In the course of my research into protective labour legislation and female workers in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s I have come across a number of references, in the archives, in published sources and in personal reminiscences, which discuss the issue of allowing women workers a specified number of days release from paid labour during menstruation. Research would suggest that such practice was common in a number of industries and areas of employment in the Soviet Union during these decades and, as such, probably presents a unique example in the history of the labour protection of female workers.
The changes in official attitudes outlined here towards allowing women time off work during menstruation also reflect broader economic concerns of the Soviet leadership in the 1920s. Under the New Economic Policy, introduced in 1921, female industrial workers in particular experienced widespread unemployment in many branches of the economy. Extensive labour protection in force during these years may have served to restrict women's employment opportunities, as was argued by opponents of labour protection in this period.[1] There was much debate in the newspapers and journals of strategies to combat female unemployment, to bring women into employment and to improve the conditions of their work.[2] By the end of the 1920s, however, the introduction of the first five-year plan significantly increased the demand for female labour in virtually all sectors of the economy. Far less emphasis was placed on women's reproductive role. Instead, priority was given to the contribution which women could make to socialist construction as workers. Issues of labour protection were much less prominent in the discussions relating to women workers in the 1930s.
Field, in her study of the Russian system of protection of mothers and their children', shows support for the equality of opportunity offered to women by the introduction of laws on women's rights after 1917 but goes on to question the viability of the employment of women in industrial labour, firstly, because of the supposed weaker physical capacity of women and, secondly, because of the expense incurred in training workers who are likely to require time off work in relation to their reproductive capabilities:
The real problem came when women joined the ranks of industrial workers. It is all very well to say that women should have the same social and cultural advantages as men, for that is comparatively easy to accomplish; but, it is quite another matter when industry must be burdened with persons who are not always up to physical standards ... Any employer who hires women has an especially difficult and expensive task before him. In the first place, a woman's efficiency fluctuates throughout the month, but more important still, every woman is liable to become pregnant, which means that she will have to leave her work to someone else who will require expensive training in her place.[3]
For the Bolsheviks, however, sexual equality was to be accomplished by the recruitment of women into the labour force. Protective labour legislation was designed to meet the specific requirements of women, arising from their biological distinction, in conditions of paid employment. The research outlined here, therefore, is interesting also because it highlights two very different attitudes towards the role and application of protective labour legislation with specific reference to women workers. On the one hand, Gordon argues that women's different biological constitution and function should be recognised and accommodated in the law. For her, menstruation should be treated as an illness, which requires specific consideration. Korber, on the other hand, argues that women can never expect to be regarded as equal with men if they are offered special treatment in view of their biological distinction.[4]
Debates on the subject of menstruation also reveal interesting insights into Bolshevik discourse on the female body and the role envisaged for women in the new Soviet society. In writing on this topic, reference is often made to the `physical peculiarities of the female organism' (fiziologicheskie osobennosti zhenskogo organizma) and, invariably in comparison with men, women were considered more delicate and vulnerable to work-related illnesses. In reality, also, comparative studies of sickness often recorded higher levels of illness amongst women than men. One study of women workers in Orel guberniya revealed that of the 391 textile, leather, print and medical-sanitary workers questioned, 87 reported irregularities relating to menstruation. Of the total number included in the survey, 231 workers were involved in lifting and carrying weights. Irregularities in menstruation amongst these workers were reported by 77 women. The study concluded that the professional work undertaken by women had a negative impact on menstruation.[5]
Comparative levels of sickness between different groups of workers continued to be an important matter of concern amongst many of those interested in labour protection issues throughout the 1920s. In November 1928 the People's Commissariat of Labour (Narkomtrud) held a meeting to discuss questions of female labour, and the agenda included a report on the impact on the health of young women, between the ages of 14 and 18, of employment in the metallurgical industry. A substantial part of the report was concerned with the changes in menstruation amongst the 175 young women involved in the survey resulting from their industrial training and employment. The majority of workers reported no abnormalities in menstruation. Of those reporting problems, variations were recorded in relation to the type of job being done, the length of time in training and the timing of the onset of menstruation.[6]
The report, however, was unable to come to any concrete conclusions on the basis of this specific study and recommended that further investigations be undertaken. Despite this, the report did recommend that girls younger than 16 should not be permitted to enter training schools in the metallurgical industry as this would allow time for them to go through puberty before starting industrial employment.[7]
A brief synopsis presented in the labour hygiene journal, Gigiena truda i tekhnika bezopasnosti, of some experimental work conducted in a confectionary factory by the health protection division of the Central scientific-research institute of physical culture indicates that research into the influence of various work regimes on female physical development and menstruation was still being conducted in the mid-1930s.[8] The report noted that up to 60% of the women included in the experiment found work `difficult or worse than usual' during menstruation. A controlled experiment had demonstrated that the introduction of a short, five-minute, break twice a day could improve women's health and physical development as well as increasing productivity. Such breaks were seen to be especially important for women during menstruation, when labour capacity was believed to be reduced significantly.
Such reports and recommendations must have had a significant impact on the thinking of those involved not only in the study and recruitment of female labour but also in designing labour protection measures for female workers in the 1920s and 1930s.
In the years following the October revolution one Bolshevik reformer, S. I. Kaplun, a leading proponent of the legislative protection of female labour in the 1920s, emphasised the harmful effects on young women of early entry into the industrial labour force, which resulted in their internal organs being placed under strain and blood disorders, including anaemia. The poor and inadequate working conditions experienced by women in industrial employment were seen to delay their physical development and this was reflected in painful and irregular periods and complications arising in pregnancy and childbirth. Protective labour legislation, therefore, was regarded as an essential element in preserving women's health and that of future generations. The potentially damaging effects on the menstrual cycle of the industrial employment of women were clearly being discussed at the beginning of the 1920s.[9] Debates emphasised the need to protect the health of women workers in order that they should be able to fulfil their reproductive and maternal functions, an important concern for the Bolsheviks after the population losses incurred in World War I and the civil war years, and reflected the pronatalist stance of the Bolsheviks in regard to women's role in socialist construction.
