Read on Twitter
This may appear as a good policy on face value, but may be counter productive, in MY OPINION. Women already have a lot of biological, structural and normative disadvantages in the workplace. Why pile on more? https://twitter.com/YarKafanchan/status/1385961649404878850">https://twitter.com/YarKafanc...
Women of reproductive age will get pregnant severally during their work life and struggle through inevitable periods of reduced productivity, even for those with largely event-free pregnancies. Thereafter come the maternity leave period (3 to 6 months, or longer in some cases)
They will still continue to be distracted by the concerns of caring for the growing infant, no matter the kind of institutional and family support they get. These pressures usually remain significant till their last child is at least 5 years old (very conservative)
Now remember their male colleagues will not get pregnant and take maternity leaves, and our Nigerian society doesn& #39;t place the burden of childcare as much on the father as it does to the mother. So, the gender that spends longer on the job, with less distraction will get better
at the job and are more likely to progress quicker to top level management in their different sectors. That may explain, in part, why men control nearly every sector, even in more inclusive societies where gender issues are taken seriously.
So, why further reduce the amount of time women have to be at the workplace, and get their hands on the plough to get better at their crafts? Not all women have severe severe symptoms and can carry on with their tasks. A lot of women have also got hacks that help them cope well
There are still a handful of women whose symptoms are so severe that they can& #39;t leave home and some requiring hospitalisation. I encountered a few during the time in clinical practice. So a better policy is to make moderate to severe menstrual symptoms a valid reason for absence
