A Bloody Controversy - Menstrual Leave in Indonesia

A Bloody Controversy: Menstrual Leave in Indonesia
For the most optimal reading experience we recommend using our website.
A free-to-view version of this content is available by clicking on this link, which
includes an easy-to-navigate-and-search-entry, and may also include videos,
embedded datasets, downloadable datasets, interactive questions, audio
content, and downloadable tables and resources.
Author: Sydney Colussi, Elizabeth Hill, Marian Baird

Pub. Date: 2023
Product: Sage Business Cases
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529619089
Keywords: Indonesia, gender equality, workers, menstruation, students, working women, law, employers,
case studies, working conditions
Disciplines: Diversity, Equality & Inclusion, Human Resource Management, Business & Management,
Employee, Industrial & Labor Relations, Employment & Labor Law
Access Date: October 12, 2023
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications: SAGE Business Cases Originals
City: London
Online ISBN: 9781529619089
© 2023 SAGE Publications: SAGE Business Cases Originals All Rights Reserved.
Sage Sage Business Cases
© Sydney Colussi, Elizabeth Hill, and Marian Baird 2023
This case was prepared for inclusion in SAGE Business Cases primarily as a basis for classroom dis-
cussion or self-study, and is not meant to illustrate either effective or ineffective management styles.
Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any kind. This case is for scholarly, educa-
tional, or personal use only within your university, and cannot be forwarded outside the university or
used for other commercial purposes.
The case studies on SAGE Business Cases are designed and optimized for online learning. Please re-
fer to the online version of this case to fully experience any video, data embeds, spreadsheets, slides,
or other resources that may be included.
This content may only be distributed for use within RMIT University.
2023 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Abstract
Across the world ‘menstrual leave’ is on the rise as an innovative response to menstrual pain and
stigma in the workplace. But what does it mean for women and gender equality at work? The idea
of menstrual leave is hotly contested in every country and region in which it has been implemented,
including Southeast Asia, with academics and policymakers divided over its ability to support or under-
mine workplace gender equality. One reason menstrual leave is so contentious is the lack of empirical
evidence on its impact, making it unclear whether this policy offers progressive outcomes for women
at work. These fault lines are particularly apparent in Indonesia, where menstrual leave has been leg-
islated since 1948 but is a source of ongoing controversy due to its contribution to workplace discrim-
ination and harassment, and its role in polarising women across the class divide. As such, Indonesia
offers important lessons on the potential risks and benefits of menstrual leave from a gender perspec-
tive, while also highlighting the context-specific drivers of this policy, including inadequate workplace
sanitation and ‘protective’ government responses to women in the workplace. Applying a gender lens
to menstrual leave in this context helps to reveal its possible impact on women at work, particularly
for women engaged in different types of work, as well as complex government and employer attitudes
toward women in the workforce. As menstrual leave continues to gain traction in the global labour mar-
ket, this case study underscores the importance of a contextual approach, while also engaging with
the broader tensions that make this policy a ‘bloody controversy’ in Indonesia and abroad.

Page 2 of 15
Case
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this case study, students should be able to:
• identify the context-specific factors that might influence whether a government or company decides
to implement menstrual leave;
• explain the risks and benefits of menstrual leave as a labour policy from the perspective of different
stakeholders in Indonesia (e.g. workers, employers, government); and
• express a stance, based on evidence, on whether menstrual leave should be implemented in their
own home country and whether it can help to deliver gender equality in the workplace.
Gender, Work, and Menstrual Leave
Menstrual leave – a benefit that provides paid or unpaid leave or flexibility to workers during menstruation
– is trending as a progressive workplace right across multiple countries and regions. In recent years, com-
panies in Australia, India, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand have introduced menstrual leave with the
aim of destigmatising or ‘normalising’ periods and creating gender-diverse and inclusive workplaces (Baird et
al., 2021; Bennett et al., 2021). As these policies have become more widespread in the global labour mar-
ket, there has been increased recognition of menstruation as a factor that may contribute to gender inequal-
ity at work and school (Armour et al., 2020; Barrington et al., 2021). There is evidence that shows workers
may struggle to manage menstruation in settings with inadequate toilets (Hislop, 2021; Pandey, 2021), miss
work due to period pain (Munro, 2022; Schoep et al., 2019), or experience gender-based discrimination at the
hands of employers related to menstruation (Goldblatt & Steele, 2019).
Despite its rising popularity in modern workplaces as an innovative response to some of these problems,
menstrual leave is by no means new. It was first legislated in the early 20th century in several countries in-

Page 3 of 15
cluding the former Soviet Union, Japan, and Indonesia (see Table 1. Menstrual Leave Legislation in a Global
Perspective). While menstrual leave has changed over time and adapts to the needs of workers in different
contexts, the policy has proven to be highly contested in every country in which it has been introduced. As a
policy targeted primarily at cisgender women, menstrual leave raises important questions about the desirabil-
ity of labour entitlements that draw attention to biological differences between workers, and their implications
for gender equality.
Table 1. Menstrual Leave Legislation in a Global Perspective (Baird et al., 2021)1
Country Year Benefit Legislation
Soviet 1922/
Two days per month at full wage Unavailable
Union 1931
Granted by the calendar day, half day, or by the hour at employ- Labor Standards Act (Act No. 49 of 1947) Ar-
Japan 1947
er discretion ticle 68
Based on employee request, length/payment at employer discre- Concerning Manpower (Act No. 13/2003) Arti-
Indonesia 1948
tion cle 81(1)
South Ko- Labor Standards Act (Act No. 5309/1997) Ar-

2001 One day per month (unpaid) at employee’s request
rea ticle 73
Act of Gender Equality in Employment Article

Taiwan 2002 Three days per year (half wages)
14
30 minutes per day, three days per month, payment at employer

Vietnam 2015 Labor Code Article155(5)
discretion
Based on employee request, length/payment at employer discre-

Zambia 2017 The Employment Code Act 2019 Section 47
tion
Any law or policy that provides a special benefit to women for their reproductive bodies or activities treads
a fine line between supporting and undermining workplace gender equality. These policies may offer critical

Page 4 of 15
benefits to women that support their labour market attachment, such as paid maternity leave and breastfeed-
ing breaks, while also embedding negative gender stereotypes that women are less capable of paid work.
For example, it has been argued the provision of ‘maternity’ rather than ‘parental’ leave may reinforce stereo-
types of women as wives and homemakers and men as breadwinners (Chapman & Baird, 2021). In a similar
way, it has been argued that menstrual leave could harm gender equality at work by perpetuating the idea
that women are weak or emotionally unstable while menstruating and that their participation in employment is
predetermined by their biological attributes (see Dutt, 2017).
These are justifiable concerns. Historically, menstrual leave has been instrumental in advancing ‘pronatalist’
government agendas, with the policy designed to protect menstruation as a precursor to pregnancy and to
ensure young female workers could fulfil their social role as wives and mothers (Dan, 1986; Baird et al., 2021,
p. 220; Ilič, 1999). This historical preoccupation with fertility and motherhood complicates the contemporary
narrative of menstrual leave as progressive or liberating and helps to explain why these policies have only
recently become more inclusive of transgender, gender-diverse, and non-binary people who menstruate (see
Baird et al., 2021, p. 215).
There is limited empirical evidence on the uptake and impact of menstrual leave policies, making it difficult
to draw firm conclusions on its implications for gender equality in the workplace. For the same reason, it is
hard to identify ‘best practice’ approaches to menstrual leave in either national legislation or workplace policy.
Most companies that have recently adopted these policies argue that menstruation is not an ‘illness’ and, as
a result, employees should not have to claim sick or personal leave to attend to this biological process (Ben-
nett et al., 2021). There is also anecdotal evidence from several companies that suggests menstrual leave
offers more beneficial outcomes for workers when it is flexible rather than prescriptive, meaning workers can
request flexible hours or work from home arrangements rather than a fixed one to two days' paid leave (see
Melican & Mountford, 2017). This avoids an ‘essentialist’ approach to menstruation that acknowledges not
all workers will experience their period in the same way – some people may require additional support, while
others may not require or, indeed, desire any at all. It is also becoming increasingly important for governments
and organisations to adopt an age- and gender-inclusive approach to policy development in this area. For ex-
ample, some companies are introducing ‘menopause policies’ in conjunction with menstrual leave to provide
support to workers of different ages, while others are designing these benefits to be inclusive of transgender,
gender-diverse, and non-binary people who menstruate or go through menopause (see Channel 4, 2020; Fu-
ture Super, 2021).

Page 5 of 15
But there are still many unknowns when it comes to the design and implementation of menstrual leave. For
example, it is unclear whether this policy will act as a hiring disincentive and harm the ‘business case’ for em-
ploying women. Menstruation is a highly gendered and stigmatised process (Bobel et al., 2020) and has been
used to justify the exclusion of women from male-dominated professions (Goldblatt & Steele, 2019). There
is also the risk of deepening race and class inequalities related to menstruation, as workers in casual and
informal work arrangements have limited access to formal labour protections and entitlements. The privacy
of workers is another important consideration. If menstrual leave requires disclosure to a manager, this might
be an unsuitable policy for gender-diverse menstruators, who may not wish to discuss their gender identity at
work, or for people for whom public discussion of menstruation is culturally inappropriate (Munro, 2022).
Even if menstrual leave is formally implemented, employers may not adhere to their obligations to regulate
or award this entitlement. There is evidence that menstrual leave is linked to workplace exploitation in Japan,
South Korea, and Indonesia, including the denial of this entitlement by employers, though it is formally legis-
lated in each of these countries (Baird et al., 2021; Dan, 1986; Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008). For example,
the former CEO of Asiana Airlines was recently fined KRW 2 million by a South Korean court for refusing 138
requests for menstrual leave by female flight attendants (BBC News, 2021).
Menstrual Leave in Indonesia
As one of the first countries in the world to have formally legislated menstrual leave, Indonesia is a particularly
instructive case study that offers important lessons on the potential risks and benefits of this controversial
policy, and demonstrates what is at stake for employers, workers, and gender equality in the workplace.
First legislated in 1948, the policy was amended in 2003 and is now included under Article 81(1) of Law
No.13/2003 on Manpower as follows: ‘Female workers [labourers] who feel pain during their menstrual period
and tell the [employer] about this are not obliged to come to work on the first and second day of menstrua-
tion’ (Baird et al., 2021, p. 197). Importantly the legislation allows the implementation of menstrual leave to
be regulated by working agreements, corporate policies, and collective labour agreements.2 This means that
employers have considerable discretion to regulate the provision of menstrual leave in workplaces across In-
donesia (Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008). As a labour entitlement, menstrual leave is also only available to a
small group of formal, waged workers in Indonesia, a country which has high levels of informal employment
(Ford & Nurchayati, 2017, p. 73). In 2018 the share of informal employment as a percentage of total employ-
Page 6 of 15
ment was 67.5 per cent, with 60.7 percent of women employed in the informal sector and 11.2 per cent in the
formal sector (International Labour Organization, 2018, p. 88).
Like other countries in the region that have implemented menstrual leave, such as Vietnam, Indonesia offers
this benefit in conjunction with other laws and policies that provide special benefits to women for their re-
productive bodies and activities. In Indonesia, provisions for paid maternity leave, workplace breastfeeding
entitlements, and historical prohibitions on night work combine to create a ‘protective’ approach to women
at work (Baird et al., 2021, p.198; Bennington & Habir, 2003, p. 381; Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008, p. 104).
As such, Baird et al. (2021, p. 198) argue menstrual leave functions as a ‘pronatalist clause’ that identifies
‘women’s biological specificity (kodrat) as the basis of their social participation’ (Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008,
p. 117). In this respect, menstrual leave arguably reinforces the idea that women’s participation in employ-
ment is shaped by their biological attributes, with the expectation that their primary socio-economic role is as
wives and mothers.
Despite offering an ostensible benefit or ‘protection’ to women workers, menstrual leave has been the source
of considerable controversy in Indonesia due to its connection to workplace discrimination and harassment
(Baird, Hill, Colussi, 2021, p. 198). For example, one study of a shoe factory in Tangerang found female work-
ers could only claim menstrual leave if they had approval from ‘health staff’ in the factory clinic, with workers
required to remove their underwear to provide proof of menstruation (Siahaan, 2016, p. 36; see also Blecher,
2004, p. 483). This exploitative practice raises privacy and human rights concerns, while also signalling the
concerted efforts of employers to dissuade workers from the use of menstrual leave, which is viewed as a
source of increased costs and reduced productivity (Siahaan, 2016).
Similar issues have been documented across the Indonesian garment sector (Pangestu & Hendytio, 1997, p.
36), including in the subcontracted factories of international sports clothing retailer Nike. A report on working
conditions at Nike in the early 2000s revealed a pattern of exploitative treatment of women workers, includ-
ing in relation to the provision of menstrual leave (Biggs Brooke, 2000; King, 2021). The report described the
process of requesting menstrual leave as follows:
First, the worker approaches her line chief. If the line chief gives permission, she can approach the
foreman. If the foreman gives permission, she can approach the management. After making her way
through this management hierarchy, the worker must go to the factory clinic and prove that she is
menstruating. She must do this by pulling down her pants and showing blood to the clinic staff …
This intimidating humiliation combined with the workers’ apprehension, commonly results in women

Page 7 of 15
bleeding through their clothes every month … They wear dark pants and a long blouse so the stain
on their clothes is less noticeable when they walk home from the factory (King, 2021, p. 167 quoting
Kretsu, 2000, p. 1)
Following this report, in 2007 Nike developed guidelines for the provision of menstrual leave in its ‘Code [of]
Leadership Standards’. Section 8(b)(iv) of the Code states: ‘no physical exams may be conducted to verify
eligibility for menstrual leave if it is a benefit mandated by country law’ (Baird et al., 2021, p. 213).
As menstrual leave is formally codified in Indonesian labour law, this internal policy appears to offer a ‘solution’
to the allegations of harmful conduct in Nike factories. However, this policy change is unable to resolve the
wider problem of companies exercising considerable control over the provision of menstrual leave and fails to
compensate for the gender-based exploitation and harassment that arise in relation to this policy within Nike
factories and across the Indonesian garment sector (Horgan, 2001). As such, the discriminatory practices at
Nike should be understood in the broader context of a policy framework, in which employers view menstrual
leave as optional, and workers are vulnerable to a company’s internal policies and bottom line (Bennington &
Habir, 2003; Rahayuningsih, 2016; Wells, 2007).
A survey by the World Bank in the late 1990s found low levels of compliance for the provision of menstrual
leave across the textile, clothing, and footwear industries in Indonesia (Pangestu & Hendytio, 1997). Of the
300 respondents, only 37.4 per cent had received the entitlement (Pangestu & Hendytio, 1997, p. 33). Work-
ers also had low levels of knowledge of the benefit, with just 30.7 per cent reporting they were aware of men-
strual leave (Pangestu & Hendytio, 1997, p. 69). This survey found employers adopted multiple strategies to
avoid menstrual leave, with some companies ‘buying the leave’ by paying women two extra days' wages per
month but withholding this payment if they missed work due to menstruation (Pangestu & Hendytio, 1997, p.
36). Other strategies included reducing the benefit to once every two months, paying wages at 75 per cent
or less, awarding the benefit on a rotating basis among workers or, as discussed above, requiring medical
documentation or physical proof of menstruation (Pangestu & Hendytio, 1997, p. 36).
In the Indonesian context, and particularly within the feminised garment sector, the available evidence sug-
gests menstrual leave is not protective of women workers and contributes to gender inequality at work, with
employers taking considered steps to avoid economic costs associated with the benefit. And yet, it is not pos-
sible to simply abandon menstrual leave – a policy that has been grounded in the national legal framework
for nearly 75 years and one that continues to polarise workers across the class divide (Baird et al., 2021, p.
221).

Page 8 of 15
Menstrual Leave: The Class Divide
In Indonesia, support for menstrual leave has been found to vary depending on the sector and type of work in
which women are engaged. Professional women in white-collar sectors like finance and retail are not gener-
ally supportive of menstrual leave and tend to view the policy as ‘an embarrassment, emphasising as it does
women’s differing biology’ (Baird et al., 2021, p. 198; see also Bennington & Habir, 2003, p. 382; Horgan,
2001, p. 9). In the 1990s, the Association of Indonesian Business Women lobbied for the repeal of menstrual
leave, arguing it was ‘contradictory to the aims of women’s emancipation … [because] the large numbers of
women who make use of this right only serve to lower the productivity of the companies in which they work,
and, as a result, many companies are reluctant to employ women’ (Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008, p. 106).
Available survey data also shows Indonesian women employed in commerce, finance, and retail are unlikely
to claim menstrual leave (Baird et al., 2021, p. 198; Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008, p. 106). For example, a
small survey of workers in these sectors found that respondents wanted breastfeeding entitlements, childcare
and flexible hours but ‘an overwhelming majority seldom took menstrual leave and considered it either not
needed or only in extreme cases’ (Reerink, 2006, p. 27).
In contrast, menstrual leave has received support from unions and women working in some blue-collar sectors
and occupations, for example as factory workers and heavy equipment operators (Baird et al., 2021; Lahiri-
Dutt & Robinson, 2008). Union members have argued the policy is necessary to support the health and well-
being of women workers due to low nutritional standards and inadequate sanitation facilities in these contexts
(Reerink, 2006, p. 25). Commenting on the menstrual leave ‘class divide’ in the wake of the Nike factory alle-
gations in the early 2000s, Horgan observed:
[F]or working class women, who work 12-hour days, six or sometimes seven days a week, often
standing all day, [menstrual leave] is a very welcome provision. The high level of malnutrition and ill
health among working women, combined with working conditions that include two toilet breaks only
in the day and poor sanitary protection for those who have no hope of affording Western-style pads,
means women workers often badly need the menstrual leave (Horgan, 2001, p. 9).
These class tensions have been documented in Indonesia’s mining sector. In this male-dominated industry,
Lahiri-Dutt and Robinson (2008) found industrial operators are more likely to claim menstrual leave than office
workers, with one worker observing, ‘I am working at a man’s job in the field, I am driving heavy trucks and

Page 9 of 15
cutting the coal with machines. Tell me, how will I be able to work during my periods?’ Due to the specific
working conditions of industrial operators, including a uniform of ‘close fitting blue jeans’ and limited access to
suitable toilets in the mine pits, menstrual leave offers more tangible benefits to this group compared to office
workers, though they are women employed in the same industry (Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008, p. 116).
But even among blue-collar workers, menstrual leave can still be a divisive issue due to its potentially severe
economic costs, as well as the risk it poses for gender-based discrimination and harassment. As discussed
above, women can be financially penalised for taking menstrual leave, including through the loss of incentive
payments and attendance bonuses (Pangestu & Hendytio, 1997; Reerink, 2006, pp. 25-26). This is the case
in the mining sector, where payment and cash bonuses are tied to attendance and productivity (Lahiri-Dutt &
Robinson, 2008). This policy has the obvious effect of reinforcing the gender pay gap and harming women’s
economic security if they choose to claim their legal right to menstrual leave, again highlighting the risks of
a legislative framework that leaves companies and employers with the discretion to regulate the provision of
menstrual leave (Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008, p. 115).
The class tensions around menstrual leave continue to play out in the Indonesian media. For example, in
March 2021 an article for The Jakarta Post highlighted the differing views of a human resources manager
employed by a nutrition company in Jakarta, and a chairperson of the Federation of United Indonesian Trade
Unions (Azwar, 2021). The former white-collar worker was not supportive of the policy, arguing it was ‘too fem-
inist’ and allowed factory employees to avoid work (Azwar, 2021). This argument aligns with the views of the
Association of Indonesian Business Women in the 1990s which saw menstrual leave as a hiring disincentive
due to its economic and productivity costs. In contrast, the union representative argued menstrual leave was
justified because women factory workers shouldered a ‘double burden’ of paid and unpaid work, including
long hours at the factories, and domestic work that contributes to the reproduction of the labour force, such as
childbirth and childcare. As a result, she argued, menstrual leave is necessary to remedy gender inequality in
a ‘patriarchal’ capitalist system (Azwar, 2021). This feminist argument is more consistent with the union and
blue-collar views documented in the mining sector, where menstrual leave is regarded as a reprieve from long
hours of work and inadequate working conditions.
Where to From Here?
In Indonesia, menstrual leave was designed to offer a ‘protective’ benefit to women at work, but in the

Page 10 of 15
decades since it was first implemented in 1948, the policy has been implicated in a string of labour controver-
sies.
At the extreme, it has been associated with physical exploitation and degrading treatment in the female-domi-
nated garment sector, raising serious concerns about human rights violations and the harmful effects on gen-
der equality in the workplace. Menstrual leave has also polarised women across the class divide, with women
in white-collar occupations routinely calling for its repeal, owing to its regressive implications for business
productivity and its potential to act as a hiring disincentive against women (Baird et al., 2021, p. 221). But it
has also been instrumental in addressing inadequate sanitation for women in some blue-collar occupations,
for example the male-dominated mining sector. As a result, unions have been more supportive of menstrual
leave, though it has been used against women in these sectors due to economic incentives and performance
bonuses tied to attendance and productivity (Lahiri-Dutt & Robinson, 2008, p. 115).
These context-specific factors demonstrate the inherent complexity of this policy and shed light on the multiple
drivers of menstrual leave and what it stands to offer – or take away from – women at work. As menstrual
leave grows in popularity, Indonesia offers important lessons, and perhaps a cautionary tale, about the poten-
tial impact of this policy and whether it is likely to deliver, or undermine, gender equality in the workplace.
 Discussion Questions
1. How do you think female (a) office workers and (b) factory workers in Indonesia would
respond if menstrual leave was repealed?
2. If you were advising the Indonesian government, what would you suggest they do to im-
prove working conditions for women? (This could include policy reform to menstrual
leave and/or other alternatives.)
3. As more governments and employers introduce menstrual leave policies, what informa-
tion and data would you need to evaluate the impact of these policies on women’s labour
force participation and gender equality more broadly?
4. Do you think menstrual leave should be implemented as a policy in other countries/your
home country? (To answer this question, you may wish to consider: (i) how your country
performs in terms of gender equality; (ii) context-specific challenges women face in the
workplace; and (iii) whether menstrual leave would reinforce or challenge local gender
norms and practices.)

Page 11 of 15
Notes
1. 1. Table 1 is not comprehensive and only includes countries where menstrual leave is formally legislated.
Multiple other countries have considered legislative proposals for menstrual leave, and many private organ-
isations, including companies and unions, are also introducing menstrual leave. For a more detailed discus-
sion of the history and global development of menstrual leave, see Baird et al. 2021.
2. 2. Concerning Manpower (No. 13/2002) Article 81(2).
Further Reading
Barnack-Tavlaris, J. L., Hansen, K., Levitt, R. B., & Reno, M. (2019). Taking leave to bleed: Perceptions
and attitudes toward menstrual leave policy. Health Care for Women International, 40(12), 1355–1373.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2019.1639709
BLUSH Originals. (2017, July3a). First day of period leave | Blush Originals | #FOPLeave [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avPgUxGC1Sg
Golding, G., & Hvala, T. (2021). Paid period leave for australian women: A prerogative not A pain. Sydney
Law Review, 46(1), 349–377.
Levitt, R. B., & Barnack-Tavlaris, J. L. (2020a). Addressing menstruation in the workplace: The menstrual
leave debate. InBobelEd.), The Palgrave handbook of critical menstruation studies (pp. 561–575). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0614-7
Owen, L. (2018). Menstruation and humanistic management at work: The development and implementation
of a menstrual workplace policy. E-Organizations & People, 25(4), 23–31.
Wells, D. (2007). Too weak for the job: Corporate codes of conduct, non-governmental organizations and
the regulation of International Labour standards. Global Social Policy, 7(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468018107073911
Winkler, I., & Roaf, V. (2014). Taking the bloody linen out of the closet: Menstrual hygiene as a priority for
achieving gender equality. Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender, 21(1), 1–38.

Page 12 of 15
References
Armour, M., Holmes, K., & Parry, K. A. (2020, November23). 3 out of 10 girls skip class because of painful
periods. And most won’t talk to their teachers about it. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/3-out-
of-10-girls-skip-class-because-of-painful-periods-and-most-wont-talk-to-their-teacher-about-it-150286
Azwar, A. S. (2021, March12). Go with the flow: Indonesian women divided over menstrual leave. The Jakarta
Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2021/03/11/go-with-the-flow-indonesian-women-divided-over-men-
strual-leave.html
Baird, M., Hill, E., & Colussi, S. (2021). Mapping menstrual leave legislation and policy historically and global-
ly: A labour entitlement to reinforce, remedy or revolutionize gender equality at work?Comparative Labor Law
& Policy Journal, 42(1), 187–228.
Barrington, D. J., Robinson, H. J., Wilson, E., & Hennegan, J. (2021). Experiences of menstruation in high
income countries: A systematic review, qualitative evidence synthesis and comparison to low- and middle-in-
come countries. PloS ONE, 16(7), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255001
BBC News. (2021, April25). Menstrual leave: South Korea airline ex-CEO fined for refusing time off.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56877634
Bennett, J., Melican, C., & Crooks, M. (2021). Ourselves at work: Creating positive menstrual culture in
your workplace. Victorian Women’s Trust. https://www.vwt.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ourselves-At-
Work-DIGITAL-V5.pdf
Bennington, L., & Habir, A. D. (2003). Human resource management in Indonesia. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 13(3), 373–392.
Biggs Brooke, S. (2000, September8). Just stop it. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/
09/just-stop-it/
Blecher, L. (2004). Above and beyond the law. Business and Society Review, 109(4), 479–492.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0045-3609.2004.00206.x
Bobel, C., Winkler, I. T., Fahs, B., Hasson, K. A., Kissling, E. A., & Roberts, T. (2020). The Palgrave handbook
of critical menstruation studies. Palgrave Macmillan.

Page 13 of 15
Channel 4. (2020). Menopause policy. Channel 4. https://assets-corporate.channel4.com/_flysystem/s3/

2020-10/Channel%204%20Menopause%20Policy%202020.pdf
Chapman, A., & Baird, M. (2021). Employing the law for women: Gender, work and legal regulation in Aus-
tralia. In R.Vijeyarasa (Ed.), International women’s rights law and gender equality: Making the law work for
women (pp. 72–87). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003091257
Dan, A. (1986). The law and women’s bodies: The case of menstruation leave in Japan. Health Care for
Women International, 7(1–2), 1–14.
Dutt, B. (2017). I’m a feminist. Giving women a day off for their period is a stupid idea. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/08/03/im-a-feminist-but-giving-women-a-
day-off-for-their-period-is-a-stupid-idea/
Ford, M., & Nurchayati, N. (2017). Indonesia: Middle-class complicity and state failure to provide care.
In M.Baird, M.Ford, & E.Hill (Eds.), Women, work and care in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 71–86). Routledge.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/10.4324/9781315652467
Future Super. (2021). A bloody good policy. https://www.futuresuper.com.au/blog/a-bloody-good-policy/
Goldblatt, B., & Steele, L. (2019). Bloody unfair: Inequality related to menstruation — considering the role of
discrimination law. Sydney Law Review, 41(3), 293–326.
Hislop, M. (2021). Toilets for female tradies “overlooked” on construction sites. Women’s Agenda.
https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/toilets-for-female-tradies-overlooked-on-construction-sites/
Horgan, G. (2001). How does globalisation affect women?International Socialism, 92, 1–11.
Ilič, M. (1999). Women workers in the Soviet interwar economy: From ‘Protection’ to ‘Equality". https://doi.org/
10.1057/9780230375567
International Labour Organization. (2018). Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical picture.
https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_626831/lang--en/index.htm
King, S. (2021). Menstrual leave: Good Intention, poor solution. In J.Hassard & L. D.Torres (Eds.), Aligning
perspectives in gender mainstreaming: Gender, health, safety and wellbeing (pp. 151–176). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53269-7
Kretsu, L. (2000). Labour rights in Indonesia: What is menstruation Leave?. cleanclothes.org

Page 14 of 15
Lahiri-Dutt, K., & Robinson, K. (2008). Period problems’ at the coalface. Feminist Review, 89(1), 102–121.
https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2008.5
Melican, C., & Mountford, G. (2017). Why we’ve introduced a menstrual policy and you should too. Victorian
Women’s Trust. https://www.vwt.org.au/blog-menstrual-policy/#:~:text=The%20VWT’s%20menstrual%20pol-
icy%20provides,a%20day’s%20paid%20menstrual%20leave
Munro, A. (2022). Periods impact potential: Findings from the Australian department of health 2021 Menstrual
health survey. Australian Department of Health.
Pandey, G. (2021, August8). India teachers’ fight for period leave gathers steam. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58110935
Pangestu, M., & Hendytio, M. K. (1997). Survey responses from women workers in Indonesia’s textile,
garment and footwear industries. The World Bank, policy research working Paper 1755. https://docu-
ments1.worldbank.org/curated/en/953871468752369437/pdf/multi-page.pdf
Rahayuningsih, I. (2016). Analysis on psychological impacts due to violation of the rights of women workers.
International Journal of Psychological Studies, 8(2), 65. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v8n2p65
Reerink, A. (2006). Report on a survey of women and gender issues in trade Union organisations in Indone-
sia. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo-
jakarta/documents/publication/wcms_117189.pdf
Schoep, M. E., Adang, E. M. M., Maas, J. W. M., De Bie, B., Aarts, J. W. M., & Nieboer, T. E. (2019). Produc-
tivity loss due to menstruation-related symptoms: A nationwide cross-sectional survey among 32,748 women.
BMJ Open, 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026186
Siahaan, S. M. L. (2016). Forms of violence on women workers at indonesia’s shoe factory: A sociological
perspective. International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences, 3(10), 31–39.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529619089

Page 15 of 15

A Bloody Controversy - Menstrual Leave in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Bloody Controversy - Menstrual Leave in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Bloody Controversy: Menstrual Leave in Indonesia

Author: Sydney Colussi, Elizabeth Hill, Marian Baird

2023 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved