The Tribune

By DR IAN BETHELL BENNETT

According to many, women should know their place - and that is not to be in the public sphere. They must be submissive and allow men to be men.

We have strict behavioural codes for men and women. These we talk about being defined by permitted gendered roles. Men should be dominant and women submissive. Women should be domesticated and homebound and men should control the public sphere (unless a man lets his wife out of the house).

If women ‘choose’ to work, they should not be in masculine occupations or professions as this will diminish the stature of their male colleagues.

These seem to be fixed ideas of what gendered constraints allow. If a woman chooses to stray from sanctioned parameters, then society criticises her. This straying could be as simple as talking in a public space when it is deemed to be a male-dominated space.

Ironically, politics remains one of these spaces. If the challenge to the leadership had come from a man, would the public response be different? Or can we only see leadership being handed down from on high to those men we see as being classified as worthy enough to govern - and who decides that?

With the failure of the gender equality or citizenship (as it has become known) referendum, it has become clear that society is rather sexist. However, the Bahamas is in the company of Grenada in this as well. The fear created was not of women gaining rights, but of same-sex marriage becoming legal. So, all the facts were simply vanished under the weight of the fear mongering brought about by many people who saw this as a way to protect society from corruption.

It also showed that we agree that women do not need to have rights. This kind of thinking has come to light once again by the battle over leadership of the opposition by a woman.

When the initial battle was fought very publically and Loretta Butler-Turner lost the bid to lead because the Free National Movement party supported the current leader, Dr Hubert Minnis, it seemed clear that a woman could not win a political leadership role, and least this woman because she was too pushy and would not ‘sit small’.

Women must know that they are to ‘sit small’ and wait to be called upon, otherwise, they will be called pushy and masculine.

Over the last few days, the criticism against Mrs Butler-Turner indicates that she has fallen into the ‘not being sufficiently female and submissive’. As has been stated in countless forums, ‘if she is a good woman, she should be submissive to male leadership’. The interesting thing is that, if we were to follow this thinking, we would never have become an independent nation. The thought is, much like the criticism hurtled at Haiti, we should know our place and not attempt to be what we cannot be as we will fail.

It is even more interesting that people have rallied against the woman and challenged her for her audacity to challenge the leadership. Only men can lead, they claim. Leadership is masculine. This underscores the thinking that the Bible rules the world and, if the Bible says something in a parable, it cannot and shall not be challenged. According to many women and some men, the leader of the Opposition is divinely chosen by God; he is anointed to be leader and shall never be moved. So, there are at least two biases revealed: one, that women cannot lead and, two that the divine right of Kings still maintains in the country.

Following the latter line of thought, emancipation from slavery probably should never have occurred. The industrial revolution, the Enlightenment and the Renaissance should never have occurred either as they allowed the divine rule to be questioned and those subjects who were held as chattels in earlier times to become human beings with rights. This kind of logic is extremely paternalistic and patriarchal. One should never challenge one’s father because father always knows best. If leadership cannot be challenged then we cannot be free, nor can we choose to elect whomever we choose to elect; they will simply be put there forever and become father.

The former point is also revelatory. We see that women are inferior, must be mothers but not leaders and that they shall always submit to the male leader; in marriage he is the husband, in life he is the man in charge. They may lead unofficially in the home, but even that must be kept under wraps. Women shall not be boss, according to the comments made. The world and the political world, especially, is masculine and off limits to women. This is the same kind of thinking that has allowed Hillary Clinton to garner votes among educated women but not among less educated, rural women in particular parts of the United States.

How did Margaret Thatcher succeed? If she had been Bahamian, could she have ever been Prime Minister? Would the current British Prime Minister, Theresa May, be allowed to govern without being called a vixen, bitter woman or jezebel? If she challenges men, she must be bitter. If she chooses to succeed at a public profession, she is being demeaning to her male counterparts. Why?

Why do we assume that only men can lead and only particular men have the divine right handed to them by God can even attempt to lead?

It is amazing that many of the women aiming insults at these public figures who happen to be women are the very people who are educated and independent, yet they are patriarchal. Many also believe that if a woman doesn’t ‘sit small’ and be quiet when she is in the presence of a man, she should be disciplined. This is simply another justification for violence against women (VAW). It shows that we also believe VAW to be good and justifiable for keeping a bitter woman or vixen in line.

A woman steps out of line when she challenges authority which is always male. If we think like this, how did slavery end? Or is this too far removed (and so no longer a part of Bahamian history) for anyone to think about? Can we ever hope to undo our mental chains and shackles? Or are all women who choose to lead jezebels, vixens and bitter?