dw.com
Menstrual Poverty in Sri Lanka: High Costs and Inadequate Government Support
A survey of over 500 Sri Lankan female students reveals that 46% struggle to afford sanitary pads monthly due to increased prices (92% post-2022 crisis) and import taxes (51%), causing many to miss school and resort to unsanitary alternatives, leading to health issues and impacting education.
- What is the impact of the high cost of sanitary pads and the economic crisis on school attendance and education among adolescent girls in Sri Lanka?
- In Sri Lanka, 46% of surveyed female students struggle to afford sanitary pads monthly, leading many, like 14-year-old Janani, to miss school due to menstruation. The price of sanitary pads increased by 92% after the 2022 economic crisis, exacerbating the issue. This impacts their education and health.
- How do the inadequate government voucher programs and the use of unsanitary alternatives contribute to health risks and educational inequalities for girls in Sri Lanka?
- The high cost of sanitary pads, coupled with Sri Lanka's economic crisis and import taxes, creates "menstrual poverty," affecting school attendance and academic performance among adolescent girls. Many resort to unsanitary alternatives like cloth, leading to infections. Government voucher programs have proven insufficient.
- What are the long-term implications of "menstrual poverty" in Sri Lanka, and what systemic changes are needed to ensure sustainable access to sanitary products and address related health and educational disparities?
- While the Sri Lankan government attempts to address "menstrual poverty" with voucher programs, their sustainability is questionable given past failures and the ongoing economic challenges. The lack of consistent access to sanitary pads and proper disposal facilities perpetuates health risks and educational inequalities for girls. Long-term solutions need to consider both affordability and infrastructure improvements.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language and emphasizes the negative consequences of period poverty, such as missed school days, infections, and feelings of shame and anger. This framing effectively highlights the severity of the issue, but it could also be interpreted as potentially exaggerating the problem or neglecting any positive aspects of efforts to address it. For example, the article prominently features the negative experiences of girls using cloth, but provides less attention to successful initiatives that the Sri Lankan government and teachers have implemented. The headline itself could also be considered as potentially creating a slightly negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language throughout, such as "shame," "anger," "fear," and "misery." While this language helps convey the emotional toll of period poverty, it also risks influencing the reader's perception beyond a purely factual presentation. Words like "struggle," "difficulty," or "challenge" could be used in places to maintain impact while reducing emotional charge. For example, instead of "Saya merasa takut untuk duduk karena saya khawatir akan terjadi sesuatu," a more neutral phrasing could be "I felt anxious about sitting because of the discomfort.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the consequences of period poverty in Sri Lanka for schoolgirls, but omits discussion of potential solutions beyond government voucher programs and the challenges in implementing those programs. There is no mention of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or international aid efforts that might be addressing this issue. The lack of diverse solutions presented limits the reader's understanding of the problem's scope and potential avenues for improvement. While acknowledging space constraints is important, including a brief overview of broader efforts would enhance the article's comprehensiveness.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the problem, focusing primarily on the choice between using sanitary pads versus cloth. While the dangers of using cloth are highlighted, other potential solutions like reusable menstrual cups or washable pads are not explored, creating a false dichotomy between only two options. This oversimplification reduces the range of possible solutions available to the reader.
Gender Bias
The article focuses almost exclusively on the experiences of girls and women, which is appropriate given the topic. However, there is a lack of male perspectives, such as those of fathers, brothers, or even male teachers who might be involved in supporting the girls affected. Including a broader range of gendered perspectives could provide a more complete picture of the problem.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the significant financial burden of menstrual products on families, especially those in poverty. Many girls miss school due to lack of access to sanitary products, impacting their education and future opportunities. This directly relates to SDG 1, No Poverty, as it demonstrates the intersection of poverty and access to basic necessities, hindering educational attainment and perpetuating a cycle of poverty.