Putting up with a male-dominant society
Putting up with a male-dominant society
By Marianus Kleden
KUPANG, East Nusa Tenggara (JP): Megawati Soekarnoputri's
presidential candidacy has bumped against a tradition but not an
argumentation. Muslim clerics have voiced their objection to --
or even rejection of -- a female leader. Without citing any
Koranic verses or hadits as their theological basis, they have
stated that a female head of state would be incongruent with
Islamic law.
The egalitarian and authoritative National Mandate Party (PAN)
chairman Amien Rais once propounded that there was no reason
whatsoever that women could not be university professors or Army
generals, and, as such, presidents as well. Now he joins chairman
of the United Development Party (PPP) Hamzah Has and chairman of
the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) Muslim organization Abdurrahman "Gus
Dur" Wahid to talk about the matter and find a satisfactory way
out. It seems that some authoritative figures, who initially held
a "neno" (neither endorsing nor opposing) position, have now
expressed leniency toward the opposing stance.
Adding to the confusion, Nurcholis Madjid, also a respected
authority on Islamic teachings, on the contrary asserted that no
development whatsoever, including the policies of the winning
party, could hinder the growth and practice of Islamic teachings
in Indonesia. Nurcholis's remark intimated a mild endorsement, or
at least a "neno" posture, concerning Megawati's eligibility for
the top job.
Controversies among these individuals has driven us to suspect
that the problem is not theological but sociological: our nation
is a strong male-dominated society. Our curiosity was aroused
when some NU clerics, not long afterward, changed their initial
nonjudgmental stance concerning their acceptance of any elected
president, male or female. Political analyst Fachri Ali, however,
contended that the imagined tension (read competition) between
Habibie and Megawati was better understood as a sign of
democracy, rather than as a somewhat exaggerated threatening
signal of national disintegration.
The debate aside, what is so wrong with women then? First,
social facts are constructed according to a male image. According
to Western culture, in the beginning God created "man" instead of
"human beings". This "man" implores to "Our Father who art in
Heaven" (instead of "Our Supreme Being") to become a Congressman
(instead of a Congressional Representative). If this Congressman
is not sure of his own sexual preferences, he would prefer to
become gay rather than a homosexual, to avoid being designated as
an "effeminate homosexual", or of being confused with a lesbian,
who is a "female homosexual".
We can see that even in situations where sex designation is
blurred, the male sex is dominant and preferable. No wonder girls
in sororities shout to their friends "Hey guys!" without
realizing that a guy means a grownup male.
A second factor has to do with scientific justifications for
male superiority. Some psychologists would say that man is more
broad-minded, less emotional, more rational, able to keep
secrets, and thus more suitable as a leader. In comparison, women
are stereotypically described as narrow-minded, emotional,
irrational, talkative and more extroverted. The leadership of
Golda Meir, Bandaranaike, Chandrakumaratungga, Indira Gandhi, and
Margaret Thatcher is explained away by some commentators as
something "exceptional". Others say that women can hold such
positions only because they posses some male traits.
Some anthropologists and sociologists claim that in the course
of civilization men usually were breadwinners, while women stayed
at home to become housewives. Nursing the baby and doing house
chores is never coded as an occupation in databases. The fact
that a maid, who is often a babysitter, is usually poorly paid
shows our inadequate appreciation of this job. Furthermore, the
fact that in many cases women contribute more to improving the
family livelihood through simple jobs at home such as basketry,
weaving, sewing, and farming is often ignored by researchers. The
economic value of women is not fairly computed.
In relation to manpower (also sexist terminology) in the
economic domain, personnel recruitment prioritize men over women,
considering women less productive due to menstruation, pregnancy
and nursing of infants. This is also another injustice to women,
because it is through these biological inevitabilities that
manpower sufficiency can be maintained.
The same thing holds true for our nation. Although it is not
spelled out, it is expressed in social behavior.
First, there is the subordinate position of women. If a man
becomes a Cabinet minister, governor, regent, head of district,
university rector, or dean his wife is automatically included in
the position. The wife plays an obligatory subordinate role, say,
as the chairwoman of Dharma Wanita (Association of Wives).
On the other hand, if a woman holds any of these positions,
her husband is not involved in assisting her with the job.
Appointing women to the positions of minister of social services
and state minister for women's affairs is an ornamental
appointment rather than a substantial post in the government. In
most ethnic groups women are kept out of the decision-making
process at adat (customary law) meetings; they would rather stay
in the back to prepare food and drink for the men in the front.
Second, there is victimization of women under the banner of
morality. As a prerequisite for a honorable marriage, virginity
is often demanded from a girl by her future bridegroom and his
family. In a similar vein, schools and colleges, and sometimes
workplaces, tell their students or their employees to be cautious
when socializing, to keep a suitable distance from one's
girlfriend or boyfriend in order to avoid sexual intercourse and
unnecessary pregnancy.
Clearly, what is morally prohibited here is not the pregnancy
but the premarital sex. But who can judge whether one is still a
virgin or not? The only conspicuous and observable indication is
pregnancy. And who is blamed and expelled from a school, a
college, or a workplace if someone becomes pregnant? The girl,
never the boy. The social consequence of this type of morality is
that women are more vulnerable to society's idea of sin. Our
judgment on an individual is based on something visible,
neglecting so many invisible qualities in the woman or the man.
In Megawati's case, our assessment of her credibility is based
on the visual fact that she is a woman, that she prayed in a
Hindu temple, and probably that she lacks demagogue fluency.
Our hesitation to accept Megawati's presidential bid is
nothing but an unwillingness to acknowledge that a female is
going to rule over men, and so we try to justify the position by
theological, scientific, cultural and moral debates.
The writer is a social science lecturer at Widya Mandira
Catholic University in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara.