Function and dysfunction: A historical critique of the literature on menstruation and work

Historically, menstruation has often been cited as the source of women's inferiority as workers. It has been argued that, given the physical and emotional demands of menstruation, the performance of certain jobs might cause a woman to hurt herself or to disrupt the orderly and efficient production of goods. Despite the influence that this reasoning has had on women's lives, the validity of its conclusions have never been demonstrated by scientific inquiry. This paper argues that, in general, scientists have failed to consider the topic of menstrual dysfunction in the workplace as one requiring scientific scrutiny and that when research has been conducted, beliefs about menstruation have systematically biased the results. These failures have led not only to the perpetuation of myths about women as workers, but they have also thwarted the search for organic causes of menstrual dysfunction. A redefinition of the question concerning work and menstrual dysfunction is proposed.