When the Supreme Court struck down a petition to make paid menstrual leave mandatory at the workplace, arguing that it would only reinforce gender stereotyping and biased hiring, there was a subtext intended specifically for women. Chief Justice Surya Kant said that such a law would also “create a psychological fear or impression among working women… that they are ‘less than men’.” That doubt is real in male-dominated spaces.
For a long time, the argument for menstrual leave has been pivoted on benevolent sexism, which allows policymakers to believe they are setting a reformist, gender-equal agenda. But the fact is that a menstrual leave suggests that women require special treatment because of their biology, that they are different rather than equal. If anything, it undermines their talent, productivity, and physical capacity. Silently, it perpetuates the very feudal thinking that women need to be taken care of for their reproductive health, and they aren’t cut out for stronger, ambitious roles outside of motherhood. Or that wealth creation is for men while women become a complementary human resource, a non-performing asset, even.
Let’s get this right. Menstruation is a physiological process, not a pathological condition. It’s not a disease, and the woman has a lot to thank the hormone estrogen for. Rather than removing a taboo, the “medicalisation” of a normal body process entrenches it deeper.
Yes, the pain is real, but a menstrual leave cannot be a blanket proposition for the following reasons. First, most studies show that approximately only five per cent of women experience menstruation that is considered extremely debilitating or severe enough to disrupt their daily lives, such as requiring them to stay in bed or miss work/school. This usually happens to those suffering from endometriosis. A company-level intervention and flexible work hours might be more effective in such cases than a mandatory leave, which would seem like an entitlement to male colleagues and peers.
Besides, at a time when women are already having a hard time convincing corporate India that they deserve maternity leave and when they are unfairly passed over for promotions, milestone projects, or benefits, menstrual leave could lead to further discrimination and backlash. A menstrual leave policy, therefore, becomes exclusionary rather than being inclusive.
What is needed is for women to understand menstruation in the context of their holistic health. They should pay attention to the root cause of pain, get themselves evaluated for any underlying condition, get into a corrective lifestyle regime, and exercise regularly, all of which have been proven to ease pelvic pain, nausea, anxiety, headaches, and heavy bleeding. While symptomatic relief is available, most women still have inhibitions about seeking medical advice for menstrual cycle-related problems and prefer to cope with a few days of pain like a rite of passage. As research on hormonal health gathers momentum, studying menstrual patterns can help women get an idea of how they impact their lifestyle diseases.
The workplace can become more enabling through simple, thoughtful measures like setting up a medical or resting room and a vending machine for sanitary napkins, stocking relief medication, allowing women flexible work options on bad days, and letting them compensate on good days. It can even consider readjusting or expanding its leave component. Office administrators can organise workshops with experts so that women can understand their bodies better and understand the importance of cancer screenings and chronic illnesses. Menstrual leave, on the other hand, would automatically disqualify women’s potential to be a valued resource.
In countries that have made menstrual leave an official policy, results have been mixed. Spain, which became the first European country to offer a five-day paid leave in 2023, has seen low usage. In Japan, only 0.9 per cent of workers use it. In South Korea, the unpaid nature of leave has disabled participation. And in Zambia, the policy has been “abused” by some workers as an extra holiday, causing debate among employers. Closer home in Karnataka, which introduced a paid period leave a month, compliance has been mixed.
This is likely because many women still feel uncomfortable taking the leave, fearing it could fuel workplace discrimination. And they don’t want to be marginalised further. Besides, while we talk about paid leaves in offices, the fact of the matter is that such rules cannot apply in the unorganised sector, where every single day’s wage matters. At a time when women’s participation in the workforce is dipping, no woman labourer wants to pass up a day.
In the end, menstrual leaves may seem groundbreaking to policymakers because they become another sop in their social welfare efforts. But for women, they can prove to be gendered and disempowering, risking the reinforcement of the very biases they claim to remedy.
The writer is senior associate editor, The Indian Express. rinku.ghosh@expressindia.com
