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.