And in radical menstruation news:
Menstrual leave employment policies allow employees experiencing painful menstrual cycle-related symptoms or illnesses… to take time off work. Traditionally, these policies have been sex-specific, targeting women or females.
I suspect sharp-eyed readers can guess where this is going.
However, some companies have begun expanding their language to include “people with uteruses” or “menstruating employees.” This shift is significant, as research shows that sex-specific employment policies undermine gender equality at work.
Readers may wish to ponder whether listing special sex-based requirements – taking time off work, every month, for days, and still expecting to be paid, for instance – is the ideal basis for asserting the obviousness of workplace gender equality.
I’m also unclear on how gender equality, a term used many times, is bolstered by the belief that menstruating women may in fact be men – and the implication that men can also become women and can therefore barge into previously female-only spaces.
For a similar reason, I will be using the terms “menstruators” and “people who menstruate” throughout this article, as language is a crucial signal of inclusion and exclusion.
The crucial signal, I’d suggest, is that the author, Meaghan Furlano, is willing to pretend that menstruating women are somehow not women and are in fact men. One might call that lying. And referring to women as “menstruators,” as if this were a breakthrough and a basis for applause, does not immediately evoke equality or respect.
For menstrual policies to deconstruct rather than perpetuate social inequalities, an intersectional approach is required.
A shocking twist. How very daring.
This involves challenging assumptions about menstruation, such as the idea that it is exclusively a topic impacting cisgender women when it also impacts gender-diverse people.
Who are all women. Hence the menstruation.
My latest research tackles these debates by examining menstrual leave policy announcements from companies across the globe… I found that menstrual leave might support menstrual health and increase worker power. Yet it might also reinforce hetero-sexist beliefs and an individual’s responsibility to “appropriately” manage menstruation. This is deeply concerning.
What those “hetero-sexist beliefs” might be remains, rather oddly, a thing of mystery. Few details are forthcoming. They are, however, “deeply concerning.” And I’m inclined to wonder whose responsibility it should be, if not the adult woman concerned, to manage menstruation.
Ms Furlano, a PhD Sociology student at Western University, and “a scholar of feminist media,” goes on to list the special things that must be done by all employers in order to accommodate “menstruating workers.” These menstruating workers who aren’t necessarily women, remember, and while stressing the importance of gender equality, including the equality of made-up genders, and while expressing dissatisfaction with efforts to comply:
Traditional forms of menstrual leave push women out of the workplace while menstruating. This perpetuates menstrual stigma and thwarts gender-equality efforts… menstruation remains taboo, shameful and secretive.
I don’t know about taboo. Indeed, menstruation seems a loudly aired fixation of, for instance, scholars of feminist media. It’s practically a credential, a merit badge, all but obligatory. As for shameful and secretive, I can only suggest that most of us probably don’t care to know in any great detail about how you’re bleeding from your genitals.
My research found that some companies allow menstruators to work from home or in a more restful location. Others offer substantial health insurance, impressive base salaries and related progressive policies that support menstrual health.
All well and good, I suppose. But none of this seems obviously supportive of some unassailable claim of gender equality. It’s a list of costs and possible inconveniences.
For menstrual policies to have any positive impact on the lives of menstruators, they also need to address structural problems like gender inequality and patriarchy.
No laughing at the back. The P-word was inevitable. Also, menstruators.
Accordingly, these policies must be supported by education that normalises menstruation as a regular biological function without medicalising it.
Ah, educational correction. Another cost.
And it seems to me a little odd to bemoan the idea that menstruation may, for some, have medical connotations while simultaneously expecting days off work, every month, due to being disabled by the very same phenomenon. Those “painful menstrual cycle-related symptoms or illnesses,” to which Ms Furlano refers. If periods leave a woman agonised and unable to work, for days, every month, this may signal some underlying issue – say, endometriosis or some auto-immune disorder. And a visit to the doctor may be in order.
These policies should challenge the social pressure to conceal menstrual status,
Again, and let me stress this, most of us don’t want to know about the stains in your underwear. It’s not the kind of information that many of us crave. And at risk of being damned for my “hetero-sexist beliefs,” I suspect that many women are quite happy not to draw attention to their menstrual status. Also known as the expulsion of waste product. It being, for the most part, no other bugger’s business.
such as by preventing “leaks” and hiding menstrual products from sight. Education must also define menstrual stigma as a symptom of gender inequality.
I can’t recall ever being offended by the visibility of a box of tampons, and these repeated claims of some egregious, crushing stigma seem to be teetering on a pinhead. The customary expectation of some minimal discretion – analogous to not announcing every bowel movement – does not strike me as a Big Ask, or a basis for victimhood.
Or for “a powerful feminist intervention,” “a radical transformation and physical restructuring of workplaces,” with continual monitoring and “interrogation,” as Ms Furlano demands.
Via Jonathan Kay.
Recent Comments