State intervention in sexuality unnecessary<\/p>\n
This is the second of two articles on state and sexuality by
\nsociologist Julia I. Suryakusuma, also executive director of the
\nAPI Foundation for political research, information and
\npublication in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Does the 1983 regulation (PP10) really defend
\nwomen's interests? Decidedly not. Its complicated procedures and
\nheavy sanctions lead people to circumvent the rules. Besides, the
\nprocedure causes profound embarrassment, especially in the
\ncontext of \"eastern culture\".<\/p>\n
One respondent, a woman civil servant who had secretly
\nseparated from her husband told me how embarrassed she was to
\nhave to report personal matters to her (male) superior. As a
\nresult, women become atomized and isolated because they were
\nafraid to trust anyone, including other women.<\/p>\n
There was also a tendency for cases to pile up, because the
\nsuperiors also felt awkward and incompetent to intervene in
\nmarital matters.<\/p>\n
In the end PP10 disempowers rather than protects women. Very
\nseldom would the wife of a civil servant be willing to report on
\nher own husband due to the fear that his career will suffer,
\nwhich will in turn harm her and the family's welfare. This
\nespecially applies to those accustomed to receiving facilities
\nthat accrue from a high bureaucratic position.<\/p>\n
If the wife is dependent on her husband for her livelihood,
\nshe has no choice but to accept her fate. High-ranking female
\ncivil servants are also reluctant to risk their position. Thus,
\nif a couple no longer gets along, or no longer loves each other,
\nbut cannot provide a reason to divorce that is acceptable to
\ntheir superior, they live in prolonged hypocrisy and suffering.<\/p>\n
In the beginning, the wives used PP10 to retaliate. But when
\nthey became victims of their own struggle, other women learned
\nfrom these experiences and chose the safe route, however painful.<\/p>\n
They also accepted their husbands' sexual adventures as an
\nunpreventable fact of life. The important thing was that the
\nhusbands didn't take on a subsequent wife (\"let them spend, so
\nlong as they don't bring a goat home\" or biar jajan, asal jangan
\nbawa kambing pulang); as the economic consequences of another
\nwife were greater than that of just \"fooling around\".<\/p>\n
Thus, in the end, the wives colluded in making hypocrisy
\nflourish -- they learned to strategize. In the face of their
\nhusbands' infidelity, older wives learned to accept their fate.
\nHowever, younger wives were more active and also engaged in
\nextramarital activities, for revenge, but also to obtain the
\nsatisfaction they did not get from their husbands.<\/p>\n
This has given rise to a marital culture that is
\ncharacteristic of civil servants, fraught with oppression,
\nhypocrisy and manipulation.<\/p>\n
Even 10 years ago it was clear that PP10 was more negative
\nthan positive: full of inconsistencies and contradictions,
\ncomplicated procedures, sometimes with impossible conditions
\n(such as proving adultery on the spot with two witnesses at
\nhand), bureaucratic, oppressive, militaristic, hierarchical,
\ndivisive, humiliating, often inhuman, inciting manipulative,
\nmaterialistic, calculating, dishonest and hypocritical behavior,
\nand inherently containing a deep gender and class bias.<\/p>\n
In reality, PP10 which the Dharma Wanita wives had hoped to be
\ntheir lethal weapon had become a boomerang against them.<\/p>\n
How is then Indonesia to protect female civil servants and
\nwives of civil servants? The answer is in the revision of
\nexisting laws so that they not only protect civil servants but
\nalso Indonesian women as a whole.<\/p>\n
Although polygamy is allowed for Muslims, the Marriage Law is
\nmonogamous in principle, and polygamy is very difficult to engage
\nin, at least in theory. If the Marriage Law contains flaws and
\nweaknesses, it should be amended.<\/p>\n
A regulation aimed at only one group is no solution. In the
\ncurrent marriage law, positioning the husband as head of the
\nhousehold and the woman as the housewife who should obey him
\nclearly puts her in a weak position as it gives ultimate power
\nto him.<\/p>\n
This is the reason why domestic violence and marital rape are
\nnot recognized in Indonesia. It is also this status which limits
\nwomen's access to resources, for example credits, which tend to
\nbe given to men as heads of households. It is also more difficult
\nfor women to initiate divorce, their sexual rights not fully
\nrecognized, inter-religious marriages are not accommodated (which
\nmakes children born in these marriages \"illegitimate\"), and
\nchildren born out of wedlock illegal.<\/p>\n
Clearly this is an infringement on the human rights of women
\nand children.<\/p>\n
The pretension of PP10 is to protect, but it is inherently
\ndiscriminatory because it gives \"special\" treatment to one group
\n-- civil servants. The state should be able to adjudicate among
\ngroups -- whether based on class, religion, ethnicity, race,
\nprofession or gender.<\/p>\n
If people's conscience can be relied on -- as State Minister
\nfor the Empowerment of Women Khofifah Indar Parawansa hopes --
\nthen personal matters such as polygamy, marriage, divorce and
\nfamily responsibilities, do not require state intervention.<\/p>\n
However, because of a deep-rooted gender bias in society
\nagainst women, there should be a neutral party that can intervene
\nwisely and judiciously to protect the interests of all citizens.<\/p>\n
It is precisely the neutrality of the state that needs to be
\nsafeguarded, so that it can maintain its interventionist role
\njustly and in full consideration of the plurality and socio-
\npolitical realities of the country.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/state-intervention-in-sexuality-unnecessary-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}