You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_j0cf1js wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


nico87ca t1_j0cnthb wrote

I'm going to get down voted to death, but it's fine.

For the equality of genders, shouldn't people with a Y chromosome have either a money or extra leave compensation?


yellowkats t1_j0cojy6 wrote

This is making it equal. Men don’t generally have to refresh their wombs once a month in preparation for their potential future child, they’ve already got one up on women.


yellowkats t1_j0cse9u wrote

Women are expected to work consistently throughout their menstrual cycle when we do not consistently operate at the same level throughout the month.

Most women are fighting some combination of cramping/depression/brain fog/nausea/low energy/breast pain/intensified emotions for at least a week every month. Not to mention the blood part and everything that goes with that.

We can’t currently take a week off work every time we have our period, so we suffer through it. Men don’t have to deal with any of that, so women are currently at a disadvantage.


Kaz-Marie t1_j0csiru wrote

No, folks who don't menstruate don't need access to policies meant to help folks who do. It's similar to how non-disabled people don't get access to services like disability and accomodations that help people who are disabled.


nico87ca t1_j0cvmhw wrote

Having a uterus is not a free pass to get everything...

The justification of "i have a uterus so I'm entitled to have more sick days than a man" feels absolutely unfair.

Should older workers get more sick days than younger workers?

I want equality...


MarkVarga t1_j0cxso2 wrote

This extra break absolutely makes sense but it's only fair if these off days will be deducted from the salary as well. But that leads us back to the "women earn less than men" issue.


Kaz-Marie t1_j0cxt3u wrote

That's why I said it was a similar mechanism of access, not the same. I do know that, for some folks, the pain they experience from periods is so debilitating that they have had to get disability accommodations for it, so it's not an entirely irrelevant comparison for everyone. Generally periods are manageable, but folks who experience debilitating pain during theirs should have access to adequate accommodations such as this policy.


BleedingEdge61104 t1_j0d5n6p wrote

Good this should become a thing everywhere. I’m a man but I know damn well I wouldn’t want to work during a painful period.


aKnightWh0SaysNi t1_j0dcw7x wrote

Letting somebody not work isn’t an accommodation. People should be paid to work.

Disability exists to compensate people who cannot.

If menstrual leave is given to people who cannot work for a few days every month like clockwork, it isn’t fair to ask the company to pay for that.


alittlejolly t1_j0decez wrote

Who pays for the salary during the sick days? If it was paid by the government that is great but if a business has to pay for it then it may become a double edged sword. If I was a small business and needed to hire someone and the choice was between an equally qualified person with a uterus and a person without one I would probably hire the person without a uterus. The reality is that I wouldn't be able to afford the risk of having an employee not being available for some time each month. While I commend the idea, I worry about unintended consequences.


aKnightWh0SaysNi t1_j0df282 wrote

A program similar to disability where the burden of paying for the financial impact of their lack of predictable availability and productivity be shouldered by taxes, not by employers.

Someone needing this time off every month results in the employer receiving their salary from the government times 1.something to offset the major inconvenience of hiring someone with that requirement.

Otherwise, nobody will want to employ them.


Kaz-Marie t1_j0dguts wrote

I appreciate the thoughtful response, that sounds like an excellent solution as well. I'm glad that the conversation around this is starting, as so many of us have been gaslit or flat out not believed when asking for help with menstrual pain accommodations - when I was a kid, it took me throwing up all over the floor in high school from pain for them to even consider letting me go home to rest. I hope the culture around forcing folks to work at normal capacity during intense periods can start to be dismantled.

For the method that Spain will be trying out, I trust (for now) their solid anti-descrimination laws around the workplace to prevent hiring descrimination. The US doesn't have as good protections in the same sense so I think a government based program like you suggested would work better here - anecdotally, employers here have been awful to my peers who have debilitating periods.


Quickshot4721 t1_j0diheg wrote

100% as they are getting paid the same for more work just because they allowed menstrual leave for something that is normal. Downvote me I don’t care it’s my opinion


Throwawaytown33333 t1_j0dmlmo wrote

why haven't doctors fixed painful periods. I have one and WHAT IS THIS?

I'm just getting a hysterectomy.


Expert_Drama9374 t1_j0dmom4 wrote

Wonderful!! As a Woman I applaud it. But do we really need such an explicit pic. Jeez was getting reading to eat dinner. Ha!


YogurtclosetSea2598 t1_j0dvbge wrote

Wonder if there will be subtle changes in hiring practices after this?


sorigah t1_j0dyr63 wrote

I don't really understand this. Don't you have paid sick leave in Spain?


Pandral t1_j0e6yiu wrote

People are literally gonna hire less women because of this lol


KnotiaPickles t1_j0e812n wrote

Thank you. Some days it is literally agony, even just laying in bed. Add on strenuous activities for 9 hours, and you’ve got yourself a guaranteed tearful end to the workday.

This would be huge for women’s health and well-being


tandemxylophone t1_j0ekscn wrote

But will you be ok covering for other people's circumstances 4 days a month? If there were lots of mums wanting to pick up their kids at 3pm, should they allocate all the unsociable shifts to the childless workers since they are more abled?


TeamADW t1_j0el8qj wrote

Most do, but there is a limit to what you can provide. A business has to make money off of the activity of the people there. If the take is more than the give, you need to find someone with less take.

that's the point being made here, that employers would look at any woman under retirement age as someone who is going to be taking paid leave 3-12 days a month. To which you can extrapolate that situation further. If someone is taking that leave, monthly, for the maximum allotted time, and its believed to be not in good faith (milking the system) , how does it get addressed without crossing medical information and privacy laws / norms?


KnotiaPickles t1_j0ellml wrote

Children are a Choice. Periods Are Not.

Also, accommodation can be made fairly easily. It is usually only about one day a month that is especially bad for many women, generally the first or second day. It’s more a scheduling issue than anything. The hard part is that we often don’t know exactly when it will come, and this could make a huge difference.


lampofshade t1_j0erz2m wrote

Thank you. No lie last night I was dreaming I was being stabbed in the back and was trying to figure out how to take morphine (lol I was trying to drink it in the dream) and woke up because it was period pain.


amscraylane t1_j0esyxq wrote

But if being black meant every 28 days a body part of theirs backfires resulting in debilitating cramps, diarrhea, nausea, changes in hormones, headaches, and blood coming from an orifice, I would be willing to understand they would need a day off and not look for analogies on why that would not be okay because it doesn’t happen to me.


amscraylane t1_j0etsy7 wrote

It would only be equal if your hormones shifted, you had diarrhea or constipation, headaches, bloating, and cramps … and then every so often a good gush of blood appears in your underwear.

Your compensation is never having to be planning a trip and have to consult your mental calendar to see if you’ll be shedding your uterine lining.

Your compensation is never having to worry about having a blow out in your new white Z Cavaricci jeans.


amscraylane t1_j0eugdx wrote

So you’re getting a break for essentially a woman bleeding every month? Your body is biologically inclined never to revolt.

Where then is my compensation for you having a day of leisure while my uterus is shedding its lining and I am curled in a ball with my heating pad wondering if it is going to be a fart or I am going to shit myself?


amscraylane t1_j0euqkm wrote

What seems unfair is I have to pay a biological monthly bill each month, which costs me literal money with pads and Midol …

This is why moms need to start talking to their sons!!


stowski_115 t1_j0f6zr5 wrote

This ain’t gonna be great for the “wage gap” statistics


PotatoBeautiful t1_j0f9fji wrote

You sound like you’re coming at this with a genuine curiosity, which I appreciate, so I hope you can hear me on this answer.

Yeah it might seem unfair at first glance, but XX people to this day get paid less for same jobs as their peers, are more likely to be scrutinized when hired (‘so do you have children/are you planning to have children?’), and are also often assumed that they will be the caretakers for kids if they do have them, moreso than the XY parent. They’ve also likely gone through their whole life since teenage years having to suck it up and carry out tasks while in a lot of physical pain. School, work, social obligation, etc… all with pain or even mental symptoms that have no resolution and are maybe survivable with heavy painkillers. XX people still carry the expectation to show up to all this with a smile too, because let’s face it, there’s still a societal hangover in terms of how different genders are meant to behave, dress and act. I have a uterus that sometimes (not every time, even!) has me doubled over in pain or unable to stand up, and there are people who would genuinely expect others like me to show up to a job wearing high heels and makeup and uncomfortable clothes to maintain the veneer of professionalism when simply being upright feels like being punched in the stomach. I think there are a lot of people like me. Sure, sick leave exists, but sometimes I’m not quite ‘sick’ so much as I simply need a day to ride out the pain without fearing that if I catch a cold later in my year I’ll have to compromise income on what could (and should) be a lengthier stay at home.

XY people, without even meaning to, have been born into decades of precedent of having access to higher, more consistent pay. Capitalism is bullshit and not every XY person is immediately going to just get more money, for many reasons, of course. However, they have the chance of receiving the benefit of the doubt from (often male) employers who have distinctly built a career off that precedent. I don’t want to frame this as anyone’s fault, because most of us didn’t choose this shit, but it’d be irresponsible to act as though it doesn’t exist.

So idk, a day or two here and there for people who feel like if they stand up their organs might splash out doesn’t seem like too much. They’ll be back tomorrow.


amscraylane t1_j0fh1o5 wrote

Why should two people have the same expectations when one has physical pain inflicted upon them every 28 days involuntarily?

And that physical pain costs the other person each month with pads, tampons, panty liners, Tylenol … and potential loss of clothing, possible embarrassment … and loss wages


Kelmon80 t1_j0fn3ek wrote

> but XX people to this day get paid less for same jobs as their peers

Except they're not. The wage gap as it is commonly understood ("women in the same position make 76 cent to a man's dollar") is a complete falsehod.

Men and women with the same qualifications in the same job get paid pretty much (*) exactly the same - the wage gap compares the average salaries of ALL men with that of ALL women. And, guess what - there's more stay-at-home women than stay-at-home men, and there's more men working in more lucrative (and, on average, more demanding and/or dangerous) fields and positions than women.

And while that last part is still in need of fixing (More female CEOs AND more female garbage collectors/construction workers/tradespeople/soldiers) - any individual woman does not get paid less than her male counterpart.

(* The actual difference is between 1 and 2% in my country (government figures), half of which is attributed to men just being more successful in salary negotiations, the other half to actual plain old discrimination)


Kelmon80 t1_j0fof7o wrote

I don't quite see how why this specificity is neccessary.

Not that those women with very painful periods don't require leave as everyone who is in (unmanageable) pain - but could this not be handled just as any other kind of chronic/recurring pain issue is handled already? In particular as I understand this law does not mean that any women can just state they're in pain and go home. Just like with any pain issue, you have to see a doctor to grant you sick leave.

So what makes "uterus pain" special compared to migraines, stomach pain, pain in your limbs, etc.? Too painful to work is too painful to work, no matter where.


Kelmon80 t1_j0fphx8 wrote

If pads are so expensive - tampons cost you $2000 over your entire lifetime. That's around $2 a month. Far, far less than I spend on condoms. Using a product that's 3 times more expensive is a choice you make, and can't really complain about.

And cheaper solutions exist. Menstrual cups last for ages, and are a one-time purchase, making your lifetime period costs go into double digits.

Man, if I could buy a single, reusable condom for $15 or so that lasts me 10 years, that would be incredible. Sadly, condoms only last that long for incels.


PotatoBeautiful t1_j0fpynq wrote

Let me Google that for you:

And your analogy of more stay-at-home women is support to my statement that by and large there is still a societal expectation that the XX partner will be the primary caregiver to any children they may have with their XY partner. It’s rooted in no reason and archaic, not to mention pretty cruel to both parents.

The reason XY folks are often in those lucrative positions, might I add, is exactly what I was saying regarding hiring bias. Plenty of people across the gender spectrum get educated or are eligible for a variety of jobs, but this still persists.


PotatoBeautiful t1_j0fqsrl wrote

The other thing I need to add though, regardless of whether or not to debate this point, is that people who menstruate are still expected to perform through what can be debilitating pain on a month to month basis, and to do it without mention or fuss. It’s not something that can be opted in or out of, and the precedent is to NEVER mention it, which I can’t help but suspect is yet another leftover from a not-too-distant time where women were barred from jobs deemed to be ‘for men.’ It isn’t that XX people can’t perform these jobs or should be considered incapable, it is more that it would be humane and equitable to make accommodation for a common issue that will likely resolve within 24-48 hours for the worker every few weeks or even months.


PotatoBeautiful t1_j0g1rse wrote

I see you've edited this comment rather than responding, so I don't mind responding again. :)

I note you put that this percentage discrepancy is in your country. That's wonderful, but unfortunately, nowhere near universal. It also does not account for your other adjustment, that many XX people are not able to as easily ascend through rankings in clerical settings to become CEOs, or that many people are effectively shunned from trade work due to sexism within those trades. Should an XX person decide that they want to improve their chances by changing country, or to restart in these trades, they still face the massive financial, emotional and situation hurdles that any human does when going through a significant move.

The thing is, many types of work that XX people go into ARE dangerous, they are simply not dangerous in a way that people speak of in polite company. It can be extremely dangerous to be in trades that will not rock the boat for someone who has faced physical or verbal harassment, and it can be difficult to quit a job if it is ensuring financial survival. I have found it is much more common to hear from women/XX people that they have faced sexual discrimination or assault in their workplaces, but were unable to quit. It is a type of danger, and that is aside from the demands of the actual job. And, if that person does decide to quit, they very well may end up losing money in the process of finding a workplace that is not constantly threatening. My source here is myself.

edit: In any case, this is somewhat aside from the original post, but it is meant to support my point that allowing one or two days for common bodily functions under these conditions is equity rather than an unfair exception based on biological traits. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to find themselves with a massive hike in income solely because they are given the space to occasionally take a day to deal with intense physical symptoms that are both normal but deeply incompatible with the capitalist structures we all suffer under.


Wonderful-Assist2077 t1_j0g8qjl wrote

I read that female ceo's or women in high positions of power tend to not higher women because of issues like this and maternity leave etc. they want their workers to be there 100 percent of the time ya know to squeeze that extra min out of them.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gku13 wrote

Because women aren't important. We're supposed to just "suck it up", and stop whining, because "it's natural". At least that's the attitude I received from the time I started seeing a doctor around 18 until I finally got my hysterectomy at 49. Best thing ever. I had endometriosis, and I don't know if diagnosis has changed in the last 13 years, but when I had it, the only way to diagnose it was surgery.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gl2xm wrote

As someone who has had a hysterectomy, due to endo, I assure you, the pain goes away. The outside the uterus thing is the endometrial tissue migrating outside the uterus. When I had my hysterectomy, they removed that tissue from the organs it had settled on. Once I healed, because you will have to have an abdominal hysterectomy, your life will change.


furiousfran t1_j0gl93h wrote

You choose to fuck, I never asked for this shitty sack of meat that only bleeds and hurts

>tampons cost you $2000 over your entire lifetime. That's around $2 a month

LMFAO sure dude


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0glxrm wrote

They probably do, but think about this, you will miss a least one a day a month if your period starts on a workday. Who gets that much sick time? And yes, I had these issues. And you have to plan your entire life around when you are going to get your period.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gmafg wrote

So, what? Women shouldn't have jobs? We have and DO work through incredible pain, fevers, vomiting, diarrhea, and bloating, just to name SOME of what happens. But we have to work through it, because of people with your attitude. Tell me, if a man had a condition that made him ill at least once a month, do you think they'd even come in? Or would you not hire them as well?


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gmty0 wrote

Well, first, it wouldn't be close to 12 days a month. I had endometriosis, and I would say that the first 2 days of my period were excruciating. If I was lucky, it happened on a weekend, so I could spend two full days, curled on the couch with a heating pad. But thanks for the empathy. I mean, businesses have to make money right? People are irrelevant.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gna1a wrote

And this is why we don't like republicans. The almighty dollar comes first. Let's not try to figure out a way someone can still do their job with a debilitating illness. Let's just throw them to the curb.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0go8oc wrote

I so read this wrong at first, and thought you were saying having a day off for your period was a day of leisure. Then I read the rest. You've got it spot on. I don't know if you have endometriosis, but a period is still pretty bad, even if you don't have it. I do, but my daughter does not, and she still has days when she has her period where all this is going on. God, men just don't get it. They also don't get they've already got all the privileges. How in god's name do they think they deserve more, when they have nothing wrong!


amscraylane t1_j0gqotq wrote

You sound angry. Is it your time of the month?

Although the menstrual cup is a great invention, it is not practical for everyone. You have to fish it out and clean it. Can you imagine being in a public restroom and having someone come to the sink and clean their cup out?

And then you’re equating having an orgasm and the product used to prevent pregnancy to one that absorbs blood.


alittlejolly t1_j0gr7yn wrote

I think that you read a lot into my comment and decided to take it ad absurdum. Or course women should have jobs and of course they should not have to work through painful periods. The key point for the comment was the devil is in the details. Women should have access to those sick days and government should cover the cost . If the government doesn't then the business has to make the tough choice of whether or not they want to hire someone who may cost them more money.


nico87ca t1_j0gr88c wrote

You understand that giving a day or 2 per month like clockwork is literally 2-4 weeks off per year.

Sorry but if you're off 4-8% more than men, you shouldn't get 1-1 compensation OR men should get some sort of time off.

Or else it's simply not fair.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gs1oq wrote

Oh, boo hoo. Life has NEVER been fair for women. Men have ALWAYS had every advantage in the world, and I assure you that if men had periods, they'd miss a week solid. Work can be made up. As someone who worked through chemotherapy, accommodations were made for me so that I could do the work that I was hired to do. And that could be done here. If you have a fever, do you go to work? Men get paid more to start with. Was that ever fair? They don't have to work as hard doing the same work as women simply to keep their jobs.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gshi0 wrote

If you think that I thought it was absurd, it's because it was. Women would not be hired by your standards. Ah yes, the men would love this. Just another way to keep women under control. And yes, I think businesses should pick up the cost. It should simply be a benefit.


TrulyStupidNewb t1_j0gsku2 wrote

It's not okay because the days off will affect women negatively by limiting their options for employment. Sometimes, the worst decisions come from good intentions. I just gave an extreme example of how a good idea can become a bad idea.

How about this? If you wanted to give paid women days off for their period, the correct way would be to also give paid days off for men too. This way, there is no uneven competition, which is equality. The time off can be flex, and you can use use 4 flex days in a row all at once, if you want.

This way, women can choose to use the flex days off during their periods if they want, or move it if they don't want. This also benefits women who don't have periods, such as older women, and well as men.

However, some companies already give flex days like that, so if a woman cares about flex days like that, right now, they can simply apply for those companies. For example, the company I work for gives flex time off, paid, for both men and women, regardless of period or not.


alittlejolly t1_j0gt2c7 wrote

reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy where to take something to an absurd end which in your case was the question. "Women shouldn't have jobs?". Obviously that statement is ridiculous and is nowhere near the what I said.

I also understand that this is a hot button issue for you but you don't seem to be actually reading what I wrote. I completely think that women should have this option and my argument is that the government should pay for it otherwise it will likely result in additional discrimination against hiring women.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gt413 wrote

I wish the US would take a page out of the book of Europeans. But EVERYTHING here is about the almighty dollar. If you look at the comments, I think you could ascertain that most of these people talking about how this would hurt businesses, are Americans. These people simply don't get that if you are out, and you're treated well by your employer, you're more loyal and would absolutely make up your work if you needed to be gone. I was fortunate enough many years ago to have a (male) boss that understood this, and let me have as much (paid) sick leave as I needed. As a consequence, I didn't take advantage, and would stay late, or come in on weekends, if necessary. But that was on me, my boss never asked me to.


nico87ca t1_j0gtglh wrote

This is like a gold mine of biases.

I don't know where to start...

I simply believe in equality of genders. If you want to think women deserve more than men, it's your view, but I would fight this to my dying day.

Women oppression was a bad thing. Just like slavery also was. To exploit someone because of its sex or race is wrong. I live by this standard and will die by it.

No matter the reason, this policy gives a specific subgroup of human a benefit not everyone can have.

It's fundamentally unfair.


amscraylane t1_j0gvehs wrote

We have a level playing field now. Every one shows up to work, but half of the workforce has to pretend they not menstruating. If a woman needs to take a day off, it comes out of their sick days.

With your scenario, men are getting a day of leisure and I am curled up in a ball trying to figure out if it is a fart or am I going to shit myself?

So once again, men get the advantage because you do not have a body part that revolts. So while woman are at home in genuine pain, you get to have a day of golf to make it “fair”?

The only fairness would be then if we get one of those machines that simulated cramps and made you wear a suit simulating the 5 lbs of water weight you take on, and then surprise you with a gush of blood in your underwear and have a voice that says, “you bled through your pants and onto the chair”


TrulyStupidNewb t1_j0gwy9s wrote

I'm not saying to not empathize with women who menstruate. I'm saying certain policies that attempt to fix that problem will hurt women further, and it is not my intention to hurt women.

In another side example, women on the pill do not menstruate much, but why should they suffer a disadvantage in getting hired because they are a woman? They shouldn't.


Mrischief t1_j0h808e wrote

Are you for real ?

Men as in who ? Historically everyone in humanity was a serf, slave or lived close to their families. Oh you mean men as in rich men ? Well see the problem there is that MOST MEN are not rich, and yes you will the bring up the argument of childbirth and the risk for women, which is subtantial for sure during those times.

Men / XY have during most of history been the partner that has assumed risk comparatively to set food, do harder labour, die younger (barring sickness / complication from childbirth).

So how exactly are you arguing that it is MEN that has had it better ? Kings, nobels, New money has risen to the top and guess what, they want to maximize profits.

You dont get to cheery pick statistics for one thing, you do so comparatively, or not at all.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0hurpf wrote

Nope. The dollar does not come first for me. People do. And at no place did we say that less work is going to be done. And frankly, given the way men treat women, we deserve more.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0hv0fq wrote

And yet still the men here are not accepting of the fact that a whole group of people (women) should get more consideration for what they go through. They just don't get that they have always had it pretty good, and we women have to work twice as hard, then have period crap on top of it. But they get sick? You bet they're screaming that they should be given consideration.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0hvgu1 wrote

Nope. Absolutely not. You're taking a whole class of people that through no fault of their own, have to deal with this every month, FOR YEARS, and all you men act like it's nothing. Well it isn't. I guarantee if you were sick for an extended time, you'd be screaming about it. And by the way - we already earn less. It's rather like when people applauded Fred Astaire for being such an amazing dancer, and nobody paid attention to Ginger Rogers, who as she said had to do the same dance steps, in high heels, and backward, but no one thinks she should have gotten more.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0hwo6b wrote

I'm actually laughing. That you think women have EVER had it better than any class of men is not just naive, it's lunacy. Not cherry picking any statistics, but apparently you are if you don't understand that men have ALWAYS had it better. And wow, that you think because men had it bad a thousand years ago, that that somehow made their lives just as bad as women's, then you need to do a little more research. Women could be beaten and or killed if their husbands wanted, with no repercussions. So, yeah, having to work in a field doing back breaking work, so much worse /s. Comparing what men had to go through to Kings and nobels is so beyond ridiculous since those were the 1% of their time.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0hy4at wrote

That you said oppression "was" a bad thing tells me a lot here. We are still oppressed, and I don't see it stopping. If anything with all these asshat republicans and their religious biases, it's getting worse. You want equality of genders? Then start by treating us as people. Don't talk over us. Don't talk down to us. Don't act like we need you to protect us.

When half the population suffers from what is tantamount to an illness, then yes, they deserve a break for that. You don't get it, because it's never happened to you. If you see that as a bias, then so be it. And yes, right now, we do deserve more. Maybe it will make up for the thousands of years of men acting like women are possessions, or servants.


Mrischief t1_j0i2ug4 wrote

Which fields of study do women go into ?

Do they pay as much or equal as men (in that profession) ?

So there is a subset of women that go into being programmers, lawyers, doctors and politicians, so why should the achivements not be on Merit insteas of a gender ?

Who is more likely to go to college or university ? What subjects do they do ?

Who gets drafted in wars, by force ? Is that equal ?

What about courts or divorce proceedings ?

Now, back to the topic at hand. Spain has about 22 days give or take sick days, why do we have to spell out a benefit for painful menstruation precisely ?

When men get sick, we tend to be sicker than women does that mean we should get extra sick days because of it ?

«Men are more susceptible to them, symptoms are worse, they last longer, and men are more likely to be hospitalized and die from the flu." Dr. Kyle sue clinical assistant professor in family medicine

So what exactly do you want ? Cause equality across the gender gap is not happening, we have our own struggles to deal with. And we could expand that to different continents have different issues.


nico87ca t1_j0i61nn wrote

"maybe it will make up for the thousands of years of men acting like women are servants"

So you're telling me that to make it fair, women should oppress men "to make it up". On top of this you're asking men to be cool with that.


That's totally reasonable!


tandemxylophone t1_j0i6ct9 wrote

I'm not saying periods are not serious, just that regardless of it being cancer or tragedy, someone will be covering the responsibilities of the absent person.

Some jobs don't have that much responsibility or the work style is a periodic deliverable, which makes this work.

But if you set up a new one-man business and needed a hire someone to deliver fresh flowers, you won't choose an interviewee who says they have cancer so they need to take a medical leave every month for a week, and they expect that to be paid.


-killertofu t1_j0iqlpm wrote

This is just going to cause companies to discriminate against women more than they already do. If you’re paying the same price why hire someone who is potentially going to work less? Also discrimination is generally pretty hard to prove in court.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0nrhz1 wrote

Since I'm 62, and a bookkeeper, I'm well aware of how business works. I've had incredibly successful bosses who put their employees before the almighty dollar. Business owners nowadays take a page from the republicans and care only about money. And keep your snark to yourself, puppy.


MarkVarga t1_j0u7kdm wrote

> all the privileges

Ah yes. Like 80% of suicides, 99% of war related deaths, a lower life expectancy by several years, 92% of children ending up with their mothers after divorce, sexual harassment against men is being taken as a joke or even a favorable outcome, in quite a lot of countries men can't be raped in a legal sense because it's defined as forcefully inserting something in the other person's body, women's day being a celebration all over the world while men's day doesn't even warrant a doodle on the Google home page, quotas sometimes causing the selection of less talented women over more talented men, 2000+ centers for female SA victims with only a single one for men, women getting shorter sentences for the same crimes...

There is no doubt society is in many occasions uneven and unfair and that there still is a way to go. But don't pretend men have it all