According to lehne a major source of customary homophobia is

iStockphoto

Chapter Outline

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Distinguish between sex and gender.

2. Distinguish the various ways of defining sex.

3. List some of the common sexual differences in humans.

4. Discuss cultural differences that have existed in gender roles.

5. Explain the concept of third and fourth genders.

6. Discuss the relationships between gender, power, and honor.

7. Analyze and explain the causes of gender inequality.

8. Discuss the nature of sexual orientation and cultural responses to homosexuality.

Gender and Culture 5

5.1 Sex and Gender

• Sexual Differences • Gender

5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

• Socialization of Gender Differences • Common Gender Patterns in the Division of

Labor • Gender Roles and Subsistence

5.3 Supernumerary Genders

• Two Spirits • The Hijra

5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

• The Politics of Gender Stratification • Patriarchy • The Causes of Gender Inequality

5.5 Sexual Orientation

• Sexual Orientation, Biology, and Socialization • Homophobia

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 119 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Sex and Gender

This chapter focuses attention on gender, the social roles that are assigned and learned based on cultural concepts about the nature of sex differences, and their place in social life. In all cultures, gender roles have differed to some degree, but the differences have not always entailed differences in access to social honor and power. This chapter will discuss the difference between biological sex and socially learned gender roles, the conditions on which access to honor and power become differenti- ated by gender, the diversity of male and female roles in the world’s many cultures, and the existence of cultures in which there are more than two culturally identified genders. The biological nature and social roles that pertain to sexual orientation will also be discussed.

5.1 Sex and Gender

The word “sex” is often used as a synonym for “gender” by the public, but anthro-pologists give different meanings to each word. The term sex refers to biological distinctions such as the chromosomal, hormonal, or physical differences between males and females. Gender defines the social statuses and roles into which people are socialized based on cultural concepts about the sexes. In this chapter, we will look at some of the complexities of both sex and gender.

Sexual Differences Humans are biological creatures as well as cultural beings. Biologically, most humans are either male or female. Females and males differ biologically in various ways. Chro- mosomally, women have two X chromosomes, and men have an X and a Y. Because only males carry the Y chromosome, the sex of a child is determined by whether it received an X or a Y chromosome from its father.

Males and females differ in both their primary sexual characteristics, such as genitals and reproductive organs, and the secondary sexual characteristics that develop during puberty, such as breasts in females and low-pitched voices and a broad distribution of body hair in males. Anatomically, males in the human species are, on average, slightly larger than females, a characteristic known as sexual dimorphism. The sexes also gener- ally differ in how strength is manifested. Males typically are able to exert higher levels of energy for short periods, while females tend to have greater endurance and are generally hardier. This distinction can be noticed at all stages of development. For instance, females seem to have a naturally higher life expectancy, although this is counteracted in many societies by social conditions that increase women’s mortality rates. In anthropology, the term sex is reserved for these kinds of biological distinctions.

It should be noted that while most individuals are male or female, this dichotomy fails to capture the actual range of sexual variation within our species. Specifically, there is a vari- ety of types of intersexed persons: individuals whose physical characteristics include both male and female sex traits. About 1% of live births involve some degree of sexual ambigu- ity. The differences fall along a continuum from individuals in whom most of the female characteristics may be present along with a few of the male characteristics to individuals in whom most of the male characteristics are present along with a few of the female traits.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 120 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Sex and Gender

Classic hermaphroditism is a particular case in which both male reproductive anatomy (e.g., a penis and testicles) and female reproductive anatomy (e.g., a vagina and ovaries) are present. There are also individuals in whom no reproductive anatomy develops at all. Intersexed persons may also differ in physiological aspects that do not correspond with their chromosomally defined sex. For instance, there are individuals who, despite having both an X and a Y chromosome (the pattern usually found in males), have a genetic muta- tion that causes their bodies to develop with female rather than male characteristics.

Gender Gender is a social identity that consists of the social roles a person is expected to play because of his or her sex. Whereas we are born with sexual characteristics, our gender is something we must learn. All cultures recognize the existence of at least two genders: Females are typically socialized into the roles that lead them to have a social identity as

“women,” while males learn men’s roles to become “men.” However, there are cultures (discussed below) that recognize at least one additional set of gender roles.

It is not surprising that the aver- age differences between males and females figure into gender stereo- types, preconceived ideas about how women and men differ in their personality traits, behavioral skills, and predispositions. However, it is a mistake to believe that biology is the cause of gender differences. In the first place, biological differences are average distinctions between males and females as groups, but there is a range of individual differences

within both sexes, and they overlap more than they differ in most characteristics. Thus, some males may have greater endurance than most females, and some females may be able to exert more strength than most males. If biology caused gender differences, then they too would be merely statistical averages between what males and females did socially. But gender differences do not simply arise out of our personal predispositions to play various roles. Rather, gender stereotypes are cultural guidelines that tell us how we are expected to act. It is our culture’s gender stereotypes, not biology, that most directly channel us into our different gender roles. Sometimes gender stereotypes become so important that people refuse to acknowledge that individuals of one sex are capable of playing roles usu- ally expected of members of the other sex. Rigid enforcement of gender stereotypes that prevents individuals from playing roles that are not typically assigned to their own sex is called sexism.

As is true of other kinds of stereotypes, gender stereotypes can be wrong and stifling to those whose characteristics do not fit them, but they sometimes reflect common (though not universal) differences between the sexes. Some studies have pointed to typical

Digital Vision/Thinkstock Culture defines masculine behavior, and that definition can vary among and within cultures.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 121 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

psychological differences between the sexes that conform to some traditional Western ste- reotypes. For instance, Beatrice Whiting and John Whiting (1975) carried out an in-depth study of children in six different societies, where they found a number of psychological characteristics that cross-cut cultural boundaries. For instance, boys and girls both showed dependence, but expressed it in different ways: Girls tended to seek help and contact, while boys sought attention and approval. They found no differences between boys and girls in seeking and offering friendship to others, and they found that girls behaved as actively as boys. Some differences in the behavior of boys and girls in the six societies, however, were also discovered. Boys played more aggressively and in larger groups than girls did, and older boys were more likely to respond to aggression with aggression. Twenty-five years later, another team of researchers studying children in four different cultures reached related conclusions with regard to aggression. The boys they observed exhibited aggres- sive behaviors in about 10% of their interactions with their peers, whereas the girls did so in only 6% of their interactions. This was a small but statistically significant difference (Munroe et al., 2000). Thus, there appear to be some general psychological characteristics that distinguish the sexes even in childhood and even across cultures. The way in which gender stereotypes can become problematic, then, is when they are treated as mandates or as necessarily valid for every individual, and when the alleged attributes of one sex are socially privileged over the attributes of the other sex.

5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

Gender is culturally defined, and there are significant differences from culture to culture in the specific roles of men and women. What is thought of as masculine or feminine behavior in one culture may not be thought of in the same way in another culture. Such differences are influenced by many factors such as environmental resources, economics, kinship, politics, and religion. In this section, we will explore diversity within gender.

Socialization of Gender Differences Anthropologists have noted that in every society there are socialization practices through which children learn what it takes to be a male or female participant in their society. Socialization can occur both directly (e.g., parents teaching their children how to behave in certain circumstances) and indirectly (e.g., children observing what other adults and children do). There is much at stake in socialization practices. For example, the “incom- plete” socialization of children can be problematic: In some societies, people fear child soldiers or street children because they are said to be unsocialized and thus immoral and threatening to the status quo (Honwana, 2007; Kovats-Bernat, 2006).

In 1950, the well-known anthropologist Margaret Mead did fieldwork among three New Guinea societies in which people are socialized into gender roles that are quite different from the typical roles we find in North America. Her descriptions of the Arapesh, Mundu- gumor, and Tschambuli (now called the Chambri) make it clear that how people think about being masculine or feminine is highly variable and determined by culture rather than by any absolute dictates of biology. Although there were gender role differences among the Arapesh, no basic temperamental differences were thought to exist between

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 122 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

males and females. Neither men nor women were believed to be driven by spontaneous sexuality, and violence, though tolerated, was not linked to either sex. Men were expected to be gentle, unacquisitive, and cooperative. Women were taught to accept anything out of the ordinary without curiosity. From childhood on, they were actively discouraged from asking questions about anything unusual and from engaging in speculative thought, which was encouraged in boys.

The people of a not-too-distant tribe from the Arapesh, the Mundugumor, were quite different in their attitudes about the sexes. The Mundugumor were headhunters and cannibals, and the life of a male was character- ized by fighting and the competitive acquisition of women through war- fare. They assumed that there was a natural hostility between members of the same sex. As a result, inheritance of most property crossed sex bound- aries with each generation from father to daughter and from mother to son. Compatibly with their way of life, both males and females were raised to have violent social person- alities and to place no value on sen- suality. For instance, breast-feeding of infants was done in a utilitarian way, with no hint of pleasure; nursing was carried out only to give the baby food and never to comfort it from fright or pain.

Finally, the Chambri, a third nearby group, did distinguish personality differences between men and women, although their expectations differed radically from role expectations of men and women in North America. The Chambri preferred marriages in which a man had many wives. Ancestry was traced through the men of the family. Men owned the houses and the land and officially “owned” their wives. But in practice, women held the main power in society. It was they who made most of the economic decisions, and they took the initiative in social life. For instance, Chambri women were socialized to be sexually aggressive, while the men were not.

Despite the great differences in their beliefs about gender, the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Chambri tribes lived within a hundred miles from one another. Such extremely contrast- ing examples demonstrate that the personalities of men and women in any one society are not unambiguous manifestations of inherent characteristics that are fixed by nature. Rather, they are manifestations of each society’s culturally patterned role expectations— expectations that are fostered through child socialization and throughout one’s adult life.

Common Gender Patterns in the Division of Labor In spite of differences in how gender roles may be structured, there is a pattern to differences in roles that are commonly assigned to women and men. A cross-cultural

Monkey Business/Thinkstock Gender socialization begins at a very early age. Boys are often encouraged to be outgoing, while girls are told to be more restrained.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 123 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

study by Murdock and Provost (1973) revealed that throughout the world, males are almost always responsible for hunting large land and sea animals and game birds, and for trapping smaller animals. They are usually expected to fish, to herd large animals, to collect wild honey, and to clear the land and prepare it for planting. Women are usually involved in gathering wild plant foods. Other food production activities, such as collect- ing shellfish; caring for small animals; milking animals; and planting, tending, and har- vesting crops, are not consistently assigned to either men or women. As a matter of fact, such tasks are often roles of either gender. Men usually butcher animals, while women most often cook; prepare vegetable foods, drinks, and dairy products; launder; carry water; and collect fuel. Preserving meat or fish for future use may be done by either men or women or by both.

The common division of labor that Murdock and Provost reported for getting and prepar- ing food most often associates men with work that requires strength or rapid bursts of energy and women with work in which lower levels of strength are required for longer periods. This pattern seems to apply to other areas of work as well. For instance, men typically do woodworking, including felling trees, preparing wood, and building boats. They also are almost always the ones who mine and quarry stone, smelt ores, and work with bone, horn, and shell. Men usually build houses and make nets and ropes. On the other hand, spinning yarn is almost always done by women. Either or both genders pre- pare skins and make leather products, baskets, mats, clothing, or pottery. Whyte (1978) has added to Murdock and Provost’s list by noting that it is almost always men who are involved in warfare and who hold most positions of political leadership. Weisner and Gal- limore (1977) have noted that childcare is usually carried out by women.

According to J. K. Brown (1970), two other biological factors besides strength and metabo- lism also have an influence on gender roles: pregnancy and lactation. Since women of childbearing age in most parts of the world spend about half of their time either preg- nant or nursing children, it is easy to see why women’s roles usually include most of the childcare responsibilities as well as other duties that can be carried out while pregnant or tending children. By contrast, men’s roles include many activities that take them away from home for long periods, or activities that, although done near the home, must be done without the interruption that childcare would involve. In addition, many male activities, such as hunting large game, would be dangerous to children. While these things do not preclude possibilities such as leaving children in the care of someone else while a woman hunts, such practices are less cost effective than a gendered division of labor in which men are the primary hunters while women typically perform work that can be done while also being involved in childcare. It is the social efficiency of this gendered division of labor— not a mandate of biology itself—that has resulted in this pattern becoming typical of soci- eties in which hunting is important.

The common gender differences in tasks that seem unrelated to either strength or child- care may simply be secondary effects of tasks that can be explained in these ways. For instance, men’s involvement in making musical instruments is probably influenced by their other work with wood, just as their work at making nets and ropes may arise from the common use of these tools in activities such as fishing, trapping, and smelting. Although men’s prominence in warfare may be related to their typically greater size and proportion of muscle to body weight, it is also true that many of men’s roles, such as hunting and fishing, take them away from home to locations where strangers are more

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 124 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

likely to be encountered and where conflict is more likely to arise. The weapons of war are also typically the same kinds of tools that men are accustomed to using in activities such as hunting. In small-scale societies, the association of men with warfare most certainly increases their likelihood of entering positions of political leadership where decisions are made about matters such as relations with neighboring groups of potential enemies. In sum, the predominant role of men in warfare cannot be explained as simply a result of bio- logical differences such as an innately greater tendency toward violence in males. Social circumstances, not just biology, clearly play a role.

Gender Roles and Subsistence A look at the broad range of human cultures shows clearly that the U.S. division of labor in which men are seen as “providers” who provide and control food and other resources, while

women focus on the household, is far from inevitable. This is made appar- ent by studies of gender and subsis- tence. For example, Lee and DeVore’s famous book Man the Hunter (1968a) construed hunting as exclusively the role of men. However, the book has since been criticized for focusing on hunting as the major form of subsis- tence and for its narrow definition of hunting, which emphasized the killing of large aquatic and land ani- mals. By contrast, others have shown that even if women “hunt” less, they still make significant contributions to subsistence and food production (Jarvenpa & Brumbach, 2006) by, for example, processing the meat after the kill (Gifford-Gonzalez, 1993). In fact, women in some foraging societ- ies contribute as much as 80% of the

calories their families eat (Service, 1962; Lee & DeVore, 1968b; Tanaka, 1977). However, on average, women’s subsistence production in all foraging societies represents about 28% of the family’s food. Women’s subsistence contribution tends to be larger than that in societ- ies that practice horticulture or agriculture without irrigation. Peggy Sanday (1973) has reported that women produce from about 33% to about 45% of the subsistence in such societies. Moreover, in parts of Africa, small subsistence farmers are mostly women, who play key role in agricultural production, raising livestock, and processing food. In the Congo, agricultural activities are dominated by women, who produce over 80% of the food crops. In Morocco, over half of women are active in agriculture, and the proportion of total agriculture work carried out by women is 45%, while men carry out about 42%, and children carry out about 14%. Overall, in Africa, women’s contribution to production of food crops range from 30% (Sudan) to 80% (Congo) (FAO, 1995).

However, more complex forms of food production technology, such as irrigation-based agriculture, are associated with heavy labor. The subsistence contribution of women is

Randy Olson/National Geographic Stock Foraging societies often divide roles by sex, with the men hunting and the women gathering. Here, a Mbuti Pygmy hunter with spear and rolled up net for snaring game hunts for dinner.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 125 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Supernumerary Genders

low in societies that practice intensive agriculture and, in particular, it is low where irri- gation is part of the agricultural work. Although industrialized technology reduces the amount of physical labor women must perform well below the levels that are common in agrarian societies, the process of becoming industrialized involves increased poverty and deprivation among women in the lower social classes and rural women.

5.3 Supernumerary Genders

Although all cultures recognize at least two genders, there are some cultures in which supernumerary genders—third or fourth genders—exist. These typi- cally involve a change of the usual association of men’s roles with the male sex and of women’s roles with the female sex. Two examples of third and fourth genders are the North American Indian Two Spirits (formerly known as berdache) and the hijra of India.

Two Spirits A number of indigenous North Amer- ican societies had a social status that has come to be known as a Two Spirits (formerly called a berdache in anthropological literature): a female, male, or intersexed person who had adopted gender roles that mixed the characteristics of the two other genders. Two Spirits were particularly common among men of Plains Indians tribes where warfare was an almost sacred preoccupation and where the male role placed strong emphasis on demonstrations of pride, bravery, and daring. This led some early anthropologists to erroneously interpret the Two Spirits role as a cultural alternative for men who lacked the skill for or interest in the aggressive pursuits of the traditional male role (Hoebel, 1949). They assumed that such a man might instead opt for the life of a Two Spirits by adopting the dress, work, and mannerisms of a woman. More recent research suggests that this interpretation reflects colonial gender constructs rather than indigenous models and oversimplifies a complex and highly variable social reality. Most individuals who became Two Spirits did so not to avoid unpleasant aspects of their assigned gender roles but to resolve their gender dysphoria, or profound sense of mismatch between their birth sex and their gender identity. In his survey of the literature and his own research among the Lakota, Walter Williams (1992, 2010) found that most Native Ameri- can societies with Two Spirits provide some sort of social or spiritual acknowledgement or legitimation of their gender role.

Eye Ubiquitous/SuperStock The hijra are considered genderless but perform roles of both genders.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 126 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Supernumerary Genders

Far from being ridiculed or shunned by other members of their community, Two Spirits held a sacred status in many Native American societies. Often they played important cer- emonial roles, and in some cases all shamans were required to be Two Spirits. A female who became a Two Spirits actually moved up the status hierarchy and might achieve wealth and social prominence by doing so, as the change allowed her to participate in what were considered the more advantageous male pursuits such as trade. A Two Spirits “man” might marry and even rear children by having another man impregnate his wife, or a Two Spirits “woman” might hire another woman as a surrogate mother. For an illus- tration see Figure 5.1.

The Hijra Serena Nanda (1985, 1990) has described the hijra, a socially recognized third gender in India. The hijra, most of whom live in cities in north India, are regarded as neither male nor female, but their roles include elements of both. Like the Two Spirits of the North Ameri- can Indians, the hijra gender also includes religious roles. As devotees of the Mother God- dess Bahuchara Mata, the hijra are expected to undergo a surgical removal of their exter- nal genitalia and to live an asexual life. Their sexual abstinence is believed to be a source of sacredness that allows the hijra to give blessings of fertility, prosperity, and health or to cause infertility through their curses. The hijra perform as musicians and dancers at chris- tenings and at weddings. In these roles, the hijra are spiritually identified with the Hindu god Shiva, who also plays the roles of singer, dancer, eunuch, and transvestite. However, much like the Native American Two Spirits, colonial influences have transformed the hijra gender role and degraded the status of hijras in modern Indian society. Hijras still perform many important social and religious functions, but outside of those contexts they face ridi- cule, discrimination, and sometimes violence. Some remain on good terms with their fam- ilies, while others have been ostracized. Most live in communal hijra households headed by senior hijras called gurus. Earning a living can be extremely difficult for a hijra, leading many to resort to panhandling and prostitution to generate income, much of which they must hand over to their hijra guru to support the household.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 127 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

Figure 5.1: The hijras and their patron goddess

Hijras worship the Hindu goddess Bahuchara Mata. She was from the Charan family, where the custom was to kill oneself rather than surrender to the enemy. Legend has it that she and her sisters were on a journey when their caravan was attacked by Bapiya. Seeing this Bahuchara and her sisters cut their breasts off and cursed Bapiya to impotency. The curse was only lifted when he worshipped Bahuchara Mata by dressing and acting like a woman.

5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

Studies by feminist anthropologists have revealed some important new insights into the causes of inequality between women and men. Many societies that anthropolo-gists have studied have social organizations that include gender stratification, an ordering of men and women that involves different access to social power and pres- tige. Sanday (1974) has suggested four measures of the social power of women’s rank: (1) female control of material things such as land, produce, and crafts outside the domes- tic unit; (2) demand for women’s produce outside the family unit locally or in external markets; (3) women’s right to participate in the political process in a way that influences policy affecting those outside their domestic unit; and (4) the presence of female solidar- ity groups that protect women’s political or economic interests. She found that women’s rank, evaluated by these measures, varied considerably from society to society, and that when women’s economic contribution to subsistence was very high or very low com- pared to men’s, women’s power tended to be low. Most of the roles Sanday associates

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 128 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

with women’s status and power are in the public rather than domestic sphere. Louise Lamphere (2001) explored the distinction between the public and domestic sphere and found that its importance is greatly diminished in foraging and horticultural societies, where many domestic activities are collective or cooperative and most take place in public or communal spaces. Like Sanday, she found that it is in this middle range, where men and women cooperated in subsistence production and contributed more or less equally to the economy, that women’s social power was greatest. This suggests that economic dependency functions to perpetuate low levels of power for women, but when women become the major economic mainstay of families, men tend to find other spheres for exert- ing their social power.

Other researchers have found that women enjoy relatively high status in societies that trace descent through females and have a matrilocal postmarital residence pattern (Friedl, 1975; Martin & Voorhis, 1975; Peletz, 1988). Blackwood’s (2000) research in the Minangka- bau villages of Sumatra suggests that this is partly due to the support woman receive from their kinswomen and partly to the greater control they have over property. Men in this type of society are removed from their own kin groups, which weakens their power base by loosening their ties to their kinsmen. In societies that trace descent through men and have a patrilocal postmarital residence pattern, men’s ties with their male kinfolk are much stronger. These types of arrangements are often associated with external trade and warfare. Under such circumstances, men have greater power and honor, and women have significantly lower status. However, even in societies with patrilineal descent and patrilocal residence, social mechanisms sometimes exist that enhance women’s power and influence. Among the Igbo of Nigeria, for example, women control market exchanges of the fruits of their own and their husbands’ labor. As a result, they enjoy higher status than typical of women in horticultural societies with patrilineal descent and patrilocal postmarital residence (Njoku, 1990). Toyin Falola (1995) found that Yoruba women, like their Igbo neighbors, derive considerable power and influence from their market trading activities, despite the patrilineal/patrilocal emphasis in their society.

The Politics of Gender Stratification Although examples such as those above illustrate that gender equality is possible, most societies in the world customarily provide men with greater access than women to posi- tions of social and economic power and honor, especially in the public arena outside the domestic setting. Egalitarian societies are most common among the socially less complex, nonindustrialized societies of the world; yet even in such societies, men and women may have distinct social roles and be treated slightly differently. Nevertheless, most human beings live in nonegalitarian societies in which differences between men and women in social power and honor tend to be more pronounced. The social organization of such societies often includes gender stratification. When there is no significant gender stratifi- cation, men and women are more or less equal in the deference and respect they receive and in their abilities to influence political decision making. Gender equality can exist even when women do not normally hold political offices. However, where gender stratification is significant, women’s social power or honor, or both, are low. Sanday (1981) examined a cross-cultural sample of societies for which information was available on male aggression against women and women’s access to economic and political power. She found that male aggression toward women and lack of access for women to either economic or political power was characteristic of 28% of the societies she studied. In 32% of the societies, there was gender equality in which male aggression against women was absent, and women

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 129 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

had access to both economic and political power. In the remaining 40%, there were two patterns: one in which male aggression coexisted with women’s access to economic and/ or political power and another in which male aggression was absent, and females had access to economic power but not political power.

In the United States, positions of political leadership are not equally held by women and men, although there certainly have been changes in that direction since women won the vote nationally in 1920. In 2013, women represent 18% of the House of Representatives and 20% of the Senate. Women represent a somewhat higher percentage of state legisla- tures, the nationwide figure being 24.5%. However, only five states, or 10%, had women governors. So, both nationally and at the state level, women’s perspectives are under- represented, including on legislation regarding gender issues such as marriage, divorce, abortion, and contraception. These figures were in keeping with the worldwide average. Data compiled by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in February 2013 revealed that 20.4% of all national-level parliamentarians were women. The Nordic countries had the highest number of women lawmakers at 42%, and the Pacific countries (12.7%) and Arab states (15.7%) had the lowest. The number across the Americas was 23.9%, and across Europe (excluding the Nordic countries) it was 21.9% (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2013).

Marriage and Divorce Rights In a number of countries, arranged marriages are still practiced. For example, in some Islamic countries, where marriage is treated as a legal matter controlled by families, daughters may have little influence on the spousal choice made by their fathers, and divorce is the sole prerogative of the husband. Where marriage is legally treated as a contractual relationship that government sanctions between the spouses themselves, mar- riage law may not necessarily view marriage as an equal partnership. This is particularly true where the marriage of young girls to adult males is permitted by law. For instance, according to Yara Jarallah (2008), about 40% of Nepalese girls are married by age 14. Fifty of the world’s 200 countries currently permit men to legally marry more than one woman. A dozen other countries, in which such marriages are not performed, recognize them if they were performed in other countries.

Spousal and Partner Violence While physical abuse by partners, both in and out of marriage, is the most common form of violence against women worldwide, there are many other sources of physical harm that commonly impact women more than men. For example, Mitra Das (1989) has docu- mented the rise in frequency of dowry-related wife burnings in parts of India. Decades ago, dowries in India were gifts that a woman received from her parents when she mar- ried. Now, the dowry gifts are paid to her in-laws, who many times perceive them to be inadequate, instead of to the bride. Dowry deaths allow the family to acquire another dowry when the husband remarries. These incidences, often caused by setting fire to a kerosene-doused woman, are described as “kitchen accidents.” Das argues that dowry deaths developed because of the economic changes that resulted from industrialization, which has particularly affected lower-income families, for whom large dowries have become increasingly important. More recently, some anthropologists have questioned Das’s assumptions that industrialization and modernization caused the rise of dowry deaths. Oldenburg (2002) examines instead how British colonialism led to massive social and economic changes, resulting in the devaluation of women vis-à-vis men. In particular, British policies gave men more control over land and property, leaving women with little

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 130 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

control over economic resources and converting dowry from a women-centered “safety net” to a “noose” controlled by in-laws.

Despite the passage of the Prohibition of Dowry Act in 1961, the category of “dowry death” has become more well known and pervasive since the 1980s, when there were approximately 400 dowry deaths. According to India’s National Crime Records Bureau, dowry deaths have been steadily increasing from about 4,648 dowry deaths in 1995 to about 8,391 dowry deaths in 2010, even though the payment of a dowry has been officially prohibited since 1961.

Reproductive Rights A right to control one’s own reproductive life is not universally recognized by law in state societies. It is limited in various ways in most of the countries of the world today. For instance, Mosher (1983) has documented the strong governmental role in limiting family size in the People’s Republic of China. Under a 1979 legal policy that limited each family to having only one child, women who become pregnant a second time have been put under strong pressure to terminate their pregnancies. In some instances women have been coerced into undergoing unwanted abortions as late as in the 7th month of preg- nancy. This policy was widely resisted in China, especially in rural areas where children were viewed as an economic asset. Since 1985, the state has allowed people in some rural areas to have two children, and during the 1980s nearly half of all births reported in these areas were second or later children (but three or more children can result in fines). Recently, there has been much speculation that the Chinese government would terminate its one-child policy for all citizens, but as of this writing, the policy has not been offi- cially changed, and the Chinese government continues to limit population growth in the world’s most populated country.