State intervention in sexuality unnecessary

State intervention in sexuality unnecessary

This is the second of two articles on state and sexuality by
sociologist Julia I. Suryakusuma, also executive director of the
API Foundation for political research, information and
publication in Jakarta.

JAKARTA (JP): Does the 1983 regulation (PP10) really defend
women's interests? Decidedly not. Its complicated procedures and
heavy sanctions lead people to circumvent the rules. Besides, the
procedure causes profound embarrassment, especially in the
context of "eastern culture".

One respondent, a woman civil servant who had secretly
separated from her husband told me how embarrassed she was to
have to report personal matters to her (male) superior. As a
result, women become atomized and isolated because they were
afraid to trust anyone, including other women.

There was also a tendency for cases to pile up, because the
superiors also felt awkward and incompetent to intervene in
marital matters.

In the end PP10 disempowers rather than protects women. Very
seldom would the wife of a civil servant be willing to report on
her own husband due to the fear that his career will suffer,
which will in turn harm her and the family's welfare. This
especially applies to those accustomed to receiving facilities
that accrue from a high bureaucratic position.

If the wife is dependent on her husband for her livelihood,
she has no choice but to accept her fate. High-ranking female
civil servants are also reluctant to risk their position. Thus,
if a couple no longer gets along, or no longer loves each other,
but cannot provide a reason to divorce that is acceptable to
their superior, they live in prolonged hypocrisy and suffering.

In the beginning, the wives used PP10 to retaliate. But when
they became victims of their own struggle, other women learned
from these experiences and chose the safe route, however painful.

They also accepted their husbands' sexual adventures as an
unpreventable fact of life. The important thing was that the
husbands didn't take on a subsequent wife ("let them spend, so
long as they don't bring a goat home" or biar jajan, asal jangan
bawa kambing pulang); as the economic consequences of another
wife were greater than that of just "fooling around".

Thus, in the end, the wives colluded in making hypocrisy
flourish -- they learned to strategize. In the face of their
husbands' infidelity, older wives learned to accept their fate.
However, younger wives were more active and also engaged in
extramarital activities, for revenge, but also to obtain the
satisfaction they did not get from their husbands.

This has given rise to a marital culture that is
characteristic of civil servants, fraught with oppression,
hypocrisy and manipulation.

Even 10 years ago it was clear that PP10 was more negative
than positive: full of inconsistencies and contradictions,
complicated procedures, sometimes with impossible conditions
(such as proving adultery on the spot with two witnesses at
hand), bureaucratic, oppressive, militaristic, hierarchical,
divisive, humiliating, often inhuman, inciting manipulative,
materialistic, calculating, dishonest and hypocritical behavior,
and inherently containing a deep gender and class bias.

In reality, PP10 which the Dharma Wanita wives had hoped to be
their lethal weapon had become a boomerang against them.

How is then Indonesia to protect female civil servants and
wives of civil servants? The answer is in the revision of
existing laws so that they not only protect civil servants but
also Indonesian women as a whole.

Although polygamy is allowed for Muslims, the Marriage Law is
monogamous in principle, and polygamy is very difficult to engage
in, at least in theory. If the Marriage Law contains flaws and
weaknesses, it should be amended.

A regulation aimed at only one group is no solution. In the
current marriage law, positioning the husband as head of the
household and the woman as the housewife who should obey him
clearly puts her in a weak position as it gives ultimate power
to him.

This is the reason why domestic violence and marital rape are
not recognized in Indonesia. It is also this status which limits
women's access to resources, for example credits, which tend to
be given to men as heads of households. It is also more difficult
for women to initiate divorce, their sexual rights not fully
recognized, inter-religious marriages are not accommodated (which
makes children born in these marriages "illegitimate"), and
children born out of wedlock illegal.

Clearly this is an infringement on the human rights of women
and children.

The pretension of PP10 is to protect, but it is inherently
discriminatory because it gives "special" treatment to one group
-- civil servants. The state should be able to adjudicate among
groups -- whether based on class, religion, ethnicity, race,
profession or gender.

If people's conscience can be relied on -- as State Minister
for the Empowerment of Women Khofifah Indar Parawansa hopes --
then personal matters such as polygamy, marriage, divorce and
family responsibilities, do not require state intervention.

However, because of a deep-rooted gender bias in society
against women, there should be a neutral party that can intervene
wisely and judiciously to protect the interests of all citizens.

It is precisely the neutrality of the state that needs to be
safeguarded, so that it can maintain its interventionist role
justly and in full consideration of the plurality and socio-
political realities of the country.