Cognitive dissonance at the BBC on women in the workforce

The BBC boldly explores the topic of menstruation’s impact on women with demanding jobs, in an article titled, “Can ‘period leave’ ever work?”

Menstrual leave, a policy that affords women suffering extreme period pain one or two days off work, already exists in several countries around the world, but has been widely criticised as counterproductive, often reinforcing negative stereotypes of female workers.

In some Asian countries, including Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and certain Chinese provinces, women are allowed to stay home for a designated part of their monthly periods. Few take advantage of it, though, many citing fear of sexual harassment or perceptions of weakness.

And when the Italian parliament considered introducing national period leave in March, many wondered whether eligibility for three paid days a month off risked discouraging employers from hiring women in the first place.

It’s a dilemma for progressives, isn’t it?

On the one hand, the view that “period leave” is just “basic human rights — that a standard biological process should never be shameful.” On the other hand, the dogma is that women can do anything men can do. Period. (pardon the pun).

Now, try to hold these ideas simultaneously and you end up with cognitive dissonance.

As a friend puts it:

So, the argument is/will be that women can do all the things men can do except when they can’t. Maybe someone will explain how this movement for menstruation leave from work comports with the idea of women combat soldiers, sailors and pilots. Not to mention pre-menopausal presidents.

"President Harris, will not be available the following days….”