Extremely Private and Incredibly Public – Free Menstrual Products and the “Problem” of Menstruation in the Finnish Public Discourse

ABSTRACT

In December 2021, the Helsinki City Council decided to experiment the distribution of free menstrual products in schools and educational institutions. The act follows similar decisions internationally aiming to decrease inequality and destigmatize menstruation. This article draws on poststructuralist policy analysis to examine the construction of menstruation in the Helsinki city decision and the public debates on the policy proposal. The research materials include policy documents, online news articles, and over 4000 comments on news sites, discussion fora and social media. Utilising Carol L. Bacchi’s (2009) “What’s the problem represented to be?”-approach to policy analysis, the article shows that the Finnish public debates on menstrual policy construct menstruation as a problem on two levels. On the one hand, menstruation is constructed as a private, embodied problem experienced by individuals, while on the other hand, it is redefined as a public problem generating inequality and pollution. The article argues that the policy debates both reinforce and challenge the menstrual stigma. The stigma is reinforced by representing menstruation as “the problem” rather than the social structures stigmatizing menstruators. However, the stigma is also challenged by redefining menstrual bleeding as a public issue and defying norms of menstrual invisibility.

KEYWORDS:

• Menstruation
• menstrual products
• period poverty
• problem representation
• poststructuralist policy analysis

Introduction

I am astonished by this whole topic of discussion. Is this really the city’s main task to consider whether it will distribute sanitary pads for free or not? We have this green thinking anyway and circular economy going on, so why won’t you get back to that and let’s start giving advice in health education classes about how to make sanitary pads from cloth? (…) Probably there are T-shirts at home that one can make sanitary pads out of if the situation is quite hopeless.¹ (Councillor Arja Karhuvaara in the Helsinki City Council on June 2^nd, 2021)

The comment above was made by Arja Karhuvaara, a Helsinki City Councillor for the National Coalition Party (center-right) in the council debate in June 2021 on a proposal to distribute free menstrual products for young people and people of limited means. The comment illustrates how bringing a private issue such as menstruation into public debate is seen as “astonishing”. It also shows how the distribution of menstrual products is criticized on the grounds of environmental concern. Despite these and other arguments against the proposal, the Helsinki City Council voted in December 2021 to experiment the distribution of free menstrual products in a limited number of schools and educational institutions. The decision follows an upsurge in similar political decisions on city and state levels around the world (e.g., Alhelou et al., 2021; Bildhauer et al., 2022). Targeting period poverty and the menstrual stigma, these decisions have been celebrated for acknowledging the needs of half the population, but also criticized for their focus on products meant to conceal menstruation (e.g., Alhelou et al., 2021; Bobel, 2020).

This article examines the Helsinki city policy proposal and the public debates that ensued it on various platforms. The study draws on Carol L. Bacchi’s (2009) “What’s the problem represented to be?” -approach to policy analysis to explore the production of policy problems in the Finnish public debate related to the proposal. By focusing on problem representations, the article teases out both the explicit and implicit ways in which the menstrual stigma is challenged and reinforced in the policy proposal, in the council debate, in online news articles, and on discussion fora and social media.

The study advances social scientific research on gender and promotes equality in three main ways. First, the study provides a novel exploration of menstruation in Finland. Since Finnish academic work on menstruation has mainly been limited to medical studies and master’s theses exploring historical representations or experiences of menstruation,² there is a lack of research on public policymaking and debate related to menstruation. Second, although previous international research has demonstrated the negative effects of the menstrual stigma (e.g., Johnston-Robledo & Chrisler, 2013), it is not fully clear how the stigma takes form or should be combatted in policymaking. The study adds to this body of research by exploring the ways in which the Finnish public debate on menstrual policy produces problems and solutions related to the menstrual stigma. Third and ultimately, the study is concerned with how menstruating bodies are valued and regulated in the Finnish society. Understanding—and when necessary, challenging—dominant views about menstruation is central to critical scrutiny of menstrual policy proposals and to fighting gendered forms of discrimination.

The article is structured in the following way: The next section outlines relevant research on menstruation, social stigma, and menstrual policies. The subsequent section introduces the case, and the section that follows presents the methodology and the research materials. The analysis section illustrates the main findings, and the final section discusses them. The article argues that the Helsinki city policy and the public debates surrounding it construct menstruation as a problem on two levels. On the one hand, menstruation is constituted as a private problem of managing bleeding and experiencing pain and suffering. On the other hand, menstruation is produced as a public problem at the source of inequality and environmental pollution. In both cases, it is menstruation—rather than the social structures and norms regulating and stigmatizing menstruating people—that is imagined as “the problem” waiting to be solved (see Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 14).

Previous research

Menstruation and social stigma

An average person who menstruates spends approximately seven years—just under a tenth of their life—bleeding (Unicef, 2018). Although menstruation is an important and regular part of the functioning of the body, it is often considered a problem in both medicine and popular culture (Kissling, 2006). Already during the Roman Empire, menstruation was described as “pernicious” and contact with it was said to turn “new wine sour” and “make crops touched by it become barren” (Pliny, n.d., p. 549). The toxic qualities of menstrual blood were further explored in early to mid-twentieth century medicine, and although later proven false, the view of menstrual bleeding as particularly unclean continues to this day (Rogers -LaVanne & Clancy, 2021).

In a widely cited article, Ingrid Johnston-Robledo and Joan Chrisler (2013) analyse menstruation as a stigmatizing condition. They argue that menstruation fits all three categories of stigma proposed by Erving Goffman (1963/1986). The different types of stigma include “abominations of the body”, “blemishes of individual character” and “tribal stigma” (Goffman, 1963/1986, p. 4) interpreted by Johnston-Robledo and Chrisler (2013, p. 10) as “social markers associated with marginalized groups”. According to Goffman (1963/1986, pp. 3–5), a stigma is “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” and that limits one’s opportunities in life. The negative consequences of the stigma for people who menstruate include excessive self-monitoring, being perceived negatively in social situations, and reluctance to seek treatment to severe pain related to menstruation (e.g., Johnston-Robledo & Chrisler, 2013; Persdotter, 2022; Roberts et al., 2002; Seear, 2009). Although mainly hidden, the menstrual stigma becomes visible when a menstruating individual openly discloses their menstrual status or accidentally leaks through a menstrual product (Johnston-Robledo & Chrisler, 2013, p. 11).

The requirement to keep menstruation hidden has been theorized by Jill Wood (2020) as “the menstrual concealment imperative” and by Sophie Laws (1990) as “menstrual etiquette”. In both cases, social norms mandate women and other menstruators to keep menstruation concealed. Menstrual product companies and their marketing has utilized and profited from the concealment imperative by stressing products’ ability to offer discreetness and provide “protection” from leaks (e.g., Kissling, 2006, p. 5; Koskenniemi, 2021). Menstrual technologies have allowed menstruators to “pass” as non-menstruating (Vostral, 2008) and to move more freely in public spaces. However, the products’ focus on leak-prevention and on eliminating odour has also strengthened the imperative to conceal menstruation and contributed to the commercialization of menstruation (e.g., Kissling, 2006; Røstvik, 2022).

International menstrual policies

In recent years, various activist groups, organizations, and researchers have challenged negative views of menstruation and shown how the menstrual stigma contributes to social and economic inequality (e.g., Bobel, 2010; Johnston-Robledo & Chrisler, 2013; Weiss-Wolf, 2017). Period poverty, meaning the inability to access commercial menstrual products or sometimes also the lack of menstrual education (see Crawford & Waldman, 2021), has been argued to constitute a significant problem in both low-income and high-income countries. As a result, political parties and governments have introduced legislation securing access to period products (e.g., Alhelou et al., 2021; Bildhauer et al., 2022).

Perhaps the most publicized political decision for improving the rights of menstruators has been the Scottish parliament’s decision to make access to free menstrual products a legal requirement (see Bildhauer et al., 2022). Although Scotland is not the world first to offer menstrual products for free in schools, the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021 is the first of its kind to require local authorities to provide products for all citizens who need them (ibid.). The Scottish bill follows other initiatives such as the Kenyan programme launched in 2011 providing sanitary towels for girls in public schools (Kenya State Department for Gender and Affirmative Action, n.d.), and the New York City decision mandating public schools to provide their pupils with menstrual products (City of New York, 2016). Although these policies have been hailed to improve menstruating people’s rights and combat inequality, there is a growing body of research critical of policy work centred on the provision of products (e.g., Alhelou et al., 2021; Bobel, 2010, 2020; Quint, 2019). These critics argue that product-centred action leaves the menstrual stigma intact while strengthening the imperative to conceal menstruation and the tendency to relate to menstrual bleeding primarily through consumer goods (e.g., Bobel, 2020).

For example, in her analysis of the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021 and the parliamentary debates that preceded the decision, Bettina Bildhauer (2021) demonstrates that despite the act’s explicit objective of dismantling the menstrual stigma, both the political debates and the act itself were governed by and reproduced the stigma. Similarly, in their review of policy developments in India, Kenya, Senegal, and the US, Alhelou et al. (2021, p. 2, 8–10) show that menstrual policies generally overlook the immaterial health needs of menstruating people, such as the need for clear and up-to date education on the menstrual cycle and sexual and reproductive health, by centring on the management of bleeding. They argue that rather than directly addressing or dismantling menstrual stigma, the policies remain constrained by it (ibid., 10).

Chris Bobel’s (2020) extensive analysis of menstrual hygiene management initiatives in the Global South also shows that menstrual initiatives tend to focus on menstrual management through material or technical interventions and frame menstruating girls as “at risk” of menstrual mismanagement. The technological solutions provided by the well-meaning initiatives permit “a bloodless reality” rather than one where menstrual bleeding would not signify a deficiency (ibid., 260). According to Bobel (2020, p. 22), “it is imperative that we separate the practical from the social”, meaning that although access to menstrual products helps menstruators navigate the world during menstruation, products do nothing to counter the “social crisis” resulting from unintentionally breaching the concealment imperative.

These examples demonstrate that menstruation has made its way into public policymaking. Yet it remains uncertain if or how policies and public debates surrounding them can tackle the menstrual stigma. The next section presents a summary of the Helsinki city case, and the section that follows details the methods and materials used to analyse it.

The case

On 23rd September 2020, Amanda Pasanen, a Helsinki City Councillor for the Greens, filed a policy proposal suggesting that the City of Helsinki investigate the possibility of distributing free menstrual products for young people and people of limited means. Prepared by Pasanen and two other members of the Greens and signed in total by 24 councillors, the proposal argued that Helsinki should become “a frontrunner” in breaking the taboo related to period poverty and make sure that “no one needs to choose whether to use their money on food or menstrual products”. Drawing on the example of Scotland, the proposal suggested making menstrual products more easily available to combat the economic inequality related to menstruation.

The proposal was brought to the City Board in April 2021 accompanied by statements from the Education Committee (9th February 2021), the Social services and health care committee (19th January 2021), and the Youth council (21st December 2020). It was further debated in the City Council in June 2021. In the Council, those in favour of the proposal argued that period poverty is a real issue in Finland and that the city should help those with limited means by offering free products. Free products were said to increase equality and signal the naturalness of menstruation and the importance of the needs of menstruators. Those against the proposal argued that a system of distributing products would be needlessly costly and bureaucratic. Some also suggested that distributing products would be environmentally unsound and unfair for those who do not menstruate.

The council decided to return the proposal for preparation to include an assessment of the best methods for distributing products and a trial for providing products in a limited number of schools and educational institutions. The Education Committee and the Social services and health care committee provided new statements on the proposal in the fall of 2021 (24th August 2021, and 31st August 2021, respectively).

On 8th December 2021, the Helsinki City Council voted for the proposal with a majority of 50 to 31. A four-month trial started in September 2022 in two higher schools, one comprehensive school and one vocational school. At the time of writing, the experiment has just ended, and the report from the Education division is pending. Similar proposals have been introduced in other major cities in Finland, including Turku, Tampere, Porvoo, and Rovaniemi.

The Helsinki decision was reported in both local and national media, and the news stories were actively commented on online. The next section describes the methodology of the study and presents the research materials and the analytic procedure.

Methodology and research materials

Poststructuralist policy analysis

The study draws on Carol L. Bacchi’s (2009) “What’s the problem represented to be?”- approach (the WPR-approach) to poststructuralist policy analysis. The guiding idea is that rather than addressing problems that exist “somewhere out there”, policies and policy work should be understood as knowledge practices that produce “problems” (Bacchi, 2009; Bacchi & Eveline, 2012; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). The task of the analyst is to locate and interrogate the problems constituted in policy work (Bacchi, 2009, p. vii). Policy analysis cannot merely focus on measuring the effects of conventional government action such as legislation, but also needs to consider how other forms of governance participate in building (and/or contesting) social norms (Bacchi, 2009, p. 7; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 5). The analysis is carried out through exploring proposals for action and investigating their rationalities and potential effects (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 5, 18).

In practice, the WPR-approach consists of a set of six questions. The set of questions should also be applied to any alternative problem representations developed during the process of analysis (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 24).

The six questions of the WPR-approach (abridged from Bacchi, 2009, p. xii):

1. What is the “problem” represented to be?

2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation?

3. How has this representation of the “problem” come about?

4. What is left unproblematic? Can the “problem” be thought differently?

5. What are the effects produced by this representation?

6. How/where is this representation of the “problem” produced, disseminated, and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?

In this article, I pay particular attention to the problem representations located in the policy documents and in the public debates related to the Helsinki case (question 1). I also explore the assumptions behind the representations (question 2) and their potential subjectification effects (question 5), meaning “how people are thought about and how they think about themselves” (Bacchi, 2010, p. 4). I depart somewhat from the conventional use of the WPR-approach by analysing also the online public debates on the Helsinki policy proposal. However, since the conduct of menstruating people is not only and perhaps not mainly governed by “conventional” government action but rather by social norms that mandate menstrual concealment, I contend that exploring the online debates on the Helsinki proposal is needed to understand both the social context in which menstruation becomes represented as a problem and the governance of menstruating bodies through the produced problem representations.

The WPR-approach was chosen for three key reasons. First, according to the WPR-approach, policy proposals “imagine” both problems and people (Bacchi & Eveline, 2012, p. 111, 119–120). Therefore, rather than trying to measure the success of the Helsinki city policy in addressing pre-defined problems, the WPR-approach directs attention to how problems and potential recipients of care are constituted in the policy and the public debate (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 120). Second, the WPR-approach stresses the importance of governance beyond conventional government action (ibid., 5) and emphasizes that problem representations have effects in the real (Bacchi, 2009, p. 33). Therefore, the Helsinki city policy proposal and the ensuing debates can and should be explored not only as addressing gendered inequality but also as producing the “gendered lives” of Helsinki citizens (Bacchi & Eveline, 2012, p. 133). Third, since the WPR-approach aims to “trouble, rather than cultivate, consensus” (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 39, emphasis in original), the analysis goes beyond exploring the explicit purposes of the policy. Instead, it teases out the implicit problem representations in the public documents and public debate to understand how they potentially resist or contribute to the menstrual stigma.

Research materials and analytic procedure

The research materials for the study consist of eleven policy documents (with some overlap in the documents), nine online news articles, and over 4000 online comments on news sites, discussion fora, and social media (see Appendix 1). The materials were collected between February and October 2022. I collected the official documents from the online archive of the City of Helsinki and its various sub-sites (hel.fi). The news articles were collected from four different news sites: Helsingin Sanomat (hs.fi), Helsingin Uutiset (helsinginuutiset.fi), Yle (yle.fi) and Ilta-Sanomat (is.fi). I included two news sites that focus on Helsinki: the largest Finnish newspaper and news site Helsingin Sanomat and the newspaper and online news site, Helsingin Uutiset. In addition, since the decision was nationally publicized, I explored the online news site of the Finnish Public Service Media Company Yle, and the online version of one of the two Finnish tabloids, Ilta-Sanomat. I used the search function on these sites with different Finnish search terms meaning menstruation (kuukautiset, kuukautis*, menkat), free (ilmainen, maksuton, maksuttomat), and city council (valtuusto, kaupunginvaltuusto) in different combinations. Furthermore, since I wanted to include public debates on the case, I collected all the reader comments to the news articles on the news sites and on Facebook as well as the discussion threads related to the Helsinki proposal from two Finnish discussion fora, vauva.fi and suomi24.fi. At the time of writing, vauva.fi reaches over 400 000 people weekly and counts as Finland’s most visited discussion forum (FIAM, 2022). Suomi24.fi is described as Finland's largest discussion forum or web community (e.g., Lillqvist, 2019; suomi24.fi). To locate appropriate discussions from these sites, I used the same search terms as with the news sites.

After collecting the materials, I moved them to Atlas.ti for qualitative coding. In the first step, I coded the materials inductively to familiarize myself with the materials and to explore what topics were discussed and what arguments provided for and against the Helsinki proposal on free menstrual products on different platforms. Since the WPR-approach focuses on discovering problem representations through an analysis of proposals for action (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 18), I then went through all the coded quotations to determine proposals for action. Next, I analysed the proposals and the arguments for and against them to determine the dominant problem representations in the materials. The analysis of the arguments for and against the proposal also aided in discerning the assumptions behind the problem representations and in understanding how the problem representations have come about. Finally, I explored potential effects of the problem representations.

Since the materials consist of public documents and public discussion in the council, on news media sites, discussion fora, and social media, no permissions were asked from the discussants. However, all the social media comments quoted in the article have been anonymized to protect the privacy of the people commenting. Since the councillors are public figures and the documentation of the council discussions is public, their comments have not been anonymized. During the research process, I was in contact with officials of the city of Helsinki to ask for clarifications and to discuss the implementation of the pilot scheme of distributing products. However, in this article, I do not explore findings from the pilot, which at the time of writing has just ended.

Analysis

The analysis of the research materials reveals two dominant problem representations based on different assumptions and projecting different views of menstruating people. Within the first problem representation, menstruation is constituted as an intimate or private problem experienced by individuals. In this representation, menstruation is primarily a matter of bleeding management and hygiene or a source of pain and suffering. Within the second problem representation, menstruation is constituted as a public problem generating social ills. These social ills include inequality and environmental pollution. In all these cases, following the age-old tradition of conceiving menstruation as problematic (e.g., Delaney et al., 1988; Kissling, 2006), the process of menstruating is constructed as the primary problem rather than the social structures regulating and stigmatizing menstruators. The next subsections explore the two dominant problem representations and the ways in which they are reinforced and/or contested within the public documents and debate on the Helsinki city menstrual policy.

Menstruation as a private problem

The representation of menstruation as a private problem of dealing with diverse practicalities and difficulties related to recurrent vaginal bleeding is visible in the Helsinki city policy proposal, in the council debate and in the broader public debate surrounding the council decision. This view of “the problem of menstruating” is divided into two main strands: menstruation as a matter of bleeding management and hygiene and menstruation as a source of pain and suffering.

Menstruation as a matter of bleeding management and hygiene

In all the research materials, menstruation is constituted as a problem involving the management of bleeding with recourse to (commercial) menstrual products to maintain hygiene and health. For example, the policy proposal suggests that the City of Helsinki “should investigate the possibility of offering free menstrual products for the young and those who consider themselves of limited means (…) to guarantee everyone the right to good menstruation irrespective of economic resources”. The problem constructed is that young people and people of limited means cannot afford or do not have access to menstrual products which are considered a necessity for having a good menstrual period. Free products solve the problem of period poverty. Although the stated aim of the Helsinki proposal includes relieving the stigma of period poverty, the proposal, as well as the council and online debates, overwhelmingly focuses on products handed out to individuals. Since products serve to hide menstruation, the term “good menstruation” becomes defined as (commercially) managed menstruation, or a menstrual period that others are not aware of (see Bobel, 2020, p. 7).

The public documents support this problem representation. For example, the Social services and health care committee statement emphasizes that, “the use of menstrual products and changing them often enough to clean ones combined with good intimate hygiene during menstruation promotes health and strengthens social and psychological welfare.” Products are shown to allow the hygienic management of menstrual bleeding. The Youth council suggests that the city should hand out products because “[a]ccess to safe and hygienic menstrual instruments is a central right of every menstruant.” The Education committee states that the proposal is important but considers pharmacies a better place for distributing products than schools, for example. However, the committee also stresses that if a pilot scheme is started in schools, the products should be distributed “discreetly”. Menstruation and period poverty are presented as issues of personal health and the private management of bleeding involving stigma that calls for discretion in its treatment.

In the council debate, multiple comments stress the importance of privacy in managing bleeding. For example, two councillors opposing the proposal regard it as “nicer” and less shameful to acquire menstrual products privately from a shop than to be handed pre-chosen ones in school. The councillor quoted in the introduction argues that menstruation is not an issue of public deliberation at all since “we have unbelievably much bigger issues that affect more people at the moment than menstrual shame and period poverty”. Similarly, in the online discussions, the Helsinki proposal is criticized on the grounds that menstrual management is only a minor private problem that individuals (or their parents) should be responsible for. Seeing menstruation as an individual’s problem echoes Kissling’s (2006, p. 44) argument that, “if a problem affects only women, rather than ‘people’, it is easier still to see it as individual and psychological rather than societal”.

However, most of the comments in the council debate and online consider distributing menstrual products in schools a good idea. Access to products is imagined to improve the lives of young people by enabling proper menstrual management without unnecessary stress. For example, one online comment describes how getting products from school can relieve the “panic” from needing to “fold toilet paper into panties while choking back tears”. The importance of personal bleeding management to menstruation is also demonstrated by the extensive online discussions on how to contain heavy or unexpected menstrual flow and how to choose appropriate products and maintain product or personal hygiene during and after menstruation.

This representation of menstruation as a problem of bleeding management and hygiene rests on the view that menstrual bleeding should be dealt with commercial products that enable concealment (e.g., Bobel, 2020; Laws, 1990; Wood, 2020). In this problem representation, menstruating people are constituted as “at risk” of mismanagement of menstruation and threatened by leaks and potential illness related to the lack of products (see Bobel, 2020, p. 308).

Menstruation as a source of pain and suffering

Menstrual pain is not explicitly discussed in the Helsinki proposal or in the statements from the committees or the Youth council. Menstrual pain is also only briefly mentioned in the council debate, when the councillor responsible for the proposal, Amanda Pasanen, suggests that the distribution of products could help increase awareness on gynaecological illnesses such as endometriosis. However, the online discussions on the proposed policy overwhelmingly describe menstruation as a painful and inconvenient process. In fact, the over a hundred vivid descriptions of people’s own experiences of menstruation present menstruation as a major nuisance and a source of private, individual suffering. Menstruation is described as “nothing but an inconvenience and discomfort for girls[sic]” causing cramps, anaemia, nausea, migraines, mood swings and even fainting. The comments highlight the fairness of distributing menstrual products for free since, “no one should suffer from menstruation any more than is necessary”. Since no one chooses to menstruate—and why would they, when menstruation represents such a painful, messy, and uncomfortable situation? —it is argued that the least the city could do is to distribute the products needed to mitigate the problems caused by menstruation.

The online comments also focus on the private suffering of girls [sic] caused by the shame related to menstruation. They frequently describe the shame experienced due to menstrual leaks, unexpected menstruation, or the need to ask for menstrual products from parents or friends. The general solution proposed is to distribute free products to avoid these shameful situations. Thus, menstrual shame is constituted as a private problem resulting from (unintentional) menstrual mismanagement rather than from social norms that mandate concealment (see Wood, 2020). By providing products that prevent leaks and eliminate the need to go ask for them from teachers or classmates, the problem of menstrual shame is privately “fixed”.

The shame related to menstruation is also recognized in the council debate. However, a few of the councillors supporting the proposal also explicitly refuse the idea of menstruation as merely a source of suffering. They argue that by making menstruation more visible and signalling the acknowledgement of menstruators’ needs, the distribution of products encourages a more positive approach to menstruation. It is also mentioned in passing that the products could be distributed in connection with health education. That said, besides adding to the visibility of menstrual products in schools by providing them, the policy proposal and the debate fail to provide solutions to transform attitudes towards a more positive view of menstruation.

Thus, the dominant proposed solution to menstrual suffering is not better care, or more funding for menstrual education or research on menstrual pain but the distribution of menstrual products as compensation for suffering or as preventing shameful leaks. This approach imagines menstrual pain and suffering as unavoidable problems rather than issues that could (or should) be addressed through educational reforms and health care policies. In this problem representation, menstruating people are constituted as potential victims of the horrors of menstruation not fully in control of their bodies (see Martin, 1993, p. 47).

Menstruation as a public problem

Menstruation and menstrual management are transformed in the policy documents and in the public debates also into real and acute social problems that require public deliberation and investment. From this perspective, menstruation is not constructed merely as an issue of bleeding management and suffering, but a public problem at the source of social inequality and environmental pollution.

Menstruation as a source of inequality

Menstruation is constituted as a source of social and economic inequality in all the research materials. For example, the proposal starts by stating that, “[p]eriod poverty concerns many menstruating people in Finland” and continues to assert that “[i]t is important to intervene in the economic inequality related to menstruation.”. The terms “period poverty”, “equality”, and “inequality” recur frequently in the other public documents and online discussions. For example, the Youth council statement proclaims that “the city should recognize period poverty as a significant problem increasing inequality in the society” and make menstrual products available in schools and other public spaces. The Social services and health care committee asserts that “[d]istributing free menstrual products to the young and people of limited means potentially decreases so-called period poverty”. However, it also adds that a national decision on lowering the value-added tax (VAT) on menstrual products is needed to improve gender equality. The policy documents thus propose publicly funded products as solutions to menstrual inequality.

The idea of menstrual inequality is also clearly visible in the council debate and online discussions. For example, in the council debate, the distribution of free menstrual products is considered a “central and concrete act for equality”, “a large symbolic question of equality”, and “a matter of economic equality”. Products are viewed as a practical aid in enhancing equality and their distribution a symbolic gesture that demonstrates that menstruating people’s needs are considered important. Even some arguments opposing the proposal recognize access to menstrual products as a question of equality, only the system of distribution is seen as too bureaucratic or costly. In the online comments, the need to pay for menstrual products is described as “discriminatory” and the provision of products in schools as “ensuring girls’ equal possibility of participating in teaching on all days of the month”. The online comments and the council discussion constitute young menstruating people as particularly vulnerable to menstrual inequality as they do not earn money or have control over household spending.

However, in the council debate as well as in the online discussions, the idea of young cis males as in an equally vulnerable position as menstruating youth due to beard growth is presented as a recurring counter argument to free menstrual products. The question raised is that if girls [sic] are given free menstrual products, why then are boys [sic] not given something as well? The online debates on this issue demonstrate that menstruation becomes a question of gender equality in two different ways. On the one hand, free products are seen to enhance equality by answering to an incomparable essential need, while on the other hand, they are seen as thwarting equality by raising girls’ [sic] essential needs ahead of boys’ [sic].

The construction of menstruation as a source of social inequality builds on the idea of menstrual products as necessities without which it is impossible to fully participate in public life. Online comments describe menstrual products as “necessities for leaving the house”, as “as necessary as toilet paper”, and as “an unavoidable cost” for those with menstrual cycles. In fact, many online comments view menstrual products as such necessities that parents’ inability (or unwillingness) to provide their children with menstrual products should result in a public intervention as extreme as a care order. This view demonstrates the strength of the menstrual concealment imperative and the social importance of passing as non-menstruating (Vostral, 2008; Wood, 2020). Representing menstruation as a problem of inequality constitutes menstruating people as disadvantaged due to their bodies that require (commercial) management to be socially acceptable.

Menstruation as a source of pollution

The representation of menstruation as a problem of environmental pollution is mainly found in the council and online debates on the proposal. In these materials, menstrual pollution takes two different forms depending on whether menstruators use disposable or reusable products to contain menstrual blood. Neither the proposal nor the statements from the committees define the kinds of products that should be distributed or discuss the environmental effects of menstrual products. Instead, the proposal merely states that “people should have the right to choose which products they use”. However, these issues are explicitly raised in the council and in the online comments.

For example, in the online materials, the most discussed comment in the council debate is councillor Arja Karhuvaara’s comment quoted in the introduction. Her remark started a 1700 comment thread on the discussion forum Vauva.fi and was used in the headline of the Helsingin Sanomat article on the council debate. Perhaps sarcastically, she suggests that to distribute disposable products is against the “green” ideas of today. Instead, she proposes teaching students to sew pads and argues that in hopeless situations, pads could be made from old t-shirts. The reaction to her comment was mainly negative. In the online comments, she was accused of being unempathetic and elitist. Also, the comments discussed the impracticality of pads sewn from t-shirts.

Whether sarcastic or not, the comment and the online reaction demonstrate the two ways in which menstruation is represented as a source of pollution. On the one hand, the use of disposable menstrual products is considered polluting as the products contain plastics, have a short life cycle and are generally non-biodegradable. The solution proposed is either DIY-products, or more often, the distribution of reusable commercial products. In the online comments, the distribution of menstrual cups (or as a second alternative, reusable pads) is proposed as a good solution to needless waste from disposables. From this perspective, menstruation is not polluting per se, but mainly when menstrual flow is contained by disposable products.

On the other hand, the anger and disgust with which people react to Karhuvaara’s suggestion to sew reusable pads from t-shirts, shows that menstrual blood is considered a particular kind of pollutant. Arguably, much of the anger stems from the acknowledgement that only people unable to afford commercial products would need to sew pads from t-shirts. However, the view of menstruation as particularly polluting is visible in the ways in which self-made “rags”, reusable pads and menstrual cups are portrayed as disgusting, or their care as particularly challenging. The use of reusable products is described as difficult or impossible since they must be cared for in places where others might come across them. The blood is imagined to contaminate the laundry with which pads are washed or the kitchen equipment used to disinfect menstrual cups.

Therefore, menstruation tends to appear as a source of pollution whether one uses disposable or reusable menstrual products—only in different ways. At its core, this problem representation is based on the view that products are necessary for containing menstrual blood. Yet, disposable products appear as a danger to the environment while reusables represent a hygienic danger for the person herself and the people around her. As Bildhauer and Owen (2022) argue, the discourse on disposable menstrual products as pollutants contaminating the environment follows the pattern of viewing menstrual blood as hazardous or abject. In this problem representation, menstruating people are constituted as a potential threat to the/their environment due to their menstrual hygiene practices.

Discussion

The Helsinki City decision to experiment the provision of menstrual products in schools and educational institutions is an important step in recognizing the practical needs of menstruating people. However, the overwhelming focus on commercial products and the equalling of “good menstruation” with invisible menstruation in the documents and in the debates on the policy suggest that menstruation and the menstruating body are constructed as problems to be solved. Mirroring the findings from Bildhauer’s (2021) study on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act, despite its explicit intention, the proposal and the ensuing debate turn out to reinforce the menstrual stigma. Furthermore, the lack of attention to menstrual education and body literacy in the materials shows that the less “tangible” methods, meaning for example long-term educational methods on the menstrual cycle that are not easily quantifiable and that address and question the roots of the menstrual stigma, are generally overlooked (Alhelou et al., 2021; Bobel, 2020, pp. 295–304).

Table 1 presents a summary of the dominant problem representations located in the analysis, the main assumptions on which they are based, and the ways in which they construct menstruating subjects. The two main problem representations, menstruation as a private or public problem, though seemingly opposites, are intertwined in many ways. For example, imagining menstruation as a problem experienced by individuals does not rule out public intervention. On the contrary, suffering from menstruation and the inability to choose whether to bleed or not is used to justify public intervention. In their analysis of New Reproductive Technologies and cosmetic surgery in Australia, Carol L. Bacchi and Chris Beasley (2002) found that when political subjects were thought to be “controlled by their bodies”, limitations to their autonomy were considered justified. In the Helsinki case, the autonomy of menstruating people is not limited by government action, but the logic follows a similar pattern: public intervention becomes justified when menstruating people are represented as “out of control” (Martin, 1993, p. 47).

Table 1. Problem representations, assumptions, and ways of constructing menstruating subjects.

	Primary problem representations
	Menstruation as private problem		Menstruation as public problem
Central “problem”	Bleeding management	Pain and suffering	Inequality	Pollution
Main assumption	Products are central to health and wellbeing	Menstrual pain and suffering are unavoidable	Participation in public life necessitates products	Products necessary, yet pollution from products and/or blood
Menstruating subjects	At risk of leaks and illness	Victims of menstruation	Require products to control the body	Hazardous to the/their environment

Moreover, imagining menstruation as a public issue at the source of inequality and pollution does not remove it from the private sphere. Instead, the private (and discreet) management of bleeding is enabled by public intervention. By publicly distributing products, whether disposable or reusable, people who might not otherwise have access to menstrual products can conceal their menstrual status and, in Vostral’s (2008, p. 10) terms, “pass as non-bleeders”. When public intervention takes place through the distribution of material goods that enforce the dominant norm of concealment rather than through norm-breaking initiatives and education, the menstrual stigma is left unquestioned or even enforced (Bildhauer, 2021).

Synthesizing research on menstruation, Johnston-Robledo and Chrisler (2013, pp. 14–16) suggest that the menstrual stigma could be resisted by purposefully violating menstrual norms, encouraging open dialogue about menstruation, and participating in social activism, for example. It could, therefore, be argued that the open and vibrant debates in the council and online destigmatize menstruation simply by taking place. In particular, this could be said about the council debate in which some councillors express their explicit desire to project menstruation in a more positive light. It could also be argued that the detailed descriptions in the online comments about the consistency, colour, and amount of menstrual bleeding educate all participants in the conversation about bodily realities of living in a menstruating body and thus lessen the shame related to menstruation.

However, besides the few comments that argue for more education on menstruation, neither the policy documents, the policy debate, nor the online debates propose increased time or funding for educational or research initiatives focusing on destigmatizing menstruation. Instead, the proposals for action revolve around the accessibility, visibility, and cost of products. The menstruating body is thus imagined as deficient and in need of public or private, but foremost, commercial management. The result may be, as Bobel (2010, p. 27) has argued, that”[w]hen women ignore their bodily processes or, worse, recognize them merely as problems whose solutions are available only through consumerism, internalized oppression takes over.”

It may seem hair-splitting to argue that representing menstruation as a problem is wholly different from representing the necessity to conceal menstruation as a problem. However, it is important to recognize this difference since the two representations lead to logically different proposals for action. For example, when menstruation is viewed as a source of inequality, the solutions may focus on “fixing” or eliminating menstruation. Certainly, these kinds of solutions exist in the consumer market: hormonal contraceptives that work to diminish or stop menstrual bleeding (although breakthrough bleeding is experienced by many [e.g., Hillard, 2014]), menstrual products that allow one to pass as non-menstruating, painkillers that diminish or take away menstrual pain etc. However, none of these solutions address the shame that is felt when menstrual bleeding starts by surprise or product faults cause leaks in public (e.g., Persdotter, 2022, p. 182). They do not question the discredit resulting from breaching the concealment imperative (see Goffman, 1963/1986, pp. 3–5). Instead, when we discuss the necessity to conceal menstruation as the actual problem, solutions are not found in the consumer market. Instead of hormones that stop menstruation and more technically developed products, it becomes necessary to ask why menstruation should be concealed or stopped in the first place. Instead of painkillers used to regulate pain, it becomes necessary to explore the reasons for and realities of living with menstrual pain and reconsider work and schooling structures (see Przybylo & Fahs, 2018). Ultimately, addressing the menstrual stigma becomes a question of changing the societal approach to the menstrual cycle.

That said, menstrual products should be available for anyone who needs them, in the ways that toilet paper, soap, and handtowels are. Their availability can signal that the practical needs of menstruating people are important. However, as emphasized by many critical menstruation scholars, the availability of products is no “silver bullet” (e.g., Alhelou et al., 2021, p. 7). The disconnection that women and other menstruators feel from their menstrual flow (Stubbs & Costos, 2004, p. 40) or the negative attitudes towards people who menstruate (Roberts et al., 2002) are not solved with products. Instead, policies and education are needed that view menstruation as something other than a mere hygienic issue, a source of suffering, or a problem of inequality and pollution. As Chris Bobel and Breanne Fahs argue, we need an approach that imagines menstruation as “a source of power, pleasure and potential” (Bobel & Fahs, 2020, p. 965). This does not mean that menstruators ought to be forced to feel happy or cheerful about menstruating (ibid.). Instead, the point would be in giving recognition to the multiple and interconnected forms of discrimination to which gendered bodies are subjected. This might also inspire more open discussion on the pain and discomfort that some menstruators experience before or during menstruation without rendering the process itself pathological (see King, 2020, p. 287). Menstrual policies and initiatives need to go beyond acknowledging the practical needs of menstruating people. They must also invest in inclusive and holistic education that problematizes the dominant negative attitudes towards menstruation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2023.2189301.

Notes

1. All quotations from the research materials have been translated from Finnish by the author.

2. Based on a search from the Helsinki University Library database with the keyword “kuukautis*”, covering most terms referring to menstruation, on 21st June 2022.