The Student Room Group

Should women get a day off work for their period?

Scroll to see replies

No
Original post by Rachel58
You don't have to pay for tranexamic acid if it's prescribed.


It doesn't come up on an exempt from charge list that I ve seen, I could be wrong though.
Original post by claireestelle
It doesn't come up on an exempt from charge list that I ve seen, I could be wrong though.


Hm, I'm not sure, I took it for four years and never paid 😕
Original post by chikane
I am on levythyroxine for my thyroid and am exempt from paying for any medication. I am on Tranaxemic acid which i don't pay for either.

Having a medical exemption card automatically means you don't pay for anything not just getting the thyroxine free so you wouldn't pay for anything including tranexamic acid because of it :smile:
Reply 64
I think it would undermine women's status in the workplace. Rather this should be on a case by case basis with medical recommendation. Sadly this is just an extra burden that women have to contend with.
Original post by l'etranger
I do get hit on by gay men rather a lot :erm:


:wink2:

Not a guy by the way so not hitting on you
Original post by chikane
:wink2:

Not a guy by the way so not hitting on you


I just meant if my boss were a gay man I would probably just get paid for sitting around doing nothing. Probably wouldn't want to know what he's doing in the bathroom whilst thinking about me.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by claireestelle
Having a medical exemption card automatically means you don't pay for anything not just getting the thyroxine free so you wouldn't pay for anything including tranexamic acid because of it :smile:


I know all my meds are free but just saying there are other reasons for people not paying and not just cause they were young like Nirvana :smile:
Original post by chikane
I know all my meds are free but just saying there are other reasons for people not paying and not just cause they were young like Nirvana :smile:


I know:smile: I work in a pharmacy :tongue:
That's fine, it should be unpaid though, otherwise that's sexist imo if you just give one gender more holidays
Original post by l'etranger
I just meant if my boss were a gay man I would probably just get paid for sitting around doing nothing. Probably wouldn't ant to know what he's doing in the bathroom whilst thinking about me.


Eww wouldn't want that
Yes! For some women, periods are extremely painful and can even lead to fainting. Also I really don't understand how blood leaking out of your vagina for 4-7 days has anything to do with feminism. Females have to deal with periods because its a biological process, not because of "feminism". Sometimes periods are really messy and can cause painful cramps. It is not fun to be on your period. Depending on the woman, it can be the one of the worst pain ever.

As long as the woman has a doctor's note, it should be valid reason.
Reply 72
What a joke. If its that bad take a normal sick day like you would for any other illness or pain.
This is a good example of female privilege and entitlement to special treatment.

Work less but feel entitled to the same wage as someone who works more than you and call it sexism when you don't get that special treatment.

I'm all for it if women don't get paid when they are not working.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
this kind of law is not only sexist towards men but it will result in sexist effects against women - de facto, women would be far less employable than men because men wouldn't be entitled to claim a sickie for free, so men would actually put out more work per pound for their company. so it's just regressive on all fronts. just have free competition. if men and women really are equal, women wouldn't even be dreaming of such a degrading and patronising form of assistance which would make them appear like the disabled gender


Sorry but do men get periods? Man up pussyboi
Original post by whorefromvegas
Sorry but do men get periods? Man up pussyboi


nope
and your point is...?
It makes more sense to simply give women more sick days in total rather than specifically labelling them period days. I think the former is generally fair since the symptoms of a period are mostly no different to feeling unwell. That said, those who do take more sick days might well rise in their careers at a slower rate and feminists ought to acknowledge that factors like this contribute to the pay gap in small but collectively noticeable degrees.
Original post by sleepysnooze
nope
and your point is...?


Men aren't the only ones who are going to have to put the extra work because not every woman will even claim their day off. Therefore it isn't sexist at all.

Also, period pains would also be equivalent to a sick day off.

So man up and stop trying to victimise yourself.

It also wouldn't be sexist against women, because if an employer decides to not employ a woman because she has periods, that would be discrimination which is illegal.
Reply 78
Don't think it should be a given. Not all women have cramps. When I get my period it doesn't disrupt my work at all, perhaps a little lack of focus and more fatigue but nothing serious. I would worry that women who have light periods/no cramps might take advantage of this situation (I am optimistic that people would be truthful but there's no way to tell). If a woman gets bad cramps that are very painful, she should be allowed the day off, but this should be done on a case-by-case basis in my opinion.
Original post by whorefromvegas
Men aren't the only ones who are going to have to put the extra work because not every woman will even claim their day off. Therefore it isn't sexist at all.


it's a legal privilege for one gender. of course it's sexist. don't be ****ing daft. just because every single women doesn't make use of it doesn't change anything.

Also, period pains would also be equivalent to a sick day off.


it's the same consequence. and read the thread title.

So man up and stop trying to victimise yourself.


I'm not victimising myself - I think this kind of law actually victimises women as well. it suggests that they're a disabled gender.

It also wouldn't be sexist against women, because if an employer decides to not employ a woman because she has periods, that would be discrimination which is illegal.


um, how are you going to prove that they didn't hire them on the basis of gender? you really think an employer would just ****ing admit it?
but it makes total sense that they would because they within a company would be LOSING-MONEY. so this makes women, therefore, unemployable in reality, not in law. you're only thinking about this legally. that's hilarious. that's like saying that we can make a law that it must snow on christmas and picturing this as actually happening.

Quick Reply