Myanmar’s military junta has reportedly expanded a ban on the transport of menstrual products through major routes in the country as part of the country’s ongoing civil war.
The attack on sanitary napkins appears to be an extension of the military’s so-called “four cuts” strategy, which aims to cut off the resistance’s supply of food, money, intelligence and recruits.
Menstrual products seem to have been added to this logic – and in the process stolen women’s dignity and basic human rights. While there has been no official communication about the ban, a spokesperson for local NGO Sisters2Sisters said local soldiers said the crackdown was carried out because they believed the products were “used by the People’s Defense Forces for medical reasons and as support for their feet and boots to absorb sweat and blood.”
As medical experts point out, the logic here is absurd because sanitary napkins are not a good substitute for actual classification. Furthermore, international law explicitly prohibits the targeting of medical supplies during conflicts.
The consequences of restricting access to menstrual products go beyond being inconvenient and can be particularly dire during times of conflict.
Laws governing armed conflict provide only limited protection. While women are considered objects of “special respect” under international humanitarian law, the focus is on women who are pregnant or mothers or potential victims of sexual violence.
Ironically, this gender essentialism ignores an important component of reproductive biology: menstruation. Persistent cultural taboos about talking about menstruation across cultures have resulted in it becoming a neglected part of everyday life. This also means wider application for civilian protection.
In theory, the law requires that basic needs be provided to civilians, and the language should be broad enough to cover menstrual products.
However, in reality, neutral language defaults to a male perspective, and the specific needs of menstruating people have not been recognized and addressed. While this is slowly starting to change globally, menstrual products are still often viewed as a luxury rather than a basic need.
Menstruation remains a neglected part of the impact of conflict on daily life. But Myanmar’s deliberate targeting of menstrual products goes a step further, turning menstruation into a weapon of war.
Restricting access to menstrual products limits movement, damages health and robs people of their dignity. This is an insidious form of gender-based violence. And the taboo surrounding menstruation means we don’t know how common this ban actually is in Myanmar. It also raises the question of how many people in other countries have been targeted by such products.
Acknowledging the full reality of how conflict affects women and others who menstruate means acknowledging all of it—including the parts that are hard to discuss. Binh Duong
This article was generated from automated news agency feeds without modifications to the text.
