibility (e.g. working from home, working different hours, etc.), toilets stocked with period products, and discussions in the workplace to increase normalisation - reducing bias.

In some countries, this isn’t realistically possible. The toilets and facilities aren’t suitable for menstruating women to maintain adequate hygiene and therefore, in this scenario, the best option is for women to take leave if available.

However, in countries where this is possible, it will prevent most women from being absent from work and missing opportunities, reducing gender inequality. 

This isn’t to suggest the menstrual leave policy should be eradicated in replacement for these amendments because those who suffer with bad periods are severely impacted by their ability to work and need time off. For those with menstrual disorders, more research into those conditions, how they can be managed, and medical attention is needed.

But for the women who can work during their periods, they shouldn’t be treated as if their bodies are incapacitated but rather the workplace that needs adjusting to be a suitable place for menstruating bodies. This will also increase productivity as it will reduce the emotional and physical labour involved with managing periods in a place where they are unwelcome.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, despite the positive intentions to improve inclusivity, the menstrual leave policy actually reduces women’s opportunities for gender equity in the labour market as it neglects the root cause of the issue: workplaces not being suitable for women’s bodies.

By adapting the menstrual leave policy to make leave optional whilst implementing facilities, discussions, and allowing flexibility with work, women can be supported and comfortable knowing they aren’t compromising their career. 

Are you interested in finding out more about how your workplace can better support menstrual and gender equity? Please get in touch with marlou@periodreality.org

REFERENCES

Joshi.M, (2024); ‘Menstruation as Additional Work: Insights from the Menstrual Leave Debate in India’; ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY; Vol.59, No.43; pp.17-20; [Online]; Available from: https://researchportal.tuni.fi/en/publications/menstruation-as-additional-work-insights-from-the-menstrual-leave Accessed: 3rd November 2024.

King.S, (2021); ‘Menstrual Leave: Good Intention, Poor Solution’; Aligning Perspectives in Gender Mainstreaming; pp.151-176; [Online]; Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348241120_Menstrual_Leave_Good_Intention_Poor_Solution; Accessed 3rd November 2024.

Levitt.R, Barnack-Tavlaris.J (2020) ‘Addressing Menstruation in the Workplace: The Menstrual Leave Debate’; The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation
Studies; pp.561-575; [Online]; Available from: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/41299/1/2020_Book_ThePalgraveHandbookOfCriticalM.pdf#page=582; Accessed 3rd November 2024.

Widyani, I D. A, (2022); ‘Menstrual Leave Policy; Between Gender Sensitivity and Discrimination Against Female Workers’; Technium Business and Management; Vol.2, No.2; pp.50-60; [Online]; Available from: https://www.techniumscience.com/index.php/business/article/download/6754/2352; Accessed 3rd November 2024.