Kemi Badenoch has been trending on Twitter. This could normally be a positive indicator that the Minister for Women and Equalities has been working on promoting women and equality and that coverage of such issues is progressive. Sadly, this is not the case here.
To explain the recent media storm surrounding the Minister, it is important to consider the background to the recent exchanges during a sitting of the House of Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee. An all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on menopause, chaired by Labour MP Carolyn Harris, was established in 2021 and has been at the forefront of considerable, positive developments. There was previous agreement from government on reducing the price of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), prioritising menopause in the Women’s Health Strategy and introducing a menopause task force. This taskforce included MPs, champions for older workers and business and industry representatives and drew on extensive evidence from experts in the field. Its independent report was published on 25 November 2021 and included ten recommendations concerning government, employers and societal and financial issues (see the full list and government responses to each).
The government published its response on 18 July 2022, almost eight months later. There was some agreement, for example to install a menopause champion, but overall, the response was mainly negative. While this may not be surprising in itself, the reasoning for some of the rejections was astonishing. In some areas engagement with the recommendations was tangential (for example on amending the Equality Act section 14 to enable recognition and use of intersectional, multiple protected characteristics in discrimination claims). A menopause leave trial was also recommended – the government’s rejection of this was based on the assessment that this could risk ‘unintended consequences [that] may inadvertently create new forms of discrimination’, including towards ‘men suffering from long-term medical conditions or eroding existing protections’. This concern for men from the Minister for Women and Equalities is surprising. She made clear that the government’s focus is, instead, on encouraging employers to implement workplace menopause policies. Such a voluntary approach and the introduction of menopause policies are both approaches that our research has shown not to be a guarantee that menopausal women will be supported unless meaningful organisational change is enforced in parallel.
It was these issues regarding agreement on a menopause champion vs the rejection of the menopause leave trial and the consideration of menopause as a protected characteristic (or at least an acknowledgement that intersectional claims are important and legitimate) that Carolyn Harris MP raised when Kemi Badenoch gave evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee. There are three key issues in the minister’s responses that are noteworthy.
First was the attempt to politicise the issue, claiming that Carolyn Harris spoke from a left-wing perspective and that the recommendations were not compatible with the government’s position as a result. As numerous social media commentators have already pointed out, experiencing menopause transition and menopause symptoms is in no way linked to political persuasions and an attempt to politicise the issue suggests how tone-deaf the government is in its treatment of menopause issues. This politicised rhetoric is deeply concerning given the lack of action for an experience that at least half the population will face at some point in their lives.
Second, the minister’s disparaging comments about the range of others who ‘all want protected characteristics’ is likely to alienate those mentioned, including ‘single people, having ginger hair, being short’ who were singled out among ‘all sorts of things that people ask for as protected characteristics’. Badenoch’s assumption that there was a requirement to create new protected characteristics also shows a misunderstanding of the issue at stake. Section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 is a provision which is still not in force, and would cover direct discrimination on the basis of up to two combined characteristics, e.g. in the case of menopause this might be gender and age. Such legislation for ‘dual discrimination’ would directly benefit menopausal women and would also address wider intersectionalities. Rather than introducing additional protected characteristics, the government could activate Section 14.
Third, Kemi Badenoch claimed that women know that she supports them. The evidence in this case speaks volumes for the lack of support and consideration for women and could be picked apart in itself (and has already been ridiculed on social media). More importantly, however, this detracts from the lack of support for menopausal women across society and in the labour market. While there has been a significant increase in public discussions and knowledge around this life transition, there is still a lack of concrete support and regulation.
Enlightened employers who have been at the forefront of change have already found that there can be a host of broader benefits in supporting menopausal women. In addition to doing the right thing and having a potentially more motivated workforce as a result of the support they receive, there are also initiatives that benefit both women who are not (yet) menopausal (provision of sanitary items / red boxes schemes), and all employees, e.g. by providing rest areas, flexible working that works for both sides, and/or acknowledgement and support for fluctuating mental and physical health among the workforce as a whole.
Vanessa Beck is an Associate Professor in Work and Organisation at the University of Bristol.
Menopause Transitions and the Workplace edited by Vanessa Beck and Jo Brewis is available on the Bristol University Press website. Order here for £79.99.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Alex Ivashenko on Unsplash