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.