A useful way to evaluate any public policy is to use the ‘what’s the problem represented to be’ approach²: what a policy proposes to do reveals what the creators assume is problematic (needs to change). In the case of most menstrual and menopausal policies to date, this appears to be the menstruating body (and ‘women’ by association), rather than universal menstrual ignorance and taboos, associated discriminatory beliefs and practices, and those who profit from these things.

For instance, when we talk about ‘period poverty’ (in the Global North) and ‘menstrual hygiene management’ (in the Global South), the policy solution is typically ‘access to disposable period products’. Subsequently, the problem of period poverty or poor menstrual hygiene management is represented as ‘(unmanaged) periods make girls or women miss school or work’³. This, unfortunately, frames periods and female bodies as the problem rather than the government policies and societal gender inequalities that directly contribute to increasing poverty especially among women and girls⁴; or the fact that most schools (and workplaces) are not fit for people who menstruate⁵; or the huge profit margins involved in the sale of expensive disposable period products (and other products subject to ‘pink tax’)³.

评估任何公共政策的一个有用方法是使用 “问题代表是什么 ”的方法²：政策提议做什么揭示了创建者认为有问题的东西（需要改变）。在迄今为止的大多数月经和更年期政策中，这似乎是月经的身体（以及相关的“女性”），而不是普遍的月经无知和禁忌、相关的歧视性信仰和做法，以及那些从这些事情中获利的人。

例如，当我们谈论“经期贫困”（在北半球）和“经期卫生管理”（在南半球）时，政策解决方案通常是“获得一次性经期产品”。随后，经期贫困或经期卫生管理不佳的问题被表示为“（未经管理的）经期使女孩或妇女错过学校或工作”³。不幸的是，这将问题归结为月经和女性身体，而不是政府政策和社会性别不平等，这些直接导致贫困加剧，尤其是妇女和女孩⁴;或者大多数学校（和工作场所）不适合月经⁵ 的人;或销售昂贵的一次性经期产品（和其他需要缴纳“粉红税”的产品）所涉及的巨大利润率³。