Menstruation and Absenteeism.
Ichino and Moretti (2006) suggest that a substantial portion of the wage gap between men and women can be tied to menstrual cycles. Ichino and Moretti conclude that 11.8% of the earnings gap can be explained by absenteeism on a 28-day cycle. Slap's 2003 review suggests that 75% of adolescent girls suffer from problems associated with menstruation as well, and that this is a leading cause of doctor's visits among this group. In contrast, Hardie (1997) found no differences in absenteeism or work performance between women pre- during-, or post-menstrually and men.
Whether menstruation can or should be optional has been under investigation for some time. Loudon et al (1977) reported "enthusiastic" tolerance of an oral contraceptive regimen that reduced the number of periods nearly 30 years ago. More recently, Kaunitz (2000) pointed out that in modern society, women menstruate up to 3 times as often as in "primitive societies." Archer et al. (2006) reported this month that continuous oral contraception has similar safety and efficacy rates to cyclic oral contraception, a result that Reuters reported as meaning that ending periods was safe for most women (although this interpretation may be too broad).
Patri Friedman drew my attention to Ichino and Moretti. I am interested to see how their research translates cross-culturally, since I can't speak to working conditions in Italy. Hardie's study, which focused on actual reported cyclic data, as opposed to Ichino and Moretti's 28-day assumption, feels more likely to be accurate to me, but I'm aware of a bias in my own thinking, since my menstrual symptoms were rarely severe. Hardie did find that "self-diagnosed" PMS did correlate with health and work problems, so these results obviously require closer scrutiny.
It's worth noting that in the last post about menstruation, it seemed that women were at their closest to male responses during their periods, which makes it seem odd that avoiding it would decrease the gender gap.
Whether menstruation can or should be optional has been under investigation for some time. Loudon et al (1977) reported "enthusiastic" tolerance of an oral contraceptive regimen that reduced the number of periods nearly 30 years ago. More recently, Kaunitz (2000) pointed out that in modern society, women menstruate up to 3 times as often as in "primitive societies." Archer et al. (2006) reported this month that continuous oral contraception has similar safety and efficacy rates to cyclic oral contraception, a result that Reuters reported as meaning that ending periods was safe for most women (although this interpretation may be too broad).
Patri Friedman drew my attention to Ichino and Moretti. I am interested to see how their research translates cross-culturally, since I can't speak to working conditions in Italy. Hardie's study, which focused on actual reported cyclic data, as opposed to Ichino and Moretti's 28-day assumption, feels more likely to be accurate to me, but I'm aware of a bias in my own thinking, since my menstrual symptoms were rarely severe. Hardie did find that "self-diagnosed" PMS did correlate with health and work problems, so these results obviously require closer scrutiny.
It's worth noting that in the last post about menstruation, it seemed that women were at their closest to male responses during their periods, which makes it seem odd that avoiding it would decrease the gender gap.