“Menstruation is the only blood that is not born from violence, yet it is the one that disgusts you the most.”—Maia Schwartz
The crimson war of an internal battlefield starts with a dull ache, a ghost of a camp that whispers a warning. Within an hour, the whisper becomes a scream. You are sitting in a brightly lit boardroom, the air conditioner humming a sterile, indifferent tune. You shift in your chair, trying to find a position that doesn’t feel like a knife twisting in your abdomen. Your colleague is presenting quarterly projections, but all you can focus on is the cold sweat prickling your forehead and the terrifying calculation of how long you can remain seated before you need to rush to the restroom.You are not sick in the infectious sense and you are not “slacking off.” You are simply one of the millions of women navigating a workplace built for a body that does not bleed.
This is the silent reality for nearly half the global workforce. For decades, women have been taught to “push through,”topopapainkillerandhidethetamponupasleevelikecontraband. But the conversation is shifting. From the halls of the Indian parliament to the corporate offices of every city, a new question has ignited a fiery debate: Is menstrual leave a necessary tool for gender equity, or a “benevolent” form of discrimination that will ultimately hold women back?
To answer this, we must first dismantle the archaic scaffolding of the modern workplace. The eight hour workday, the rigid attendance policies, the very temperature of our offices these were designed by men, for men, in an era when women were largely confined to the domestic sphere. To expect a female body to perform exactly like a male body every day of the month is not equality rather it is a biological fallacy.
The biological reality check
The debate often stumbles on the distinction between equality and equity. Equality demands we treat everyone exactly the same. Equity demands we treat everyone fairly, recognizing that different people have different needs to achieve the same outcome.
However, if we force a marathon runner with a broken leg to compete against healthy runners under the guise of “equality,” we are not being fair andwill be labelled as cruel. Similarly, denying rest to a woman suffering from debilitating cramps, endometriosis, or severe dysmenorrhea conditions that doctors have compared to the pain of a heart attack is an act of workplace cruelty. In India alone, this affects roughly 25 million women, nearly 20% of women suffer from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome(PCOS), which can cause irregular, heavy and painful periods.
We accept that an employee with the flu needs rest to recover and return to full productivity. Yet, when the cause is menstruation, the logic falters under the weight of stigma. We view menstrual pain as a personal defect rather than a physiological reality. Implementing menstrual leave is an act of equity. It acknowledges that the playing field is not level and provides the necessary adjustment to make it so.
A world of differences: Asian v/s European models
We are not navigating uncharted waters. Japan introduced menstrual leave, or “seirikyuuka”, as early as 1947. Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Zambia followed the same. In Zambia, the law allows for a “Mother’s Day” a day off each month that women can take without a medical certificate.
However, policy without cultural change is a paper tiger.In Japan, despite the legal right, government surveys show that less than 1% of female employees actually take the leave. Why? Because of the pervasive shame and the fear of alienating male colleagues. Women fear that taking the leave marks them as “weak” or “unreliable.”
Conversely, Spain recently became the first European country to pass a state-funded menstrual leave law.Unlike the Asian models where the burden often falls on the employer,Spain’s system treats severe period pain as a temporary disability paid for by the social security system. This crucial distinction shifts the narrative from “special treatment” to “medical necessity.” It validates the pain without penalizing the payroll.
The fear of “Pink Tax”
Critics of menstrual leave including many feminists raise valid concerns. They argue that such policies could become a “pink tax” on women’s employability. If an employer knows that hiring a woman might come with the “cost” of 12 extra days of leave per year, will they subconsciously (or overtly) prefer a male candidate?
This argument, while pragmatic, is rooted in fear.It mirrors the arguments used against maternity leave decades ago. We were told that paid maternity leave would make women unemployable. Yet, we did not abandon maternity rights, we strengthened anti-discrimination laws.
We cannot let the potential for bigotry dictate our rights. If an employer discriminatesagainst a woman for her biological functions, the fault lies with the discriminator, not the biology. Furthermore, this fear ignores the cost of the status quo. There is a phenomenon known as “presenteeism” when an employee is physically present but mentally absent due to illness or pain.
A study in the Netherlands estimated that productivity loss due to presenteeism caused by menstrual symptoms is nearly seven times greater than the productivity loss from absenteeism(33%).In simpler terms: a woman forcing herself to work through severe pain is less productive than if she took a day to recover and returned at full capacity.
The hidden cost of ignoring pain
Beyond the economic and legal arguments lies the human cost of silence. I recall speaking to a young lawyer who described an incident early in her career. “I was in a client meeting,” she told me, “and I felt a sudden, heavy flow. I panicked. I didn’t hear a word of the client’s brief. I wasjust praying the chair was black.” She spent the next twenty minutes terrified, unable to focus,her brilliance suppressed by biology and taboo.
Imagine a workplace where she could have said, “I’m not feeling well, I need to step out,” without the fear of judgment or better yet, a workplace with flexible remote work policies that allow her to manage her symptoms from the comfort of her home without sacrificing her professional output.
This brings us to the practical implementation. Critics scream that men will feel discriminated against. They ask “where is our leave?”. This is a false equivalence. Men do not have a uterus that sheds its lining once a month. However, the solution might lie in broadening the scope.
Instead of a “period policy” that might “out” trans men or non-binary individuals who also menstruate, workplaces should adopt “wellness leave” or flexible medical leave that requires no explanation. This ensures privacy and inclusivity while addressing the core need.
Conclusion: Ending the era of hidden pain
The introduction of menstrual leave is not about declaring women “weaker.” It is about redefining what “strength” looks like. Strength is not ignoring pain to fit a male template of productivity. Strength is acknowledging one’s limits to sustain long term performance.
We need a three-bifurcated approach:
- A legal framework where governments must follow Spain’s example and subsidize menstrual leave to prevent hiring bias in the private sector.
- A corporate culture where companies must move from “permission” to “trust.” Flexible working hours and remote work options can often solve the problem without a formal “leave” declaration.
- A step towards social destigmatization everyone must stop whispering about periods. We need to treat menstruation with the same banality as a headache or a backache.
Menstrual leave is equity in action. It is the recognition that equal opportunity does not mean identical experience. It is a rejection of the idea that women must suffer in silence to earn their seat at the table.
We have spent decades after decades asking women to work as if they do not have bodies. True equity is not ignoring our biology to fit or adjust in a societal mold rather it is reshaping the mold to fit our humanity. If we truly believe in the constitutional ideals of dignity and equality, we cannot ignore the biological reality of half of the citizenry. A period should end a sentence, not a career.
References
- Linklaters. (2022). Menstrual leave policies in the workplace. EmploymentLinks. https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/employmentlinks/2022/july/menstrual leave policies in the workplace
- Levitt, R. A., & Barnack Tavlaris, J. L. (2020). The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Schoep, M. E., Adang, E. M. M., Maas, J. W. M., et al. (2019). Productivity loss due to menstruation related symptoms: a nationwide cross-sectional survey among 32,748 women. BMJ Open. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31248919/
- Weiss Wolf, J. (2017). Periods Gone Public: Taking a Stand for Menstrual Equity. Skyhorse. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/periods-gone-public-taking-stand-menstrual-equity
- Bhoomi Agarwal, Menstrual Leave: Necessity or Controversy? https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Menstrual-Leave-Necessity-or-Controversy
Author Name- Santoshkumar Harti, Final year ‘B’ division, KLE Society’s G K Law College,Hubballi
