Many universities in France have recently introduced the right to menstrual leave. The University of Gleux-les-Lures is one such example.[1] It particularly distinguished itself by establishing it "for all students." The current regulatory framework, which can be consulted on its website, provides further details:
“Implementing this leave was a priority for the presidential team and a strong demand from our students. The convergence of these desires led to the creation of a working group last spring to consider its feasibility. The implementation of this menstrual leave is the result of this collaborative work between our departments and our students […]”.
Here, in very brief terms, are the main points of his modus operandi :
• 10 days of absence for menstrual reasons open to all (students) per academic year […] – without providing a medical certificate;
• there is no limit to the number of days that can be taken in the month;
• the day must be set on the day of absence: not in advance, nor after the day of absence;
• only one request can be made per day (it is not possible to declare several days of absence at the same time) […] ;
• The system is based on the principle of trust.
While these provisions reveal much about a form of bureaucratically controlled deregulation, it remains clear that equality must take differences into account, as feminist demands have long established.[2]While inclusive egalitarianism that concerns itself with the menstrual pain of male students implies a denial of reality, for an educational institution, even more serious than promoting ignorance is the deliberate dissemination of a pious lie – which is also in violation of the Education Code.
For years, we have seen the myth of the pregnant man, with its appropriate emojis, develop even in the propaganda of family planning or the Dilcrah[3]This now falls under the category of superstition and evokes a grotesque form of couvade rites, well attested in various traditional societies.
The confusion plaguing democracies stems largely from the ideological confusion fostered by universities, not only between research and identity activism, but also between objective knowledge and enthusiastic opinions. This confusion has been exacerbated by deconstruction, which, in its attempt to dismantle rationality, has promoted categorical indistinction. The blurring of gender distinctions, amplified by the word "queer," as empty as it is marketable, is the most well-known example.
In this regard, a teacher from this university shared these thoughts with us:
“The initial intention – to offer a supportive and inclusive environment – seems legitimate to me. But the choice to formulate this measure as a leave “for all students” leaves me perplexed, because it seems to confuse equality with undifferentiation.
Menstrual leave, by definition, addresses a physiological reality: menstruation, with its pain, hormonal imbalances, and sometimes associated conditions (endometriosis, severe dysmenorrhea). Extending this right “to everyone” in the name of non-discrimination is, in reality, to erase the female body under the guise of inclusion. It transforms a measure designed to acknowledge a biological constraint into a symbol of abstract equality—one that paradoxically ends up denying the very difference it claims to respect.
Biologically, only people who still possess a uterus and ovaries can menstruate. Trans men can be affected as long as they retain these organs; trans women, however, are not, since no uterus or ovary transplants currently exist for the purpose of transition. In this sense, the "for all" approach is more of a political statement than a medically or realistically grounded one.
I also question the practical effects: the absence of a medical certificate and the ease of declaration open the door to abuses, which damage both the credibility of the system and those who truly need it. A fair experiment should be based on trust, certainly, but also on clear criteria and consistent purpose.
I believe that equality is not about erasing differences, but about giving them equal dignity. This leave could have been a strong step towards recognizing the physical and symbolic burden borne by women. By making it neutral, we risk stripping it of its significance.
In just a few weeks, the results are striking, and a colleague sums up the situation in a major engineering school affiliated with this university as follows:
“In three weeks, more than 20 boys took menstrual leave. Particularly on Fridays. And some girls clearly have their periods every week. One student requested permission to be absent on the Friday of the holidays to leave early, but when this was refused by the school administration, he immediately took menstrual leave.”
In short, all you have to do is claim to be a woman to be able to go on vacation earlier: if you wanted to convince male students that women are privileged, you couldn't go about it any other way. The denial of physiological reality is thus compounded by the denial of social reality.
In Spain, young male soldiers have declared they are changing their sex in order to benefit from salary advantages that were reserved for women.[4] "From the outside I feel like a heterosexual man, but in my heart of hearts, I am a lesbian woman. And that's what matters. That's why I legally became a woman," a burly fellow, as bearded as Sapper Camembert, told reporters.
Finally, we are sharing below the call for papers for a journal on Female Monstrosity[5] [sic]:
“This issue of Nouvelles Questions Féministes focuses on negative female figures, labeled as unworthy, grotesque, deviant, frightening, or even disgusting or monstrous. Rather than fueling masculinist discourses that too often portray these figures as a threat, the aim here, from a feminist perspective, is to restore a form of legitimacy to them in order to define gender norms and the possibility of their transgression.”
Making feminism unrecognizable seems to be the objective of deconstructed postfeminism, which thus loses itself in its own teratology.
Commentary by Jacques Robert
Many universities have now regulated these leaves of absence for "menstruating people." How elegant the wording! How delicate! Wasn't there a more elegant word for it, back in the day? "Flemmes"? "Fennes"? "Fasses"? Ah, yes, women, that rings a bell.[6] Actually, I have one at home.
Of course, in engineering schools, class attendance is mandatory and presence is monitored – which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the United States, in university programs preparing students for adult life[7]It certainly is, given that young people enroll in university without being truly ready. In medical school, we only attended the lectures we knew were well-structured and would save time in learning the profession. The essential theory was learned from good textbooks. Listening to the junior resident, whom the head of the department sent to teach in his place, drone on about the most insignificant and highly specialized details seemed beyond our capabilities—and beyond the requirements of our training.
It's true, practical sessions were mandatory, in principle, when they were even offered! With the influx of students and the shortage of teachers, there aren't even any in the first years of medical school anymore. Back then, if a girl missed an anatomy practical, she'd make it up two days later. No, we didn't cut down a vertebra or a femur to bring them to her. We were there to learn, not to answer "present" for roll call. Nobody asked questions, and the prosector knew perfectly well that girls sometimes had their periods without needing a rule to excuse them…
In fact, these boys who get nosebleeds on Fridays have a pretty good grasp of the adult world: they see university like employees see a company. If you skip class, if the work isn't done, tough luck for the boss! Where's the passion for knowledge we all used to share? In medicine, you can imagine the young doctor saying to a patient, "Oh, darn, I was on my period the day the lecture was about stomach ulcers; if you have a stomach ache, see a colleague!" Or another, in literature, saying to the examiner, "Sir, I couldn't read Balzac, I had my period!" That said, if the examiner is Tiphaine Samoyault, a literature professor at the EHESS, he'll get a good grade: she banned Balzac, on the grounds that "some of his texts convey values that are no longer relevant today."[8] ».
