Period Leave: We Need To Separate Sense From Nonsense In This Debate

The idea that women should get “period leave” as an entitlement is rapidly gaining ground, especially after the Kerala government announced female students will get them.

With card-carrying feminists and “liberals” now taking this up as a major cause, it is only a matter of time before this becomes the norm in state institutions and private sector workplaces.

However, there is huge difference between treating the issue with empathy and understanding and using it as an opportunity for virtue-signalling by “liberals”.

If it’s the latter, the entitlement will ultimately work against women.

There are more sensible ways to deal with the issue beyond allowing every young woman period leave whenever she wants it.

Let’s start with facts.

One, most women experience period pains some time or the other in their lives, but a few women experience pain every month, and often it is unbearable.

Two, many women, thanks to better hygiene aids and supportive workplaces, would be happy to continue working despite experiencing some element of discomfort when they get their periods.

Does the fact that pain makes it very difficult for some women to work imply that all, or most, women must be entitled to period leave?

In fact, the debate has become intensely public and political, with the ever-meddlesome Supreme Court planning to consider framing rules for period leave.

Some editorial writers also believe that period leave will improve the chances of getting more women into employment.

The same thing was said when paid maternity leave was expanded through a law passed by Parliament, but we have seen no surge in women taking up work.

The issue is actually being framed incorrectly.

It is not whether those women who get painful periods should get leave, but whether this should become a universal entitlement for women in certain age groups.

Also, are there better ways to address the problem without compounding it?

We also need to ask ourselves whether more employers will take on women if they have to provide more off-days for them, as they already do for maternity leave?

The answer is probably no.

Outside government and big business, the willingness to accept women-friendly policies in the workplace is limited, especially when more work is become contractual in nature.

The gig economy and automation will make machines more employable than both men and women.

The scales will tilt even more against women if the latter are seen as high cost workers.

While it is not true that women, even after accounting for maternity or period leaves, will be any less productive than men, it is unlikely to be seen as such.

So, what are the solutions available to us beyond making period leave an entitlement for most women in specified age groups?

First, we already learnt during Covid that people can work from home.

So, instead of period leave, if those who experience painful cramps are allowed to work from home, there would be no need for leave.

Better still, since hybrid work is the new reality, why not give both men and women the right to work 10 days out of home in any given month?

That would be truly gender neutral, and fair to everybody.

Women get to keep private matters private, since work-from-home will not always be about periods.

Second, the normal way to take period leave should be through the use of sick leave privileges.

If this is insufficient for some women, each workplace can agree to let every employee, man or woman, to contribute one day every year from their sick leave quotas into a period leave pool that can be used by women who really need it.

When period leave is seen as an act of solidarity by co-workers, women will also be less likely to misuse this entitlement.

Third, assuming both the above are still inadequate, leave at half pay or without pay should also be an option for up to 20 days a year.

Most women may be happy to accept this.

Period leave should be available whenever there is a need for anyone; making it a universal entitlement is not necessary.

Right now, the debate around it has become an opportunity for all to signal virtue rather than address the real problem, which is about some women and not all women.