Fri May 15

How menstruation is being weaponised in war

Written by: Shireen Daft, Lecturer, Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University

The Tatmawdaw – the military government in Myanmar – has reportedly ^[1] expanded a ban on menstrual products from being transported in the country across key routes, as part of the ongoing civil war in the country.

This targeting of sanitary pads appears to be an extension of the military’s so-called “Four Cuts” strategy ^[2], which seeks to sever resistance forces from food, funds, intelligence and recruits.

Menstrual products, it seems, have been added to that logic – and in the process stealing women’s dignity and basic human rights. While there has been no official communication about the ban, a spokeperson for local non-government organisation Sisters2Sisters ^[3] says soldiers on the ground have indicated the crackdown is out of the belief that the products are being used “by the People’s Defence Force for medical reasons and as support for their feet and boots to absorb sweat and blood”.

As medical experts point out ^[4], the logic here is absurd, as sanitary pads would be a poor substitute for actual combat triage. In addition, the targeting of medical supplies during conflict is expressly prohibited under international law.

The consequence of restricting access to menstrual products is not merely one of inconvenience, and during conflict it can be especially dire.

An estimated two billion people ^[5] globally menstruate. Managing periods can be demanding under the best of circumstances, and for hundreds of millions, access to menstrual products is already precarious.

Period poverty — defined as a lack of access to menstrual products, education, waste management and hygiene facilities — affects more than 500 million people ^[6] worldwide. During conflict, the severity of the impact is heightened.

Limited or a lack of access to water, privacy and basic sanitation during wartime has profound impacts on women’s lives. Women in Myanmar are turning to rags, leaves and newspaper, as the costs of a pack of pads on the black market well exceeds the daily minimum wage.

Women who lack access to menstrual products find their human rights greatly restricted. Girls are less likely to access their education, and women are less likely to participate in public life when menstrual products are not available.

People seeking privacy and access to resources are at heightened risk of placing themselves in unsafe situations. Above all else, human dignity feels the impact. As one woman described it ^[7]: “Food keeps us alive, but pads, soap and privacy let us live with dignity.”

The impacts of conflict on menstrual health are starkly demonstrated in Gaza. An estimated 700,000 people with menstrual cycles are living through the conflict, and in late 2024 it was estimated ^[8] there was approximately one toilet for 486 people at best.

With a lack of access to menstrual products, the improvised alternatives included torn cloth, tissues and pieces of tent. In some of the limited aid supplies that were able to reach the area, there were reports ^[9] the products were of such poor quality that they were causing infections.

Indeed, due in part to the limited options available, a UN Women’s Report from September 2024 ^[10] found urinary tract infections affected more than 68% of the women in Gaza they interviewed.

The laws governing armed conflict only provide limited protection. While women are deemed objects of “special respect”^[11] under international humanitarian law, the focus is squarely on women as pregnant or as mothers, or as prospective victims of sexual violence.

Ironically, this gender essentialism ignores an essential component of reproductive biology: menstruation. The cultural taboos that persist across cultures about speaking about menstruation result in it becoming an ignored part of daily life. This translates to the application of the broader civilian protections as well.

In theory, the law requires civilians to be provided with essential needs, and this language should be broad enough to encompass menstrual products. However, in reality, gender-neutral language defaults to a male perspective, and the specific needs of menstruating people go unrecognised and unaddressed. While this is slowly starting to change globally, all too often menstrual products are still treated as luxury goods rather than a basic need.

Menstruation remains an overlooked part of the consequences of conflict on daily lives. But Myanmar’s deliberate targeting of menstrual products goes a step further and renders menstruation a weapon of war.

Restricting access to menstrual products restricts movement, undermines health, and strips people of dignity. It is an insidious form of gender-based violence. And taboos around menstruation mean we don’t know how widespread this ban in Myanmar actually is. It also raises the question of how many people in other countries suffer from this targeting of such products.

Acknowledging the full reality of how conflict impacts women and others who menstruate means acknowledging all of it — including the parts that are uncomfortable to discuss.