Gendered Institutions and the Future of Work: Labor Market Structures Through the Pink Lens

“Labor markets are gendered institutions operating at the intersection of the productive and reproductive economies.” D. Elson, 1999

The nature of women being viewed as mere immanent creatures while men are viewed as transcendental beings, as highlighted by Madame Simone de Beauvoir, may have evolved with the increasing popularity of progressive thought but the trend, in its absolute meaning, still persists.

Illustration by The Geostrata

With the integration of women in the Armed Forces, the rising quantum of female top-level executives and a growing sensitisation towards female involvement at workplaces at large, points the fact that glass ceilings are prevalently being shattered but, the phenomena facing women at work in the status quo, is that of the sticky floor. 

The factors that contribute to the persistent systemic discriminative practices at the workplace are both multifaceted and multitudinous.

Some result from a positive evolution with regard to historical practices and assumptions that restrained not only women but non-male members of the community from crossing a certain threshold of professional hierarchy while the others are a product of newfound challenges that have arisen. While the former is undoubtedly a point of immense success that has been forged over the years, discrimination persists and has taken the form of passive forces that align against what, for far too long, has been referred to as “the second sex”. 

ACCOUNTING FOR THE FEMALE QUOTIENT

The inclusion of any stratum of the human race within a place of work or place of residence warrants that they are subject to have just and favourable conditions as underscored in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Favourable conditions at the workplace inherently refer to features that grant the status of being encouraging in nature. The sources of such encouragement, or even the lack of discouragement vary amongst different classes, castes, races, genders and persons with disabilities.

For women, they directly translate into provisions that make employment a conducive and attainable reality such as sanitation, menstrual leave, maternity leave and an indiscriminating atmosphere at the very least. Yet, the debates surrounding legislation on maternity leave and menstrual leave become exceedingly convoluted with each case. 

The declaration of maternity leave as a constitutional right by the Supreme Court of India marks the accomplishment of a massive milestone in this midst wherein the Court highlighted that Article 21 stating the Right to Life is inclusive of the Right to Health.

The very fact that this correlation had to be explicitly laid down by a judicial body instead of being inferred proves the precarious nature of a national will to include women in places of employment. The ruling came as a result of an appeal filed against a previous ruling by Madras High Court against the grant of maternity leave to an employee and also went as far as to explain the nature of the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961.The act states that a woman is entitled to maternity leave of a period up to 26 weeks for the first and second pregnancies and 12 weeks for the third and subsequent pregnancies. 

This case, along with hundreds of others that often do not even make their way to the court of law stand as a testaments to the way in which legislations and legal provisions that allow women to coexist in professional environments are distorted and deny them of what is not a privilege but a right. 

The debate on menstrual leave faces a similar dilemma. 

INTERNAL UNDERCURRENTS OF REVERSAL

In 2023, Shrimati Smriti Irani, the then Union Minister for Women & Child Development, opposed the proposition of the inclusion of menstrual leave into a paid leave policy on the pretext that it was not a “handicap” along with stating that the provision of menstrual leave could aggravate the discrimination that women are already subjected to in the workplace. 

By the logic of the first justification, viral and bacterial diseases must not fall under the ambit of paid leave either. In fact, to extend this to a generalised theory, unless a physical condition afflicting a professional leads to a handicap, they must not be included under paid leave.

The second justification is to say that a provision that grants a favourable work environment and allows for people to work in a healthy state of being must not be put into place in case it leads to them being discriminated against, which is to say that features of accessibility such as ramps, braille script and widespread use of the sign language must be re-evaluated from the backdrop of enabling discrimination.

While it is acknowledged that the degree of inclusion that is warranted through a provision varies, every such provision that allows for people to function in an equitable work environment holds indubitable significance to the economic and socio-cultural state of affairs in a country.

In fact, prevalent enforcement of such provisions leads to acceptance, sensitisation and awareness and cannot be shrugged off simply due to the possibility that it could make members of the society that are excluded from these more conscious of inherent humane differences. 

With that said, conditions such as dysmenorrhea, PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome), PCOD (Polycystic Ovarian Disease) and PMDD (Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder) lead to symptoms that are often unbearable and hinder the productivity of women at workplaces at large. Such symptoms include irregular and heavy bleeding (such as in menorrhagia) and severe body ache. If not the institution of menstrual leave, provisions for work-from-home during menstruation stand at the very baseline of guaranteeing “just and favourable conditions in professional settings. 

WAY FORWARD

The way in which the labour markets have been construed is inherently designed to exclude women and female perspectives. As far back as in 1995, Michele Pujol highlighted five historical assumptions that underscored the necessity of marriage, financial dependence on a male relative, women’s status as housewives due to reproductive capacities, unproductivity in the industrial workforce and women being unfit economic agents. While these assumptions have become exceedingly obsolete, their remnants reflect the audacious mechanisms that contribute to exclusionary forces that still persist against women. 

---

BY DIA ATAL

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com