VII
Assimilation of Gender Discourses
Patriarchy is so firmly entrenched in the West that most people take it for granted. However, this does not alter the fact that it is a gender-based system of domination, whose existence directly benefits men at the same time that it exploits and demeans women.
Moreover, in the relatively underdeveloped countries of Latin America, patriarchal social relations are more in evidence than is the case in Europe or North America, where women have been more successful in countering gender discrimination in their daily lives. Costa Rican women, for example, continue to be treated like second class citizens, the victims of a culture of „machismo’ which denigrates the „feminine’ while celebrating all things „masculine.’
Needless to say, instillation of macho values and norms into children begins at an early age, and consists in the first instance of socializing them into acceptance of the view that men and women are mirror reflections of one another: the one is strong, the other weak; the one is aggressive, the other passive, the one is rational, the other emotional; the one is a breadwinner, the other a home-maker. Of course, once these tenets have been accepted as fact, it is but a short step to the „self-evident’ view men complement women (and vice versa), and thus that heterosexual union is the natural state of being for humankind.
However, if it is natural for men and women to be united in matrimony, it follows (according to the peculiar logic of patriarchal ideology) that all forms of emotional and sexual expression that cannot be readily subsumed under this model are, by definition, „unnatural’. In this way, homosexuality, voyeurism, masturbation and any number of other non-procreative sexual practices are conscribed to a netherworld whose existence is tolerated only so long as it remains hidden from view.
Of course, it need hardly be added that, despite the enthusiasm with which many Costa Rican men embrace machismo, the patriarchal system did not originate in this country. Rather, its roots lie far in the past, obscured by the mists of history and subject to continuing debate among scholars in a wide range of disciplinary fields. While it would require a book in itself to do justice to the complex arguments put forth by these writers, one might nonetheless refer to Engels’ (1970) The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Although it was published more than a century ago, its line of reasoning is plausible, and has provided the basis for much subsequent writing on this topic.
In short, Engels argues that pre-historic societies were characterized by systems of governance that were at once matriarchal and communist and, despite the existence of a sexual division of labour, women’s status was in no way inferior to that of their male counterparts. However, all this changed as agriculture replaced gathering-and-hunting as the principal means of subsistence, with men taking it upon themselves to keep any surplus generated, and, ultimately, to pass it along to their descendants. Moreover, as the locus of sexual power shifted, matriarchal governance structures fell increasingly into disuse, to be replaced by ones grounded in patrilineal succession and patriarchal control.
Needless to say, Engels’ thesis has been greatly developed by feminist scholars in the 1970s and 1980s, who took it upon themselves to engage in further analysis and interpretation of the origins of female subordination and exploitation in Western societies.
Many of these writers posited a biological basis for patriarchy. Jane Schefer (1970), for example, sought to explain the domination of women by men in terms of the latter’s capacity to experience multiple orgasms. Within this frame of reference, women were subordinated in order to circumscribe and control their procreative potential. A similar position was advanced by Susan Brownmiller (1976), who argued that women’s oppression derives from their relative physical weakness. In this view, patriarchy’s roots can be traced to the moment Man first realized that he could use his sexual organ to rape Woman.
Others, meanwhile, placed their emphasis somewhat differently, downplaying the importance of biology while highlighting instead the role of a changing political economy. In a particularly notable example, Gerda Lerner makes the case in The Creation of Patriarchy that it was women’s subordination at the hands of men that provided the basis for the latter’s subsequent domination of nature and other human societies. Interestingly, this position is analogous to that adopted by Firestone when she argues that the workings of the economy are grounded ultimately in sexual relations, rather than relations of production.
Finally, it should be noted that some feminist scholars have gone so far as to reject the notion that there is any biological basis for patriarchy at all. The work of Monique Witting (1971) is typical of this school of thought. Quite simply, not only does she contend that all sex roles and relations are socially constructed, but that even supposedly immutable physical processes (such as childbirth and hormone production) are responsive to changing cultural contexts. In this way, if one is to explain the patriarchal system, one must ground one’s analysis in political rather than anatomical explanations.
What is one to make of the discussion above? Certainly, it underscores the difficulty in arriving at any clear-cut explanation of patriarchy’s origins. However, be this as it may, there can be little doubt that it is remains a potent force in Costa Rica and elsewhere, subjugating and oppressing women while at the same time dictating the bounds of the „normal’ in all matters pertaining to sex roles and relations.
How are sex roles internalized?
From a very early age, boys and girls are taught how to act, think and speak in ways that are 'appropriate' to their gender. Their teachers are many, ranging from parents, siblings and peers, to television, popular music and magazines. Moreover, not only are these messages ubiquitous and multi-variate, but they are constantly reinforced through the threat of ridicule, humiliation and physical violence should an individual fail to abide by them.
As one might imagine, the internalization process is both conscious and unconscious, starting at home and continuing throughout the life-course. Yadira Calvo (in Berrón 1995), a distinguished Costa Rican feminist, recalls learning her subordinate role as a child, in the small details of daily life: in the amount of food served to men and women (the latter are served less), or in processes of household decision-making (all the important decisions are made by men). Moreover, Calvo's experiences are validated by the findings of academic studies of the impact of gender upon adults' perception of babies and young children. That is to say, there is a strong tendency to see girls as passive and boys as aggressive, regardless of the actual behaviour of the children in question (Kaschak 1995).
Other key sites involved in the process of gender internalization include school and church. In the case of the former, this is seen in the way that teachers devote more attention to the boys under their care than the girls. At the same time, girls tend to be interrupted more often when they are speaking, and are given fewer chances to comment or ask questions. As for church, women's subordination is rendered self-evident by the fact that they are banned from entering the priesthood, along with frequent exhortations from the pulpit that they fulfill their God-given role as wives and mothers.
Taken together, these messages serve not only to ensure that individuals comply with the dominant gender order, but they are implicated as well in the creation of a psychology of gender, whereby men and women position themselves according to a particular set of engendered identities. Needless to say, once they are internalized in this way, they become very difficult to change.
Public awareness of gender and the impulse for change
Patriarchal gender relations have been a fixture of Costa Rican society since the earliest days of Spanish rule, and have long provoked resistance on the part of the country's women. While some denounced incidents of rape and incest committed against them, and publicly demanded compensation (Jimenez 1994), others' resistance was more private in orientation, embodying self-empowerment or a refusal to become complicit in the reproduction of the existing gender order.
However, despite the undoubted importance of these women's actions, knowledge about them has been lost or suppressed as a result of mainstream scholars' obsession with history, in which marginal or discordant voices are cast aside as irrelevant. Thus, at the moment that feminist writers purposively set out to re-claim the past through the lens of herstory, the question of whether or not women ever resisted patriarchy was replaced by that of when did this resistance become a matter of public concern.
In Costa Rica, one might argue that the first public manifestation of women's power took place in 1923, as the country's nascent Feminist League embarked upon a campaign to secure women's right to vote. Despite the League's eventual success -female enfranchisement became a reality following the 1948 civil war -it was never able to broaden its base of support beyond a relatively small community of urban-based intellectuals. Thus, it was not until the 1970s, with the wide-scale incorporation of women into the waged labour-force and the re-birth of a national feminist movement energized by the gains made by women in North America and Europe, that feminist ideas began to take root among a broader cross-section of Costa Rica's female population (Berrón 1995).
In short, not only was it at this time that reference began to be made to the country's 'gender problem', but there was also growing recognition of the fact that gender identities, far from being immutable and static, are negotiable and subject to change. Needless to say, this marked a significant departure from the past, and as such its origins warrant further discussion.
Few developments were more important in this regard than the government’s decision in the 1970s to make contraceptives widely available to Costa Rica’s female population. Quite simply, there was a growing concern that large families of ten or more children were no longer appropriate in a country that was attempting to abandon its agricultural past in favour of an industrialized, urbanized future. Thus, in an attempt to reduce family size, clinics and hospitals across the country opened their doors to thousands of women, offering them a range of birth control options, including most notably the Pill.
Whether or not this intervention had its desired effect, there can be little doubt that it had a significant impact upon the women themselves. Not only were they brought together in clinic waiting rooms where they could discuss issues and problems they faced in common, empowering themselves in the process, but their newfound control over the number of babies they bore gave them a degree of autonomy in their relationships with men that would have been unimaginable to their mothers and grandmothers.
Without wishing to exaggerate the impact of contraceptive availability upon the patriarchal system itself, one might nonetheless argue that it served to call into question certain fundamental assumptions regarding women’s „proper’ role in life. Was it merely to produce children and provide sexual and personal services to a working husband? Increasingly, there were those who argued that it was not, with university-based feminists taking the lead in attacking the sexist stereotyping that was endemic in almost all areas of Costa Rican society.
Moreover, at the same time that these activists were engaged in campaigns against beauty contests, female poverty and male violence, ordinary women across the country were beginning to make changes in their own lives, whether going out to find work in the waged workforce, or demanding that their men do more to help them with domestic chores. However, despite their success in undermining some of the assumptions and generalizations that had served them so ill in the past, these were rapidly replaced by new ones that were no less harmful to the cause of sexual equality.
For example, discourses that portrayed women as nothing more than baby-making machines gave way to ones which emphasized the complexities of motherhood, and women’s key responsibility for the psychological and moral development of their children. Along similar lines, the view that a wife is nothing more than her husband’s servant was abandoned in favour of one which cast women in the role of passionate lover and understanding companion, with all of the duties and burdens that this position requires.
Still, regardless of these latter developments, it is clear that men have been put on the defensive by women’s growing assertiveness and independence. While this has led to some concessions on their part -seen for example in their willingness to take on certain household responsibilities they have also become more demanding of their spouses in the area of emotional support, and ready to blame them for their children’s problems. Moreover, it should be noted as well that most Costa Rican women have refrained from pressing for radical change in dominant sex roles and relations. Thus, even though there is widespread agreement that patriarchy remains a force to be reckoned with, few would go so far as to advocate the dismantling of the institutions of marriage and motherhood in their entirety. In this way, one might argue that the country’s feminists are firmly grounded in the liberal camp, and that there is little support for a radical feminist programme of revolutionary change in the way that women and men relate to one another.
The dominant gender order among young Costa Ricans has undergone significant changes over the course of recent years. Thus, although young men are aware of the unambiguously patriarchal nature of their parents and grandparents’ relationships, they have sought to follow a somewhat different path.
Drawing upon findings from the in-depth interviews, male adolescents’ assimilation of gender principles has produced an orientation that might best be described as one of „enlightened despotism’. That is to say, despite arguing that men possess attributes which women lack, and thus that male superiority can be taken for granted, respondents also sought to emphasize the importance of using power responsibly. In this sense, their view is reminiscent of the reform-minded citizens of Ancient Greece who advocated the use of „temperance’ in men’s dealings with women, thereby marking a departure from the highly dictatorial relationship that had been the norm in the past (Foucault 1988).
Although the reasons for this evolution in young men's attitudes are clearly multi-dimensional, one might nonetheless point to two factors which appear to be especially important in this regard. On the one hand, women's struggle for equality, combined with increased rates of participation in the waged workforce, have clearly had an impact on men's assimilation of feminist principles. On the other, men's heightened sensitivity to the dangers posed by HIV/AIDS and other STDs have prompted many to look askance at machismo's emphasis upon proving one's virility through sex with multiple partners.
However, this is not to say that Costa Rican men have internalized a discourse of full equality between the sexes. Instead, as has been made clear above, the dominant discourse has merely shifted its emphasis, with certain restrictions being lifted (eg. on women holding certain jobs) while new demands are imposed. Foremost among the latter is the expectation that wives, besides caring for their husband's children, will also act as his therapist, being 'understanding' and 'supportive' while helping him resolve his emotional crises. Moreover, this role has been extended to encompass offspring as well. No longer is it deemed acceptable for mothers to attend merely to their children's physical needs; safeguarding the latter's psychological development is now seen as being equally important, with responsibility for any lapses in a child's behaviour placed squarely on the shoulders of his or her mother.
Despite the assumption that women can fulfill all that is expected of them while receiving little or no emotional support in return, most of the young men who participated in the study believed women to be the naturally weaker sex, both physically and psychologically. This is seen in Juan's comment that women should not go out alone 'because they might be assaulted', or in Jonathan's recollection of being beaten as a child, and being told that he 'should take the pain like a man.'
Not surprisingly, this tendency to associate weakness with women has led male participants to reject any behaviour that might be considered 'feminine'. For example, Carlos indicated that cooking was unmanly because 'it's a woman's job.' Meanwhile, Jonathan reported being told by his mother that men are meant to 'go out and earn a living,' and thus should not be required to perform domestic tasks. As for Maikol, he distinguishes men and women on the basis of whether or not it is appropriate for them to cry. Finally, Jorge and Donaldo differentiate the sexes according to personal habits and appearance, with the latter arguing that only women should have long hair, while the former stated that he found it odd when men devoted time to 'womanly things', such as dressing fashionably or grooming themselves.
Still, it is clear that young men's definition of what constitutes 'womanly things' is undergoing something of a transformation. In particular, there appears to be growing acceptance, at least among some of the interview participants, of male involvement in activities related to the social reproduction of the household, such as cooking and cleaning. Thus, despite the fact that his father does not help with domestic chores, Kenneth indicated that he regularly sweeps and washes the floor. Along similar lines, Guillermo stated that doing housework does not 'bother' or 'embarrass' him.
Interestingly, sports and the workplace are two additional areas where there is evidence of a more progressive attitude on the part of some of the male participants. Mainor, for one, suggested that women should be able to "study and work in whatever field they like. These days there are women bus drivers and women mechanics.' Others agreed, with Guillermo and Aaron stating that even construction work should not be off-limits to those women who wished to pursue it. Moreover, the issue of sporting activities elicited a similar response. In short, respondents felt it was unfair to prevent women from participating in certain sports solely on the basis of their sex, with the only exception being boxing, because (according to Aaron) 'there's this idea about women being too feminine for this sort of thing.'
As one might imagine, this latter point is an important one, underlining as it does the fact that there are still some forms of behaviour that the young men interviewed will not tolerate among their female friends and lovers.
Foul language is the first such area that is considered taboo, and all the more so if the words in question are related to sex or sexual organs. For example, as David made clear, a 'decent' woman would never dare say such things as 'let's fuck' or 'let me suck your dick.' Most other participants agreed, with Santiago going so far as to say that he broke up with his girl-friend because 'she let dirty words slip out.'
Sexually forward or aggressive women were similarly reviled by male research participants. On the one hand, this is seen in the dim view taken of women who ask men out, with Aaron in particular arguing that women should never take the initiative and should always be more 'conservative'. On the other, there was widespread hostility towards women who had extramarital affairs or multiple partners. Although some tempered their criticism by acknowledging that they expected women to adhere to a higher standard of behaviour, there was a clear consensus among the participants that such behaviour could not be tolerated. Thus, Danny argued that women who initiate sex risk being raped, while David referred to such individuals as 'holes' and 'pigs'. Finally, Donaldo stated that women should resist the urge to engage in intercourse because they might get pregnant and have to support the child.
However, so long as women observe these interdictions, it was generally felt that men should exercise their power magnanimously, and treat members of the „weaker’ sex with respect and consideration. Luis, for example, stressed that women should not be treated like „objects’ or „slaves’, and that it was men’s duty to „protect’ their female friends and relatives from potential aggressors. In similar fashion, Mainor suggested that men should choose their words carefully and not be „coarse’ when in female company, a point echoed by Carlos, who emphasized the importance of always being respectful, courteous and affectionate towards women.
Although there was general consensus among male participants that they must act responsibly towards the women in their lives, most went on to say that they were generally happy with dominant sex roles and relations. Thus, even though Frederico was cognizant of men’s „authoritarian’ tendencies, he indicated that he was „quite satisfied’ with his upbringing and the way in which he related to women. As for Aaron, despite claiming that he was not a partisan of machismo himself, felt that it would be unwise to attempt to alter existing sex roles, since this would be viewed „unfavourably’ by many segments of society. Conversely, both Guillermo and Jorge, even as they argued that much of men and women’s behaviour is ingrained and thus difficult to change, said that they wished men could give freer rein to their emotions.
Of course, whether or not young men have any interest in moving away from macho forms of sexual expression, in many cases they are being forced to do so by the prospect of contracting HIV/AIDS. In short, for the majority of interview participants -even those who were 18 or 19 years of age -the dangers posed by this disease were such that they abstained from sex altogether, even if this meant being unable to boast about one’s virility to one’s friends. Thus, while Aaron explained his virginity by noting that „abstinence helps to avoid risks,’ Jorge went so far as to claim that he never even masturbates, so great is his fear of HIV infection and God’s wrath.
Not surprisingly, when one turns one's attention to women’s understanding of these issues, a somewhat different picture emerges. Although female participants were in broad agreement with their male counterparts on the biological roots of gender, and in particular the notion that men and women's roles in life are opposite yet complementary, in no way did they believe that this justified women's subordination.
Thus, even as they acknowledged men's superior strength, courage and stamina, the young women interviewed went on to argue in favour of a gender order based on specialization rather than domination, in which men and women devote themselves to different tasks and responsibilities and, in so doing, enhance the quality of each other's lives.
What does gender 'specialization' entail? As one might imagine, it is firmly grounded within the dominant paradigm, with several participants arguing that hormonal differences between the sexes, together with women's central role in biological reproduction, dictate what the latter should and should not do. As Susana put it, 'women are more maternal ... they have to stay in the house because they're the ones who get pregnant and have to care for the children. That's natural and cannot be changed.' Other female participants agreed, with Adriana arguing that 'since women conceive, they're made for housework,' while Diana suggested that fondness for children is 'in women's genes, it's totally natural.'
However, if the young women who participated in the study were united in stressing the key importance of maternal 'instinct' in women's lives, there was far less agreement on the latter's implications. Thus, while some adopted an extreme position and stated that women should devote themselves exclusively to domestic activities, others were more open-minded, arguing that there should be little or no restrictions on women's career choices, with the possible exception of policing and construction work. Needless to say, those who were more conservative in their outlook tended to be equally uncomfortable with women's involvement in sports. Wendoly was particularly adamant in this regard, stressing that soccer, baseball and basketball were all activities that should be off-limits to women.
Still, despite the traditionalism of some of the research participants, all felt that men should play an active part in child care and daily household chores. Hilda, for one, believes that husbands owe it to their wives to take responsibility for half of this work: 'I think that if a woman can do the household chores, so can a man.' In similar fashion, both Adriana and Tatiana emphasized that housework should be shared equally among men and women, with Adriana going so far as to argue that men should help cook as well.
Moreover, an egalitarian outlook was also in evidence when discussing questions of mobility. That is to say, female participants strongly disagreed with the view, espoused by many of their male counterparts, that restrictions should be placed upon women's freedom of movement. Thus, Tatiana said that she gets irritated when her mother asks her father for permission to leave their home, when she knows full well that her father needs no such permission himself. In a similar vein, Hilda expressed dismay at her mother's submissiveness, and the fact that she is 'stuck inside the house when [her father] goes out whenever he likes.' Finally, Maria indicated that she does not understand why she has less freedom than the male members of her family. As she put it, 'they do whatever they please and if they want they don't even have to come home to sleep, yet I have to ask permission for everything.'
Of course, closely related to the issue of mobility rights is that of female objectification. As one might imagine, there was widespread repulsion towards men who partake of pornography, sexual violence or other activities which debase women. Wendoly, for example, indicated that she feels disgust whenever a 'man makes insinuations by gripping his crotch.' In parallel fashion, Daisy has little respect for her male class-mates who continuously boast about their sexual exploits, and is sickened by the way in which they treat the sex act as though it were 'like drinking a glass of water.'
Needless to say, sexual violence aroused a similar degree of repulsion, with several participants indicating that they would never tolerate it in the context of a relationship. Wendoly went furthest in this regard, having related the story of how she had been raped her father's friend, a violation that had left her with feelings of great 'resentment' and a 'thorn in the heart.'
However, in spite of the views expressed above, it is clear that the young women interviewed do support key aspects of the patriarchal gender system, if only for fear of what would take its place. In the words of Dunia, 'I don't know what would happen if there were no differences between men and women and we were all alike; I'd worry that we would no longer have any rapport with each other.'
Thus, the majority of female participants had little wish to change the way in which men and women interacted on a day-to-day basis. Wendoly, for one, felt it was very important that men be masculine and women feminine: 'it's horrible to see a woman who's aggressive and not submissive' or, for that matter, a man who dresses up 'like a woman.' Daisy shares this view, arguing that 'there should be differences' between the sexes, and that it behoves women to 'show off their femininity and dress in tight clothing.' Others agreed, all the while stressing the unsightliness of men who choose to dress in an 'unmasculine' fashion. In Susana's estimation the latter are usually 'faggots', just as women who pay little attention to their personal appearance are probably 'dykes'.
Sex and courtship initiation are two additional areas where female participants were happy with the existing distribution of roles and responsibilities. With regard to the latter issue in particular, there was general consensus that women should always wait for the man to take the initiative. Otherwise, as Daisy put it, they would be considered 'very fresh' at best, and prostitutes at worst, since 'only hookers ask men out.' Along similar lines, the majority of young women also felt that men should be the ones to play a leading role in the sex act itself, since they were thought to be more knowledgeable in these matters than their female counterparts. Tatiana, for example, felt it was important for men to 'help' their wives on the night of their wedding, as 'the woman is usually very nervous.' Leidy agreed with this perspective, arguing that men will inevitably have more experience 'because nobody could care less whether he's a virgin or not on his wedding night.'
Given the discussion above, is one to conclude that young women are generally happy with the manner in which the men in their lives interact with them? While there is clearly some appreciation for men's forwardness in the realm of relationships, the bulk of participants went on to say that they wished their men were more communicative and expressive. Hilda, for one, said that although she is attracted to strong, masculine men, she would 'like them to be more affectionate and giving.' Likewise, several participants commented upon the tendency among men to treat their girl-friends like inanimate objects, with scant regard for the latter's feelings. Thus, as Leidy made clear, there is a need for men to counter this state of affairs by 'surrendering ' to their emotions and being more giving in the context of their relationships .
Indeed, in many respects Leidy's perspective is typical of female participants' view of gender relations in general. That is to say, even as they show themselves willing to accept certain premises set forth within the existing gender system, for example in the areas of dress