On your rag? Take paid menstrual leave.

[Metaphor]

Another for the (already plump) "you couldn't make it up" file:

A UK company will implement a new policy to allow women to take paid leave when they are on their period, in an effort to empower women and increase workplace productivity.

Bex Baxter, director of Co-Exist in Bristol, said the initiative sprung from seeing women at work “bent over double” in pain.

“I have managed many female members of staff over the years and I have seen women at work who are bent over double because of the pain caused by their periods,” Ms Baxter said.

“Despite this, they feel they cannot go home because they do not class themselves as unwell.

“And this is unfair. At Coexist we are very understanding. If someone is in pain — no matter what kind — they are encouraged to go home.”

Ms Baxter shot down criticism of the policy, saying it came “from a place of fear”.

“Women don’t want to feel they are less employable than men if they are taking time off [for periods],” she told BBC.

Sportswear giant Nike is believed to be the only global company to include menstrual leave within their Code of Conduct.

Although the article is ambiguous about the policy, it appears that women do not get extra paid leave per se, merely that menstrual pain is part of the list of enumerated reasons that it is acceptable to take ordinary sick leave.

Cis women, do you feel 'less employable' because your workplace does not specify menstrual leave?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Another for the (already plump) "you couldn't make it up" file:

A UK company will implement a new policy to allow women to take paid leave when they are on their period, in an effort to empower women and increase workplace productivity.

Bex Baxter, director of Co-Exist in Bristol, said the initiative sprung from seeing women at work “bent over double” in pain.

“I have managed many female members of staff over the years and I have seen women at work who are bent over double because of the pain caused by their periods,” Ms Baxter said.

“Despite this, they feel they cannot go home because they do not class themselves as unwell.

“And this is unfair. At Coexist we are very understanding. If someone is in pain — no matter what kind — they are encouraged to go home.”

Ms Baxter shot down criticism of the policy, saying it came “from a place of fear”.

“Women don’t want to feel they are less employable than men if they are taking time off [for periods],” she told BBC.

Sportswear giant Nike is believed to be the only global company to include menstrual leave within their Code of Conduct.

Although the article is ambiguous about the policy, it appears that women do not get extra paid leave per se, merely that menstrual pain is part of the list of enumerated reasons that it is acceptable to take ordinary sick leave.

Cis women, do you feel 'less employable' because your workplace does not specify menstrual leave?

Sick leave in the UK is a very broad definition. No doctor's note is required for less than 2 days (as I remember). Sickness includes hangover, tired, could not get up but of course the person is not likely to specify this but rather the symptoms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it's simply an acceptable reason to take a sick day what's the problem?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Before my wife had ovarian cancer and a full hysterectomy, she had poly-cystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis. Menstrual cycle could often be a very painful and problematic time. Most often she did not take time off for it from work. In fact, I do not recall a time she took off work. However, if she did take some sick days off work for this, then so what??

 

[Metaphor]

If it's simply an acceptable reason to take a sick day what's the problem?

I didn't say it was a problem. I'm just surprised a sick policy needs to enumerate 'female troubles' or the kinds of sickness that count at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Before my wife had ovarian cancer and a full hysterectomy, she had poly-cystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis. Menstrual cycle could often be a very painful and problematic time. Most often she did not take time off for it from work. In fact, I do not recall a time she took off work. However, if she did take some sick days off work for this, then so what??

I didn't say taking sick days for days when you're sick is a problem. I just find it bemusing that a sick policy needs to specifically enumerate 'female troubles' (or any specific allowed categories).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I didn't say taking sick days for days when you're sick is a problem. I just find it bemusing that a sick policy needs to specifically enumerate 'female troubles' (or any specific allowed categories).

Since women frequently have periods some people will find it doubtful they can take sick time for it. So yeah it makes sense to list it specifically.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I didn't say it was a problem. I'm just surprised a sick policy needs to enumerate 'female troubles' or the kinds of sickness that count at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Before my wife had ovarian cancer and a full hysterectomy, she had poly-cystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis. Menstrual cycle could often be a very painful and problematic time. Most often she did not take time off for it from work. In fact, I do not recall a time she took off work. However, if she did take some sick days off work for this, then so what??

I didn't say taking sick days for days when you're sick is a problem. I just find it bemusing that a sick policy needs to specifically enumerate 'female troubles' (or any specific allowed categories).

That's correct. If f a person is unwell they may take leave such as for headaches or cramps. They are not obliged to detail anything further than this. Specifying this is more to the trend to recruit idiots to work in and run HR departments who have nothing better to do.

 

[Bronzeage]

I can assure everyone of one certainty, if men were subject to a hormonal cycle which could cause excruciating pain in their testicles for a few days of every month, the idea that it was an acceptable reason to miss work would go without saying.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I can assure everyone of one certainty, if men were subject to a hormonal cycle which could cause excruciating pain in their testicles for a few days of every month, the idea that it was an acceptable reason to miss work would go without saying.

If he had pain he can take time off. There's no need to give the ins and outs of the cat's butt.

 

[Derec]

Sick leave in the UK is a very broad definition. No doctor's note is required for less than 2 days (as I remember). Sickness includes hangover, tired, could not get up but of course the person is not likely to specify this but rather the symptoms.

So can men take off a few days each month for "hangovers" to compensate for PMS leave given to women?

 

[Juma]

Sick leave in the UK is a very broad definition. No doctor's note is required for less than 2 days (as I remember). Sickness includes hangover, tired, could not get up but of course the person is not likely to specify this but rather the symptoms.

So can men take off a few days each month for "hangovers" to compensate for PMS leave given to women?

What "hangovers"?

 

[Derec]

However, if she did take some sick days off work for this, then so what??

As long as women don't get a greater number of ways for sick leave, no problem.
However, we all know that sexist policies that favor women are all the rage. Like for example the NYC law that mandates women be given twice as much restroom space as men. That's feminists' idea of "gender equality" in a nutshell.

 

[bilby]

People get "paid leave without notice". They call it 'Sick leave', but unless you are required to prove a medical condition exists (which is typically not the case for one or two days absence), the reason you took it should be entirely confidential; and if a medical certificate is required, the details of what was wrong should nevertheless remain a confidential matter between patient and doctor - all the certificate needs to say is '<name> was unfit for work on <date>' or '<name> was suffering from a medical condition on <date>'.

The very idea that your employer needs to know more detail than that is deeply immoral.

 

[Derec]

People get "paid leave without notice". They call it 'Sick leave', but unless you are required to prove a medical condition exists (which is typically not the case for one or two days absence), the reason you took it should be entirely confidential; and if a medical certificate is required, the details of what was wrong should nevertheless remain a confidential matter between patient and doctor - all the certificate needs to say is '<name> was unfit for work on <date>' or '<name> was suffering from a medical condition on <date>'.

The very idea that your employer needs to know more detail than that is deeply immoral.

Again, as long as women don't get more "sick leave" like they do get twice as much restroom space.

 

[bilby]

People get "paid leave without notice". They call it 'Sick leave', but unless you are required to prove a medical condition exists (which is typically not the case for one or two days absence), the reason you took it should be entirely confidential; and if a medical certificate is required, the details of what was wrong should nevertheless remain a confidential matter between patient and doctor - all the certificate needs to say is '<name> was unfit for work on <date>' or '<name> was suffering from a medical condition on <date>'.

The very idea that your employer needs to know more detail than that is deeply immoral.

Again, as long as women don't get more "sick leave" like they do get twice as much restroom space.

Seriously?

Women don't get more leave of any kind, at least, not where I work.

And given that women can't reliably pee while standing up, it seems perfectly reasonable to provide more restroom space for them, all else being equal.

Although judging by the state of some men's lavatories I have seen, I do wonder how many of my co-genderists are reliably able to pee while standing up; so perhaps you have a very wee point.

This entire thread seems to be concern about a problem that really doesn't exist, and that really wouldn't be worth worrying about if it did.

 

[Derec]

Seriously?

Yeah.

Women don't get more leave of any kind, at least, not where I work.

Hopefully not, but as bathroom laws show, the goal of feminism is not equality but special treatment.

And given that women can't reliably pee while standing up, it seems perfectly reasonable to provide more restroom space for them, all else being equal.

1. It's funny how every time biology favors men laws must be passed to compensate for that, but every time biology favors women (like with reproductive rights) the biological difference must be taken as inviolable and should not be compensated by laws.
2. Given that men's rooms have stalls and sinks in addition to urinals how is mandating twice as much space for women justified?

Although judging by the state of some men's lavatories I have seen, I do wonder how many of my co-genderists are reliably able to pee while standing up; so perhaps you have a very wee point.

A more salient point would be that stalls (present in men's rooms) and sinks (also present in men's rooms) take up as much space as those in women's rooms. The small difference in footprint between stalls and urinals does not justify mandating women get twice as much square footage.

This entire thread seems to be concern about a problem that really doesn't exist, and that really wouldn't be worth worrying about if it did.

There are many places where women are advantaged. Even things like where bars and clubs are allowed by law to discriminate against men by offering free admission or half price drinks to women only. Or swimming pools setting aside time for women only but charging men the same membership fee.

 

[bilby]

Yeah.

Women don't get more leave of any kind, at least, not where I work.

Hopefully not, but as bathroom laws show, the goal of feminism is not equality but special treatment.

And given that women can't reliably pee while standing up, it seems perfectly reasonable to provide more restroom space for them, all else being equal.

1. It's funny how every time biology favors men laws must be passed to compensate for that, but every time biology favors women (like with reproductive rights) the biological difference must be taken as inviolable and should not be compensated by laws.
2. Given that men's rooms have stalls and sinks in addition to urinals how is mandating twice as much space for women justified?

Although judging by the state of some men's lavatories I have seen, I do wonder how many of my co-genderists are reliably able to pee while standing up; so perhaps you have a very wee point.

A more salient point would be that stalls (present in men's rooms) and sinks (also present in men's rooms) take up as much space as those in women's rooms. The small difference in footprint between stalls and urinals does not justify mandating women get twice as much square footage.

This entire thread seems to be concern about a problem that really doesn't exist, and that really wouldn't be worth worrying about if it did.

There are many places where women are advantaged. Even things like where bars and clubs are allowed by law to discriminate against men by offering free admission or half price drinks to women only. Or swimming pools setting aside time for women only but charging men the same membership fee.

Well I guess we are just going to have to become sad, bitter and pathetic then.

That's a bit disappointing to me, as I was quite enjoying not giving a flying fuck about such utterly trivial crap; but if you insist that I have to feel deeply slighted, then I guess I will just need to man up and start sobbing in a corner somewhere.

 

[bigfield]

I'm just glad my balls don't ache on a monthly basis.

 

[Will Wiley]

I can assure everyone of one certainty, if men were subject to a hormonal cycle which could cause excruciating pain in their testicles for a few days of every month, the idea that it was an acceptable reason to miss work would go without saying.

Except the world would be very different in that case

 

[Will Wiley]

People get "paid leave without notice". They call it 'Sick leave', but unless you are required to prove a medical condition exists (which is typically not the case for one or two days absence), the reason you took it should be entirely confidential; and if a medical certificate is required, the details of what was wrong should nevertheless remain a confidential matter between patient and doctor - all the certificate needs to say is '<name> was unfit for work on <date>' or '<name> was suffering from a medical condition on <date>'.

The very idea that your employer needs to know more detail than that is deeply immoral.

Again, as long as women don't get more "sick leave" like they do get twice as much restroom space.

Give them more sick leave...whats wrong with that.
Mind you I do love women

As far as I'm concerned they can have as much as they need, Such beautiful creatures they are