Will menstrual leave shatter the glass ceiling — or reinforce it?
One disadvantage of the menstrual leave policy is the perpetuation of the notion that "women are unfit for the workplace" because their biology interferes with work routine.
What you need to know:
- One disadvantage is the perpetuation of sexist beliefs and attitudes inherent in "evaluating a menstruating woman more negatively than a non-menstruating woman" by treating her as "less competent, less likeable, and more irrational" during menses.
- The second is menstrual stigma and 'outing' in the workplace by making a concealed matter public.
On December 16 last year, the Nairobi County government approved a two-day monthly menstrual leave for female staff, ostensibly to enhance service delivery. The rationale advanced was that "menstrual health challenges, particularly dysmenorrhea, have often affected the well-being and performance of women employees".
The policy was described as "evidence-based" and aligned "with the county's commitments to gender equality, decent work and inclusive governance". It was further justified by existence of such policies in Zambia, Japan, Spain and South Korea.
This policy has elicited debate. In a WhatsApp group of academics, one regarded it as a desperate attempt by county officers to demonstrate that they are gender responsive.
Another observed that the policy will exacerbate stigma against menstruating women. One dismissed it as much ado about nothing given that menstruation is a natural process, which women manage without drama. She observed that menstrual leave would only make sense if the process had been transferred to men since they would need to figure out what to do.
Menstrual leave is a topical debate, albeit one with few authoritative studies. Some illuminating thoughts on the subject are contained in the 2020 paper Addressing menstruation in the workplace: The menstrual leave debate by Rachel B Levitt and Jessica L Barnack-Tavlaris.
The two argue that "such policies have the potential to de-stigmatise discussion of menstruation in the workplace and may be helpful to those who experience menstrual cycle-related illnesses". Conversely, they point out, the leave may result in "unintended consequences, such as discrimination in hiring practices, salaries or wages, and promotion".
One disadvantage is the perpetuation of sexist beliefs and attitudes inherent in "evaluating a menstruating woman more negatively than a non-menstruating woman" by treating her as "less competent, less likeable, and more irrational" during menses. The second is menstrual stigma and 'outing' in the workplace by making a concealed matter public.
By "outing", the study refers to disclosure about menstruating non-binary individuals, which may result in hostility and doubt about their true identities.
The third is perpetuation of the notion that "women are unfit for the workplace" because their biology interferes with work routine. This can be used to stagnate them and justify lower wages. Moreover, it depicts men as more dedicated and reliable workers who deserve reward. This could snowball into the glass ceiling phenomenon.
The last is treatment of the condition as a disease and more so one that affects all women and makes them less efficient in the workplace. Detractors can use this to advance the "hormone myth" – that women are unreliable decision-makers because of mood swings during menses.
Available data shows a number of patterns with regard to these policies. First, there is no standard number of days given (Zambia and Mexico – one day, Italy – three days, Japan – not specified). Second, not all countries indicate whether the leave is paid or unpaid. When it is unpaid, employers come into conflict with trade unions because of the message that menstruation is a liability. Third, countries provide different justifications. Some argue that the leave celebrates women's reproductive roles while others see it as a means to well-being. In India, some employers see it as a provision to allow affected women to manage the occasional discomfort through flexible working arrangements.
Patriarchy
Levitt and Barnack-Tavlaris describe the paradoxical nature of the policies as "benevolent sexism" – appearing beneficial while actually reinforcing patriarchy. For instance, treating menstruation as "a sign of womanhood" reinforces the notion that women's primary vocation is child bearing and rearing hence justifying their exclusion from the workplace.
A number of issues arise from the adoption of this policy. Suppose it were replicated in all private and public sector departments, how would it impact the workplace? Are there scientific studies showing whether this kind of leave is actually taken and if it has a positive effect on productivity? Does the policy not make a private issue public, hence exposing those affected to glare and judgement? Will the need for disclosure when applying not put women in the spotlight that may actually discourage uptake?
Is such leave not logically accommodated under sick and emergency leave? Does the policy assume that all women experience stressful menses? How was the number of days arrived at? What happens to women whose menses lasts longer than two days? Did the Nairobi County Government conduct a study which established that menstruation is a problem? Did the policy consider menstruating non-binary individuals?
With all these questions, one waits to see how the Nairobi County Government implements this policy and looks forward to evaluation reports showing its uptake, successes and shortcomings. Hopefully, the policy will not be a mere exercise in ticking boxes and copycat behaviour.
The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya University ([email protected])
