I am a married woman who had a discussion about an aspect of feminism relating to productivity and mentruation. ALL, and I mean EVERY ONE of the feminism/woman community subs REFUSE to let my question be posted. So I'm posting it here.

DavidByron2 · 2014-06-13T17:35:15+00:00

Is there any evidence menstruation has a significant impact on work performance and if so in what proportion of women?

acheronshunt · 2014-06-13T16:43:41+00:00

Is there any proof that women have reduced productivity during that week? I feel like we're operating off a flawed premise. There are women who are barely effected and women who are very effected by their periods, and ones on birth control, etc.

Furthermore, because this is a biological trait that can't be changed, it worries me to think that this same argument could be held against people with bipolar or other mental illness. Even something like Seasonal Affective Disorder would qualify.

I don't think that the pay should be lower if the same job is being filled - it's a biological trait that can't be changed.

SRSLovesGawker · 2014-06-13T16:51:00+00:00

I'm presuming we're talking about salaried positions, as performance based pay will be... well, based on performance (duh!) and hourly would be based on hours worked (double duh!).

When it comes to salaried positions, there's a lot more flexibility in terms of hours worked and effort applied, which is why there's a lot more pay variance; managers tend to look at who their best performers are and bonus/raise accordingly in order to keep them, and those who don't perform are left to languish. As such, menstruation may well be an irrelevant effect; if the woman in question still performs to expectations and produces on par with peers, then it's all good.

I've heard a suggestion floated that companies institute a policy of one or two mandatory "down days", to be used as anyone sees fit; period issues, mental health days, want to go see the game, whatever. I personally think that people in north america tend to work overly hard. A couple days off would do a lot of us a lot of good. Everyone loves a long weekend, right?

Big_Tubbz · 2014-06-13T16:07:53+00:00

I think that women should be payed the same despite the cycle. I feel that if it is something that you cannot change due to your own basic biology then you shouldn't be marked down for it. There is an exception to this in cases where your biology would come as a danger to yourself and others.

This issue is the same as the issue for payed maternity leave, when women are giving birth people wonder if they should be payed for their job or not. I of course say yes they should as they are doing something good for society and are undergoing large amounts of pain, furthermore it would just be cruel to not give the soon to be mother anything to live off of and leave all the work to the father (who I believe should also have time off to see his child, only if the mother and the father have a healthy relationship and this isn't a case of rape or child abandonment).

Karissa36 · 2014-06-13T17:16:01+00:00

All things being equal, is it 100% conceptually fair for an average woman and an average man to be paid the same per month for the same job when our cycle can sometimes drastically reduce our productivity for at least a week out of the month?

Are you kidding? Where on earth did you get the idea that the "average" woman is less productive one week out of every month? That is flatly untrue. I suggest you see a doctor. You probably have endometriosis and there are medical options for that. The average woman might have cramps one or two days a month, (which might also occur on non-working days), and they are easily controlled with tylenol.

Note that men are also subject to illnesses etc that may temporarily reduce their productivity. Everything from back pain to allergies to self-inflicted hangovers. As men get older, their health is generally worse than women's health. Shall we pay men over 40 less because they are more prone to heart attacks, strokes, etc which can cause extended absences highly disruptive for the workplace? Shall we pay men under 40 less because they are more susceptible to accidental injuries, which also can't be planned for in the workplace?

This is just absurd, before we even get into the fact that health is only one very small component of overall job performance for the vast majority of workers. People should be paid on an individual basis related to their individual performance.

Really though, see a gynecologist and explore your medical options. Your problems for a full week a month are not normal or typical, and there are things you can do about that.

Boethias · 2014-06-13T17:21:55+00:00

I'm gonna try and take gender out of it for second to illustrate my point. What if the person is disabled instead. A company often needs to make accommodations for the employee on account of the fact that they would be less productive than an able bodied person. But we would not use that as a justification for reducing their pay. Nor would be hold them liable for the cost of the accommodations. In effect able bodied workers are not only displaced by this policy but they are indirectly subsidizing the cost of the disabled employee.

Regardless of these facts we tolerate these economic inequities in the interest of egalitarianism. Since it is not something that the employee in question can control it makes sense the we accommodate them. We implicitly agree as a society that we will sacrifice economic productivity in these cases in the interest of social fairness.

2014-06-13T18:06:41+00:00

How do you make that a reality? Do you just assume all women are affected equally by their cycles. And how can you measure the person's productivity/the deductions caused by lack their of? And if emotional stress is a legitimate reason for the docking of pay, couldn't any form of anxiety or stress be a reason to dock pay? If you lose a loved one, for example.

I think the answer to your question is can sometimes. Provided it's an overall flat rate deduction some women capable of handling themselves would be getting screwed while less capable would benefit.

Personally, I think it's stupid. People have good days and bad days at work and can cope with various kinds of stress differently. Workplaces are social units that usually employ some kind of hierarchy. Assuming it's functional your overall effectiveness or productivity should be noted and tallied to your benefit accordingly. A competent woman will still outpace and average man easily, on her cycle or not. Trying to micromanage people's pay based on their mood and possible lack of productivity seems like a wasteful endeavour for any business.

BlindPelican · 2014-06-13T16:15:47+00:00

I don't think it's particularly fair to pay a woman less just because she menstruates.

There is far too much variance in how a particular woman handles her period and how it affects her. I know some women have particularly horrible periods, yet they still get up, go to work, get the job done. Others have less severe periods, yet slack and don't accomplish much.

So, paying a person less because something can happen is, to me, silly.

If productivity drops off, regardless of reason, then it shouldn't be a matter of being paid less, but a matter of being employed at all. The reasons for poor job performance are irrelevant.

Karissa36 · 2014-06-13T17:45:55+00:00

THIS IS A FUCKING TROLL. DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

2014-06-13T16:52:37+00:00

Absolutely not. It should never be taken as definite to be the case anyway. If you were modeling salary purely on performance then regardless of sex you will be taking into account the notion that they will have good and bad days. I can go into work in a bad mood because I'm stressed about something, and maybe perform only to an average standard or lower. If, however, I show otherwise consistent level of ability over the course of that month then I doubt it would have any impact on the salary I could argue my performance is worth.

Even if it was remotely true that on average women underperformed when struggling with cramps on any longer period than an average person who is, for any reason, have an off day then it will by law of averages work itself out over time. I don't think it's fair to say "you menstruate therefore we expect lower performance". Actually I'd say it's pretty fucking stupid. Not surprised it's not being taken seriously.

Karissa36 · 2014-06-13T18:00:57+00:00

THIS TROLL HAS HAD A REDDIT ACCOUNT FOR EXACTLY ONE HOUR. THIS POST WAS SUBMITTED EXACTLY ONE HOUR AGO. WHICH MEANS THIS TROLL NEVER HAD TIME TO TRY TO POST THIS RIDICULOUS QUESTION ON FIVE OR SIX OTHER SUBS, LET ALONE HAVE THOSE ATTEMPTED POSTS DELETED.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

DesignRed · 2014-06-13T16:11:35+00:00

I don't understand why this is a gendered issue. You are entitled to every dollar that you are able to negotiate for, based on you being able to prove your value to the company, and what you feel it is worth.
This is the same reason why CEO's are paid so much, because of the value they bring to the companies they take over. They are never paid more than they are worth to the company in terms of how much value they brought. Same goes for professional athletes, who are essentially entertainers selling advertising (which is why men's basketball players are paid 200x women's players, because they attract the audience which attracts the advert dollars, which increases their value).
If you can prove on an individual basis that you are worth the same, in terms of your value to the company, as a man then you should be paid the same. If you think we need legislation to enforce that women get paid the same, while simultaneously being given a week off a month or allowed reduced production, you should look forward to mass unemployment in women coming to a city near you.

2014-06-13T17:44:51+00:00

[permanently deleted]

johntheother · 2014-06-13T18:07:32+00:00

It's probably not fair to pay a woman the same as her male colleagues during times when she's less effective, or less productive. However, adjusting somebody's daily rate of pay based on day-to-day changes seems excessively invasive to the employee, and would be a giant pain in the ass to management. I'd also be surprised if any significant fraction of MRAs would argue for lowering women's pay to account for menstrual un-productivity of employees. Life isn't fair, we can all get over it.

Of much greater concern in a workplace are issues like male hiring freezes or worker safety.

jpflathead · 2014-06-13T18:33:39+00:00

Could you post some images to provide evidence your question was banned from other reddits?

FWIW, it's probably not fair to pay any person when they are reading personal email, redditing, over at the water cooler, taking a dump, texting, snacking, worrying about their child's grades, visiting websites on their phone when they are on duty or waiting for some process to finish. making personal phone calls, sneaking out for personal shopping, picking their nose, etc.

Please post some proof that you tried posting this elsewhere.

Ch-Thousandnaire · 2014-06-13T18:47:33+00:00

I can understand where you are coming from in that my wife is nearly immobile when she is on her period as she has major cysts to deal with. That being said, my view is that companies pay for productivity and if someone is consistently incapable of doing the work, then that should be reflected in the pay.

Stepping away from gender for a minute, when I was an hourly employee, I worked with a number of people that had children (men and women). Because of their circumstances with taking the kids to school and other functions like that, they were less available and therefore less productive. This was reflected in their hours for the week as the employees without kids generally had put in more hours than the employees with kids.

PeteyMax · 2014-06-13T18:55:39+00:00

This is kind of a silly question. Obviously, people will vary in their productivity. Even if we take it as a given that most women will be less productive on their periods, that still doesn't tell us how productive they are the rest of the time. I think most men will find their productivity varies a great deal as well. Certainly when I was working I found I might be extremely productive one week and do next to nothing the next. People are paid not on their minimum or maximum productivity but on their average productivity. Actually, I'm not convinced people are rewarded so much on their productivity as much more intangible factors--namely, how good they make the boss feel. That's right: you aren't really paid to do good work, you're paid to be a good friend. I learned this the hard way, by doing good work but being rather unfriendly. Now I am jobless.

If you are woman who has a problem because of your period, it would stand to reason that you should try to make up for lost time during the rest of the month.

Zaulankris · 2014-06-13T19:01:26+00:00

My periods were horrible and interfered with my work, so now I just don't have them anymore. I was going to be on birth control anyway, so my doctor approved me for its continuous usage. Now I menstruate maybe a few times a year? And when I do, I take ibuprofen. It could be argued that it's "not fair" that you have to take a medication or do a procedure but um... nearly everyone has something wrong with them. Deal.

I do not believe that being down and out for a week is normal. You have treatment options available to you, please seek those out before asking this question. It is absurd to suggest that you should get a free pass for something that's treatable! If you legit have a doctor's note, take it up with your boss as it's a special case.

monkeyhousezen · 2014-06-13T19:09:26+00:00

I can't say I've run across anything that would indicate that a woman was any less productive than a man when you do an apples to apples comparison. I'm not surprised the feminist boards didn't want to have that discussion with you since the idea that women aren't, with a few rare exceptions, just as capable and effective as a man is pretty offensive. So what if a woman has a menstrual cycle? Whether she allows that to negatively influence her work productivity is an individual choice.

hyugafan · 2014-06-13T19:11:48+00:00

We'd need accurate data. Have a group of 10 females lf varied ages in their menstrual cycle, a group lf 10 menopaused women, a group of 10 women not in their menstrual cycle and a control group of 10 males do a work related activity. Then analyse the results and we'll talk. As a man, I can't judge wether someone can just "work through" menstruation or if it realy is as debilitating as it sounds.

apathos_destroys · 2014-06-13T19:22:59+00:00

I'll answer with something not related to periods, but regarding work/time spent.

I broke my hip 12 years ago. It still hurts. Most of the time I'm fine, but once and a while I can't do much of anything without writhing in agony. Those days, I don't go to work.

Yes, I make less than my buddy who happens to work his 80 hrs plus overtime, but it's because I'm taking the time to tend to my health.

Per hour per job it's largely illegal to pay one person more than another, as it should be (certification/degrees aside). The idea you should be paid an actual lower wage as a result is just mental. (Not only that, but imagine how feminists would react "we've gone back 50 years etc)

My impression from feminism and it's goals of equality have more to do with equal outcome than equal opportunity. If a male works more overtime and more hours than his female coworker, he should be awarded the pay of his time spent, rather than complain about women not making the same. Feminists by and large disagree. "Women should be paid the same!" They cry, leaving out the additional "regardless of effort".

duganaok · 2014-06-13T19:36:28+00:00

If your not working you shouldn't get paid. Work is a privilege not a right. As far as reduced productivity, when companies hire women, I'm sure they realize what they are getting out of this arrangement.

2014-06-13T19:49:00+00:00

All things being equal, is it 100% conceptually fair for an average woman and an average man to be paid the same per month for the same job when our cycle can sometimes drastically reduce our productivity for at least a week out of the month?

I don't think the cycle should even be a thought the boss has. The boss should just look at hours, and your productivity. If the cycle makes your productivity significantly worse - then you don't deserve to be paid as much because you aren't as productive.

If you are at the same level, or are more productive than your male peers, despite the menstruation, then you should be paid the same or more.

Equity is not fair, you can't come at this situation with the value-judgment/top-down approach. Every person is an individual, and they should be compensated fairly based on their contributions to the company.

Underfolder · 2014-06-13T19:58:43+00:00

I'd say yes, pay the same. All employees should have apple paid time of for personal affairs. If somebody needs three days off a month to deal with menstral issues, they should have it in addition to regular vacation. Others can use the time for other health issues. Those who wish can use the time to learn job related skills or work extra hours.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2014-06-13T20:27:12+00:00

Even if your cycle drastically reduces your productivity during part of it, what matters is overall productivity. You could otherwise be more productive than some men during other times, and that could even out, it be less or it could be more overall.

There are paraplegics that while less productive than they could be were they not paraplegics, are still as productive or more productive than some non-paraplegics. There are also paraplegics that are less productive than non-paraplegics.

If your job is based on productivity, then it perfectly fair to compensate based on that. What matters is your productivity overall.

ion9a · 2014-06-13T20:43:24+00:00

Unbiased-PoV:

If it reduced their productivity, why should the employer pay them the same? Why would anyone hire a woman if they had to pay the same unless forced to by the government? I could understand negotiating unpaid leave for a few days out of the month.

Anecdotal-Pov:

I've worked with women and I've never noticed women working worse due to menstruation... and I never know if they are or not. I've worked with people who couldn't do the job and it never had anything to do with their gender.

nathan8999 · 2014-06-13T20:58:02+00:00

If they can do the same job they should get paid the same. Sure they may not be 100% all of the time but they can still get the same job done considering most employees are not being productive every second on the job. An employee may be a slower reader than another making their work slower but if they read longer and the others are less productive(which is often the case for a lot of people) the end result is the same.

parkowork · 2014-06-13T20:58:05+00:00

If it's been medically diagnosed, and you have disclosed it before being hired, I can't see why it should be an issue.

If it's a biological change that happens (say after child birth) and your doctor notes it, and your supervisors are aware of it, I can't see why it should be an issue.

I could put out more examples, but in my opinion, if people are aware of it, (and really, folks should be grown up enough to be able to discuss this) it's like every other medical issue that takes away from production. It's not like you can choose when and where that happens... penalizing you for it doesn't seem right - unless you are not forthcoming with your supervisors.

On a side-note, it's kind of cool that you had to come to the MR board to get an honest discussion going about what is clearly a woman's issue. Thanks for posting!

randomtechguy142857 · 2014-06-13T21:15:50+00:00

It depends.

If you're in a job with measurable goals, I completely believe in a system where the more you output, the more you get paid (barring jobs with an element of unpredictability such as sales). This implies that a female who is menstruating and taking it badly will get proportionately less, but one who is able to stick it out gets their pay as well.
If you're not, such as advertising, everyone should simply get paid an equal amount, as there is no point trying to guess exactly how much everyone is working.

At least that's my opinion. Feel free to point out issues with it.

2014-06-13T22:20:38+00:00

Well, I have IBS. I frequently go to the doctor, which means I often come to work a bit late. Sometimes I am in a great deal of pain for extended periods of time, and my capability is reduced. I still get paid the same, though, because I work as hard as I can, I exceed my sales quotas every month, and I can't help the fact that my digestive system is broken. It would be unfair to pay me less just because I am sick, and cannot always be physically present as much as some others, because I fulfill my duties.

I don't see why a woman should be paid any less due to not being able to control the pain of ovulation and menstruation.

Big_Tubbz · 2014-06-14T05:25:32+00:00

Also it can mist, there can be showers, there can be fog, it could sprinkle. Water still falls from the sky, but a news station won't call it rain.

Poperiarchy · 2014-06-13T17:14:45+00:00

Oddly enough I've brought this up before in different forms. It generally didn't go over well here, either. This sub is so hung up on some absurd level of "absolute equality" accepting that gender differences do exist that need to be addressed differently causes fedoral rage.

Women do on average take more sick days... but sick time is part of your salary package, so it doesn't matter if someone uses more than others. So, no... it shouldn't affect base pay. It may factor in as far as performance reviews and job advancement if it kicks your ass for a week at a time, and should be considered a medical problem at that point. Even with the ADA a chronic medical condition that prevents you from performing your duties can lead to a legal termination or a reduction in job duties.

It can be a bit irritating to those who never get sick seeing workers go home all the time. Some companies allow you to "cash in" so many sick days a year, which is nice, so those working can get some reward for it. Other companies have started dropping it entirely in place of a single pool of personal days. Doesn't matter if you're sick. If you don't feel like coming in you just take the day instead of lying about a case of the tequila shits. So people who take a lot of sick days have them, and those that don't take a lot of sick days have the same number of days they can take off for any personal reason.

And as others mentioned, a few days of hormonal rage doesn't necessarily mean work isn't getting done. Not all employees are equally productive anyway. And I'm on Reddit right now.

PR0FiX · 2014-06-13T16:23:43+00:00

I think we already technically pay women less because of this. I remember reading some statistics (which I can't be bothered to find right now) about how women take more sick days than men. If those sick days are not paid, technically, they are making less.

I don't think women should be penalized for taking those days off though.

mr_egalitarian · 2014-06-13T16:34:35+00:00

Brand new account. I suspect this is a troll from AMR or SRS.

2014-06-13T17:54:43+00:00

Yes it is fair. If you have a bad back an employer shouldn't be obligated to pay you more as a carpenter because you have to go through the pain.

A business is there to make money and they pay you for the work done, the value you create. If you are unable to work as many hours as another for any reason, you don't deserve to be paid for those missed hours.

Otherwise, I'm going to become a chronic migraine sufferer who needs to go home an hour early everyday as well.

Juan_Golt · 2014-06-13T18:18:30+00:00

Obvious troll is obvious.

dungone · 2014-06-13T16:53:10+00:00

Apart from suspecting that this might be a troll or that we're being brigaded, no, it's not fair, but it's not very important, either. There are other ways in which women get major financial advantages over men, whether it's paid maternity leave (no paternity leave) or making up the majority of non-working spouses who are covered by workers' health insurance. I think that women perform less in-demand work generally, and that their overall lower average incomes are a simple reflection of their career and lifestyle choices, and not menstruation.

The emotional outbursts that negatively impact other workers are a bigger concern of mine. I've always thought of it as premeditated munchausen syndrome. I don't think it's real, just an excuse to be an unbearable pain in the ass.

CobraCommander · 2014-06-13T18:48:36+00:00

You honestly believe women are less productive during their period? Are you...are you serious? You are one hell of a troll. I refuse to believe anything else.

Stone_Morningwood · 2014-06-13T20:05:34+00:00

It's not only not fair, but I refuse to pay employees what they do not earn by their productivity because businesses exist for one purpose. That purpose is profits, and productivity means profits. There are other factors than gender and hydraulics as well. Evaluations, productivity, seniority, attendance, attitude, and lots of others.

Algermas · 2014-06-13T16:04:12+00:00

No, no it isn't.

If employers got 100% the same work for 20/50/75/92% of the pay just by hiring women every man would be out of a job tomorrow.

Comments