1
Feminists and their Relationship to the
Patriarchy in São Paulo
Master’s Thesis Resit Conflict Resolution and Governance
Pallister-Wilkins, Polly (30.08.2019) Word count: 18900
3 Abstract
A dominant notion within feminist’ theories is that gender hierarchies in a patriarchal society are created through a complex dynamic between different types of masculinities and femininities. The role of femininity within this model was long placed at the sideline but reemerged through the conceptualization of hegemonic femininity. This is a term aimed to describe an accepted type of femininity that is positioned as complementary and inferior to masculinity and superior to other, inferior types of femininity. Identifiers such as race, class, religion, and others are said to influence the shape and experience of hegemonic femininity, making it intersectional by nature. Gender in this thesis is understood as a performance, based on Judith Butler's work on gender performativity that established that gender is detached from a sexed body, internally discontinues and not entirely voluntary. Consequently, in this thesis, hegemonic femininity is also understood as a gender performance. This thesis investigates the relationship of feminists in Brazil with this type of gender performance. The data generated from in-depth interviews give insights on how the feminists relate to and explain their gender performances. If they experienced contradictions between their behavior and their feminist beliefs, those gender performances appear to be hegemonic, to be reinforcing hierarchies between genders. Whenever the feminists understood their behavior to be in line with their feminist beliefs but counter the norm, those gender
performances appear to be counter-hegemonic, as dismantling hierarchies between genders. This was established with the help of the theoretical framework. Whenever the feminists were unable to make sense of their own behavior in relation to what they believed are possible patriarchal control mechanisms, those performances were left to be defined through their uncertainty. Only vague insights into the intersectional character of hegemonic femininity are generated in this thesis.
4
Contents
Introduction ... 5 1. Literature Review ... 11 2. Theoretical Framework ... 20 3. Methodology ... 264. Many Shapes of Femininity ... 32
I Contradictions ... 32 II Consistency ... 39 III Uncertainty ... 42 5. Intersectionality ... 46 6. Conclusion ... 52 6. Bibliography ... 55
5 Introduction
“Feminist are not aware of different things than other people; they are aware of the same things differently. Feminists consciousness, it might be ventured, turns a fact into a contradiction”
(Bartky 1975)
Feminist theory co-exists with feminist activism, seeking to challenge, destabilize and subvert those structures that create gender inequality and result in the marginalization of women (Disch and Hawkesworth 2016). There are numerous approaches within feminism which employ different analytical angles and lenses in their attempts to make sense of the gendered power structures governing our social world (Kiguwa 2019). Despite this diversity, there are some features prominent in most contemporary feminist research, for example, the notion that gender is a social construct distinguished from sex and inherently political rather than a natural given (Disch and Hawkesworth 2016). Further, universalistic and homogenous accounts on what it means to be a woman have been widely deconstructed, shifting the focus on diversity, plurality
and the uniqueness of gender experiences (Moser 2004). Another dominating, widespread notion
is that within a patriarchal society it is not simply men that oppress women but a complex dynamic between different types of masculinities and femininities that produces gender inequality (Kiguwa 2019; Annandale and Clark 1996).
Central to explanations regarding the production of gender hierarchies was the groundbreaking work of R. W. Connell, establishing that it is hegemonic masculinity rather than men or masculinities in general that produces gender hierarchies in a patriarchal society (Connell 1995). However, within this widely applied model, the role of femininity was long placed at the sideline, neglecting the centrality of femininity in the reproduction of hierarchical, patriarchal gender relations (Schippers 2007). As a consequence Mimi Schipper (2007) attempted to conceptualize hegemonic femininity, a term aimed to describe an accepted type of femininity that
6 is positioned as complementary and inferior to hegemonic masculinity and superior to other, inferior types of femininity (ibidem). Judith Butler’s important work on gender performativity established that gender is a performance, internally discontinuous, detached from a sexed body and not entirely voluntary (Butler 1988, 1990). This notion inspires my thesis and I consequently also understand hegemonic femininity as a gender performance that reinforces patriarchial dynamics (Butler 1990). The performance of hegemonic femininity not only creates hierarchies between masculinity and femininity but also between different types of femininities.
As a feminist, I am interested in hegemonic femininity, not only as an analytical lens to make sense of the patriarchy but also to reflect on my own behavior. As stated above, the goal of feminism is to challenge those structures that result in the creation of gender hierarchies and marginalization of women. Consequently, in theory, a feminist such as myself would refrain from performing hegemonic femininity, as it was established that such gender performances take an active part in the reproduction of gender hierarchies.
However, feminist ideals are not always easily translatable to real life. I have previously experienced that being aware and reflective of oppressive, gendered societal structures does not always result in agency or actual knowledge on what to do about those oppressive structures. Judith Butler established that gender is not performed entirely voluntarily, but influenced by external, societal constraints as well as the internalization of dominant conventions surrounding gender (Butler 1990). Sandra Lee Bartky (1975) points out in the opening quote of this chapter that a new lens to interpret social reality, in this case, a feminist consciousness may create contradictions between conviction and behavior. In her writing of “Toward a Phenomenology of Feminist Consciousness,” Sandra Lee Bartky reflects on her personal struggles as a feminist. She wonders whether her own timidity is unique to her character or a typically feminine trait, or whether her desire to look attractive comes from an internalized patriarchal value system that judges a woman’s worth based on her attractiveness. As a feminist, I have not only asked myself similar questions, but I have also found myself to actively comply with agents of the patriarchy, either because I was unaware of those at the time or did not see an alternative at that moment, for example when it came to appeasing a sexist boss for the sake of keeping the job. This sparked my interest in how other feminists experience their relationship to the patriarchy and specifically how they deal with the potential of their own complicity, how they change, challenge and
7 reinforce patriarchal powers, unwillingly or willingly through their own gendered performances. In this thesis, I consequently decided to investigate the personal, unique and diverse relationship feminists have with the patriarchy and specifically with hegemonic femininity.
Being a feminist that identifies as a woman, I chose to focus on the stories and experiences of feminists that define themselves as women as well, as I believe that relationship significantly differs to those feminists that identify as men or non-binary feminists. Including all these different perspectives goes beyond the scope of this thesis.
I decided to investigate the topic in Latin-America, a part of the world that has always intrigued me due to the strong women’s and feminist movement on the continent, historically as well as contemporary. I was curious to find out first-hand about the experiences of feminists in an environment that is culturally different to Europe. The eventual choice of country and city was of practical matter. My half Dutch half Brazilian classmate Nina Sierig introduced me to Brazilian culture and eventually enabled me to conduct the research for my Thesis in São Paulo, Brazil, where her family resides.
Gender in Brazil is a complex topic. The gendered organization of society in Brazil roots back to colonial times and the Portuguese conquest that brought with it the strong influence of the Catholic Church and the latter’s ideas about women and men (Gutmann 2003). Patriarchy and sexism in Brazil manifest themselves in what is commonly referred to as “Machismo Culture” (Evans et al. 2018). Within this ideology femininity and women are presented as inferior and subject to men and masculinity (ibidem). As a counterforce, a vibrant and diverse feminist movement emerged in the 1970s to protest these unequal patriarchal dynamics governing Brazilian society that often translated into the marginalization of women (Harrington 2015). The women and feminist movement has since constantly challenged and protested against the Macho culture and violence against women (Alvarez 1989, 1990; Maier and Lebon 2010). This had led to many advancements, such as women gaining seats in the parliament, female police stations emerging and new legislations passing that target the high levels of violence towards women (Santos et al. 2018). For example, feminist activists were able to push for the implementation of the Maria da Penha Law in 2006 that intensifies the punishment for domestic violence. Moreover, femicide, the gender-based killing of a woman or girl by a man specifically because they are females, was criminalized in 2015 (Domingues 2018; Schwindt-Bayer 2018). These are
8 crucial steps, however, despite these advancements, the situation for women in Brazil remains grave; the country has the 5th highest number of femicides worldwide and thousands of women experience different forms of abuse every day, such as economic, psychological, and physical violence (Evans et al. 2018). Further, the recent election of Brazil’s right-wing president Bolsonaro threatens the advancements made for women, due to his highly conservative and misogynistic views towards women. He has voiced these on multiple occasions. For example, in 2015 he told a Brazilian congresswoman, “I would not rape you, because you are not worthy of it” (Beinart n.d.). Despite an increase in hate crimes since his election, levels of support for Bolsonaro remain high, suggesting that the machismo mindset is still widespread among Brazilian men and women (Carneiro 2019). These developments reveal the continuous need for feminism as a means to restructure the unequal gender relations in Brazil. The feminist movement in Brazil is strong and feminists are working hard to challenge Machismo and Patriarchy, visible through their public and vocal protest movements especially in larger cities such as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Brasilia (Santos and Garibaldi de Hilal 2018).
São Paulo as the location to get in touch with Brazilian feminists appeared to be ideal for this research, as the city has always been a hub for feminist activism (Carrieri et al. 2013). Further, it is a city with a diverse population, representing the racial segregation the various religions, cultural backgrounds, social and economic classes and numerous other social factors in Brazilian society that influence gendered power structures and their experience (Harrington 2015). Privileged women from high socio-economic levels reside in the wealthy parts of the city and the periphery of the city is home to mainly poor black women that struggle from racial and class in addition to gender discrimination (Nunn 2012). Race and social class in Brazil are strongly intertwined and stereotypes in relation to race are prevalent (Schwarcz and Starling 2018). Whiteness is almost synonymous with upper class whereas blackness is associated with a low socio-economic level (ibidem). The societal expectations and forms of oppression differ for these women (Baldwin and Desouza 2001).
Consequently, in São Paulo, there is much diversity in the experience of women. I was anticipating that access to subjects would be achievable due to the strong presence of feminists (Carrieri et al. 2013). Thus, this should lead to data reflecting diverse perspectives from many different feminists that experience the patriarchy differently.
9 The main aim of this research is to give insights on how Brazilian feminists relate to female-gendered performances that reinforce the patriarchy and the dilemmas feminists might experience in the struggle against the patriarchy. Consequently, the main question is “In what way do feminists in São Paulo engage with female-gendered performances that reinforce patriarchal power dynamics in Brazil?”
To answer this question I rely on the testimonies of Brazilian feminists and their reflections and explanations of their own gender performances in relation to the patriarchy. The first sub-question that helps me to answer the main research sub-question is: “How do Brazilian feminists explain and reflect on their own gender performances in relation to the patriarchy?”
A second research aim stems from the notion in the literature that identifiers such as race, class, and religion are said to influence the shape of hegemonic femininity, making it intersectional by nature (Messerschmidt 2018b; Schippers 2007; Budgeon 2014). The second sub-question is: “How does the intersectional nature of hegemonic femininity manifest within the various understandings of the feminists of their gender performance?”
As this thesis aims to be a feminist study, I do not claim the position of a detached researcher, free of values, that makes outside, objective judgments. Rather, as it is common in feminists research, I acknowledge that the very agenda of this research stems from my own investment in the question (Edwards 1990). Therefore, I rely on the testimonies of the feminist respondents themselves to give authentic answers to the main research question. It is only through their voice that insights can be generated.
Theory and concepts will help to relate the data that were generated through the qualitative method of in-depth interviews and link the findings back to the broader literature. The women I interviewed in São Paulo all identified themselves to me as feminists and women during the interviews. Experiences within the realm of work, family life, personal relationships, and sexuality were among the topics discussed with the women. This introduction is followed by a literature review that discusses the broader literature around gender, hegemonic femininity and also gender and femininity in Brazil. The second chapter will present the theoretical framework for this study. The third chapter presents and justifies my methodological choices. Chapter four
10 and five then aim to answer sub-question one and two respectively, followed by a conclusion that then reflects again on the main research question.
11 1. Literature Review
Gender and Hegemonic Femininity
Gender is an important lens through which we view ourselves and others, how we understand the world and, analyze behaviors and social interactions. But what is gender?
Different approaches have different answers. Biological determinism equates gender with sex. Within such an essentializing approach, those gender characteristics and traits that are commonly perceived as male and female are considered innate, deriving from one's biological sex (Connell 2009). Prevailing standpoints in sociological disciplines reject such a standpoint as it is unable to explain the diversity in the human experience of gender (Fausto-Sterling 2012). Other disciplines for example psychology still largely apply gender as a natural variable, this is criticized by feminists for neglecting the power relations and political implications that are tied to gender (Kiguwa 2019).
In sex role theory, a distinction is made between gender and sex. Sex is referred to as those biological characteristics of humans that physiologically differentiate us as women and men (Connell 2009). In this theory, gender is not natural but imposed on us through social expectations in relation to biological sex (Fausto-Sterling 2012). These social expectations or gender norms are those behaviors and traits that are regarded as normal, desirable and appropriate for men and women (ibidem). The problem with sex-role theory is that it focuses on the imposition of gender onto the sexed body and consequently ties gender back to sex (Pleck 1981; Kimmel 1987). The idea that structure is an all-encompassing force neglects our own agency in the process of developing a gender identity (Connell 1987). Gender identity is our sense of belonging to a gender category, whether this is male, female, queer, trans or other (Connell 2009). I agree with the criticisms denouncing biological determinism as well as sex-role theory because these approaches to gender are highly essentializing and only allow for one type of woman and one type of man, neither theory can explain the empirical diversity and range of behaviors, characteristics, and traits that are found among women and men (Messerschmidt and Connell 2005).
12 This leads us to social science theory and feminism allied to the constructivist tradition, which conceptualizes gender as a social construct. Feminist Simone Beauvoir famously stated, “one is not born a woman, one becomes a woman” suggesting that there is no natural “I” that stands alone, nor that it is solely the structure that defines us, but that we take part in the construction of our identity (Beauvoir 1952, 267). Becoming a woman, man, or other gender, is considered a process in which we take an active part, interpreting bodies and confirming or repudiating, through everyday actions, the place we have been given in the gender order by cultural and social conditioning (Connell 2009). As Judith Butler reads it “to be a woman is to become a woman; it is not a matter of acquiescing to a fixed ontological status, in which case one could be born a woman, but, rather, an active process of appropriating, interpreting, and reinterpreting received cultural possibilities, to become a woman is a purposive and appropriative set of acts, the acquisition of a skill, a 'project'” (Butler 1986, 36). This notion allows us to view gender as fluid and evolving, detached from a sexed body and acknowledges our agency in the process of the gendering of the self (Butler 1988, 1999; Connell 1987). Thus, the problem with homogeneity is overcome since this permits us to understand that gender does not exist in a binary, masculinity and femininity appear in many different shapes and forms, accounting for the diversity in characteristics among persons (Connell 2009; Fausto-Sterling 2012; Francis and Paechter 2015). Crucial in the constructivist understanding of gender is Judith Butler’s concept of performativity (Butler 1988). This concept establishes that gender is a performance, fluid and reenacted daily through body and speech acts, not attached to a sexed body and not definite (Butler 1990). This concept is part of the theoretical framework and will be discussed in more detail there, but it was necessary to mention here as well since it is relevant in the now following discussion on hierarchies among masculinities and femininities.
R. W. Connell's groundbreaking work on hierarchies among masculinities has taken a central role in gender theory and feminism, establishing that different types of masculinities occupy different positions in a system of gender hierarchies (Connell 1995; Messerschmidt and Connell 2005). Her concept of hegemonic masculinity establishes that it is a specific type of masculinity that serves to legitimize “an unequal relationship between men and women, masculinity and femininity, and among masculinities” (Messerschmidt 2018b, 120). Hence, it is not men that oppress women in patriarchy but hegemonic masculinity that oppresses other types of masculinity as well as femininity. As gender is understood through Judith Butler’s terms, this
13 type of masculinity can be performed by any person. Consequently, women performing hegemonic masculinity can be the oppressor of men performing femininity or an inferior type of masculinity.
Here it is relevant to emphasize the difference between normative/dominant masculinities and hegemonic masculinity. Over the years, many scholars have simply equated hegemonic masculinity with normative/dominant masculinity which resulted in a great deal of conceptual confusion in theory as well as empiric studies as these concepts attempt to explain different things (Messerschmidt and Connell 2005). Normative or dominant masculinities are those masculinities that exhibit characteristics that are the most widespread, common and celebrated, within a specific context (Messerschmidt 2018b). This popularity of normative/dominant masculinity does not in itself create hegemony in relation to femininity, women or other types of masculinity (ibidem). A celebrated type of masculinity does not have to be understood in relation to femininity, it can simply exist on its own and therefore is not involved in the creation of hierarchies between femininity and masculinity. Only when a certain performance of masculinity is presented as superior to femininity or other masculinities can we speak of hegemony. The importance of relationality transcends here and has been widely acknowledged by those scholars studying hierarchies among masculinities and femininities. (Messerschmidt and Connell 2005; Messerschmidt 2018b; Schippers 2007; Paechter 2018).
The importance of masculinities in the gendered organization of society has been a central theme to gender and feminist research, yet the role of femininity within patriarchy has been placed on the sidelines (Schippers 2007). Some scholars attributed this to a male bias that crept even into the domain of gender and feminist studies since evidentially the role of women and femininity within patriarchy has always been and is growing even more diverse (Schippers 2007; Budgeon 2014; Messerschmidt 2018b; Paechter 2018). In R. W. Connell’s model of hierarchies among masculinities, for example, femininity was originally presented as a singular homogenous category, a passive “other” to masculinity (Connell 1995). R. W. Connell called this femininity “emphasized femininity”, defined through characteristics such as submissiveness, docility, and passivity, unable to become hegemonic and play an active part in reinforcing or opposing the patriarchy (ibidem). However, recently, the role of femininities within the gendered organization of society has been rediscovered and Connell also noted that her original concept of “emphasized
14 femininity” is not accurate anymore, if it ever was, and that more needs to be done to place the study of femininity back when examining gendered, hierarchical power structures (Messerschmidt and Connell 2005; Schippers 2007; Messerschmidt 2018b; Paechter 2018; Budgeon 2014).
Mimi Schipper recently attempted to conceptualize hegemonic femininity as an attempt to fill this void, recognizing that femininity is central to patriarchial, hierarchical gender relations (2007). The concept of hegemonic femininity is part of my theoretical framework, but since my thesis builds on this concept and it is rather complex I chose to include a discussion of the concept here as well.
Mimi Schipper defines hegemonic femininity as “the characteristics defined as womanly that
establish and legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relationship to hegemonic masculinity and that, by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordination of women”( 2007, 94). Keeping Butler’s understanding of gender as a performance in mind,
Mimi Schippers focus on specific types of “womanly characteristics” as representing hegemonic femininity is problematic. A focus on characteristics makes hegemonic femininity a rather rigid concept. Instead, hegemonic femininity needs to be understood as a gender performance rather than characteristic, to account for its fluidity and situationality. This will become important in the theoretical framework where I introduce different concepts that all aim to show that hegemonic femininity can, in fact, be performed in many different ways. Further, to account for the culturally different interpretations of what masculinities and femininities are, it would help to add “contextually defined as…” in her definition. Especially problematic is her argument that “the continuous legitimation of “(men’s) superiority and social dominance over women” necessitates that hegemonic masculinity is unavailable for women (94). For her, women that exhibit any sort of masculinity are exhibiting “pariah femininity …a type of femininity (that) contaminat(es) the relationship between masculinity and femininity”. The social construction of gender, detached from a sexed body gets lost here. Instead, she directly ties femininity back to the sexed body, which is a highly essentializing and overcome notion. Her claim that masculinity is unavailable to women is questionable considering that it reinforces a strict binary.
Despite all these problems in her conceptualization of hegemonic femininity, her work was vital in rediscovering the role of femininity within patriarchy and started a long-needed discussion. In
15 addition, what she calls the “quality content” of gender was recognized as contributing significantly to the development of the concept of hegemonic femininity as well as hegemonic masculinity (Schippers 2007; Messerschmidt 2018a; Paechter 2018; Budgeon 2014). This quality content are those “idealized traits members of each gender category should and are assumed to possess” (Schippers 2007, 90). As discussed before, gender performances need to be understood in the context. Traits culturally defined as inferior and superior while being traditionally attached to femininity and masculinity enable us to understand and give meaning to hegemonic gender performances. A trait that is contextually understood as feminine, yet not inferior or valued lesser to the complementary masculine trait, does not contribute to hegemony and hierarchies between masculinities and femininities. An example to make this less abstract comes from a study by Juana R. Vera Delgado and Margreet Zwarteveen who found that in pre-colonial Peru the tasks ascribed to women and men were different for both groups and existed in a binary, yet were considered as complementary and equal, manifesting in a gender-egalitarian society (2017).
Gender performances, therefore, gain their meanings from the context in which they are performed. I use context not only to describe the macro structures of society, but also the very personal understandings and valuing of gendered traits. If for example a society culturally presents female docility as subordinate, yet in the realm of a family this is not the case, a housewife may experience her role as hegemonic or non-hegemonic, depending on her audience and the situation. This again shows the fluidity of gender.
As stated above, relationality was found to be crucial in the configuration of hegemonic masculinity. This is also the case for the configuration of hegemonic femininity, hegemony here manifests itself through a complementary yet inferior placement of femininity to hegemonic masculinity (Budgeon 2014). At the same time, hegemonic femininity is hierarchically placed as superior to other types of inferior femininities, this way assuming a privileged position in a system of gender hierarchies (ibidem). Hegemonic femininity reinforces hierarchies between masculinity and femininity but also among femininities. This placement again depends on the quality content of gender, “the qualities [that] members of each category should and are assumed to possess” (Schippers 2007, 90). Those feminine performances that exhibit idealized gender traits are placed and valued above those feminine gender performances that do not.
16 Such idealized gender traits are not homogenous, the scholars Leith Mullings and Amy Schulz write: “the very meaning of manhood may vary when applied to one’s own racial group as compared to another group; similarly, the meaning of a given racial category may vary for men and women” (2006, 5). This brings us to the concept of intersectionality by Kimberlé Crenshaw, establishing that the meaning and experience of gender intersects with other dimensions of a person’s identity such as race, age and social class (1991). This will be discussed in more detail in the theoretical framework, but was relevant to mention in order to highlight that hegemonic femininity not only changes with context but also intersects and is shaped by other social identifiers such as social class and race.
Having reflected on the literature surrounding gender with the focus on hierarchies among masculinities and femininities in a gendered organization of society, I will now discuss these topics in the context of Brazil. This is relevant as this is where the research for this study took place.
Femininity and Gender Relations in the Context of Brazil
The previous section attempted to show how constructivist approaches to theory rightfully detach sex from gender and emphasized the importance of context in the configuration of hegemonic femininity. In this section, it will become visible that distinctions based on sex nevertheless highly matter in the lived experiences of women and men in Brazil, where a strong binary understanding of gender prevails (Evans et al. 2018). Further, the complex configurations and experiences of women and femininity in Brazil will be discussed.
Literature suggests that the gendered organization of society in Brazil follows the “Machismo” ideology, common all over Latin-American (Hardin 2002; Gutmann 2003; Baldwin and Desouza 2001; Schwarcz and Starling 2018). At the basis of Machismo lays the domination of the female by the man, often by violent means (Felix-Ortiz, Abreu, and Bowen 2001). Women and men are differentiated from each other based on sex and the characteristics and roles in society that follow this distinction are treated as natural (Schwarcz and Starling 2018). This binary categorization is not only a distinction but attached to inequality. The ideal woman, referred to as the “Maria” is ascribed to a docile, submissive role and placed as inferior to the ideal man or “Machista” (Baldwin and Desouza 2001). This representation of men and women originates
17 from the ideas Portuguese colonizers and the Catholic Church brought to Brazil starting with the beginning of the 16th century (Santos and Garibaldi de Hilal 2018). Subsequently to the colonial conquest, traits such as authority and strength have been associated with men while women were presented as weak and subservient (M. L. Margolis, Bezerra, and Fox 2001). Because traits related to femininity and women are perceived as subordinate to traits associated with masculinity and men, men attempt to defy all traits that are stereotypically considered feminine (Baldwin and Desouza 2001). Hyper-masculinity consequently transcended as the culturally dominant version of masculinity in Brazil (Gutmann 2003). Hypermasculinity is a type of masculinity that exaggerates stereotypical male traits, focusing for example on sexuality, aggressiveness, violent domination and physical strength rather than on other traditionally masculine traits such courage, bravery and protection (Baldwin and Desouza 2001; Hardin 2002; Gutmann 2003). Further, Heterosexuality is a core feature for both men and women, displays of homosexuality are therefore frowned upon (Fisher 1993).
As widespread and common as Machismo and these binary ideals may be, in the next paragraphs, it will become clear that they do not necessarily represent the empirical situation and that the configuration of femininity is far more complex. Women, for example, have always been known to step out of their docile role to participate in the workforce, often through informal labour, and this way significantly contributed to the finances of their families (Sorj et al. 2004; Santos and Garibaldi de Hilal 2018; Gutmann 2003). Further, there are hierarchical differences among women, a long history of racial segregation places black women at the very margins of society with the highest levels of unemployment and the lowest income (Harrington 2015). Slavery during colonial times constructed the inferior presentation of female slave bodies, black bodies, in comparison to the superior white bodies of upper-class, colonial women, a notion that is still widespread today (Segatto, Frutuoso, and Suzane 2006). Treating women and their experiences as a homogenous category is therefore insufficiently presenting the lived realities.
Further, as stated in the introduction, the status of women has also been changing over the last decades, calls for gender equality by the feminist and women’s movement resulted in the development of public policies and agendas improving the situation of women (Araújo and Lombardi, 2013; Moreira, 2016; Olinto and De Oliveira, 2004). Early studies found that predominantly educated youth, as well as upper and middle-class Brazilians, were influenced by
18 this movement, as they were found to be more gender-egalitarian, rejecting the idea of male superiority (Baldwin and Desouza 2001; Miller 1979) This suggest that age, as well as class and education, are relevant in Brazilian gender relations. Sonia E. Alvarez optimistically wrote that ideologies and mindsets are transformed in Brazil as a consequence of the women’s movement (Alvarez 1989). How much ideological change actually took places is questionable, considering the widespread support for Brazils reigning president Jair Bolsonaro who is known for his sexist and misogynistic views (Santos and Garibaldi de Hilal 2018; Carrieri et al. 2013). The situation of women in Brazil looks even bleaker when looking at the high levels of abuse that women experience on a daily basis (Evans et al. 2018). In 2018, 1.6 million women experienced severe physical violence, this number equals to a woman being assaulted every 3 minutes and in 2018 at least 536 women were victims of physical abuse every hour (Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública 2018). Many poor women are dependent on their male family members financially, adding an economic component to the violence women experience which especially affects black women since they belong to the poorest group in Brazil (Harrington 2015). Yet another layer is cultural violence, materializing through, for example, the imposition of strict beauty standards (Segatto, Frutuoso, and Suzane 2006).
This leads to another crucial point in the configuration of Brazilian femininity: the female body. Woman are treated as an object of male desire, the importance of a woman’s sensuality, a perfect body, and sexual appearance is taught to young girls as well as boys from an early age on (ibidem). Many women are struggling to uphold such high expectations (Adelman and Ruggi 2008; Alvares 2018; Simmel 1998). Worldwide, Brazil ranks as the second-highest in the performance of plastic surgeries; only the United States has a higher rate (Adelman and Ruggi 2008). Traditionally, beauty norms conform to European ideals, again rooted in colonial ideas of racial superiority such as whiteness, slim figures, and straight hair (Segatto, Frutuoso, and Suzane 2006). Women that have this appearance are perceived as superior to those that are not (ibidem), Beauty standards reproduce not only gendered but also racialized hierarchies in the still highly segregated and unequal society of Brazil. Beauty is considered as equivalent to status and instrumentalized by women as a means to open doors, attempting through proper appearance to present themselves as worthy to climb up the societal latter (Segatto, Frutuoso, and Suzane 2006). For women and girls from lower socioeconomic levels, their bodily appearance may be their only way to gain or enact status and represent a source of possible social capital, providing
19 a way out of misery and poverty (Adelman and Ruggi 2008). Hence, for a woman of lower classes, there are high gains to be received from confirming to dominant beauty standards and also increases the pressure in this regard (ibidem).
To sum up, despite the very binary ideological presentation of women and men in Brazil, the lived experiences differ depending on for example class, race, age, and appearance. Much progress has been made in the realm of gender equality, but still, a machismo mindset appears to prevail as women continue to be marginalized and become victims of violence.
20 2. Theoretical Framework
This chapter introduces the theoretical framework that enables me to analyze the data generated.
At the very base of my understanding of gender, as mentioned in the introduction, is Judith Butler’s popular concept of performativity (Butler 1988). Central to the concept of performativity is that there is no coherent and stable gender identity (ibidem). Rather, gender is temporary, “a stylized repetition of acts (…) which are internally discontinuous (...)[so that] the appearance of substance is precisely that, a constructed identity, a performative accomplishment which the mundane social audience, including the actors themselves, come to believe and to perform in the mode of belief”(Butler 1988, 520). This segment shows that gender, even when regarded as a performance, is not something that can be performed entirely voluntarily, but is constrained by one’s own internalized beliefs, for example, oppressive and painful gender norms (Butler 1990). The performativity of gender is based on the imitation and repetition of dominant conventions surrounding gender that no one actually inhabits naturally, as there is no original “I” that stands alone outside social conditioning (Butler 1993).
A second crucial concept that has to be considered when treating gender as a conceptual lens is the concept of intersectionality by Kimberlé Crenshaw. The conceptual idea emerged in the 1970s out of criticism from black, post-colonial and critical feminists that accused feminism of being middle class and white, not accounting for the experience of working-class women and women of color, facing inherently different problems than white middle class women (Carby 1982; Dill 1983; Moraga and Anzaldúa 1981; Davis 1983; Zinn 1982; Hull, Scott, and Smith 1982) . To address this problem Kimberlé Crenshaw developed the concept of intersectionality, emphasizing that one’s identity and experience is always constituted from multiple dimensions and not for example only gender or only race (Crenshaw 1991). Hence, we need to analyze the experience of gender in an additive rather than a separatist approach, considering all these different identifiers. Critical feminists emphasize that in order to understand and explain the production of gender relations, we have to consider the interaction of gender with other structures that oppress not only class, race, and sexuality but also, for example, ableness and age (Messerschmidt 2018b; Shields 2008; Yuval-Davis 2006). All these categorizations play a role in the construction of gender and how gender is perceived and valued in society (Christensen and
21 Jensen 2014; Patil 2013). This is relevant as well when discussing hegemonic femininity as “there is cultural uniqueness and diversity in the configuration of hegemonic masculinities and femininities due to various intersections of race, class, sexuality, however, each form reflects and reproduces unequal gender relations” (Messerschmidt 2018a, 100).
Judith Butler's concept of performativity and Kimberlé Crenshaw concept of intersectionality now lead me to how I understand hegemonic femininity in this thesis, a concept coined by Mimi Schipper (2007), but as established in the literature review the understanding of hegemonic femininity in this thesis deviates from her original work. Hegemonic femininity is here understood as: those gender performances that are contextually regarded as feminine and legitimize the subordination of femininity as well as non-hegemonic types of masculinity and through doing so reinforces patriarchal power dynamics. The aspect of relationality that I already discussed in the literature review is crucial, a gender performance on its own does not create hegemony, whether it is a normative/dominant gender performance or not. Only in relationship to other gender performances can we speak of the creation of gender hierarchies. The “cultural uniqueness and diversity in the configuration of hegemonic masculinities and femininities” shows that there is no one way of performing hegemonic femininity, in fact, other dimensions of one’s identity besides gender influence the shape, experience as well as the perception of hegemonic femininity (Messerschmidt 2018a, 100). This intersectional character is crucial when using hegemonic femininity as an analytical lens. Despite this detailed definition of hegemonic femininity, the concept remains fairly abstract and complex, especially since there is no homogenous shape of hegemonic femininity. To create some clarity I chose to introduce four concepts that are very specific ways on how hegemonic femininity can materialize.
I chose the first two concepts due to the literature surrounding femininity and gender in Brazil. The literature review already mentioned the “Maria” as an idealized form of the Brazilian woman. I use her as a concept representing hegemonic femininity. There is no single scholar that coined the concept, its oral existence dates back to the 1800’, but John Baldwin’s conceptualization in “Model de Maria and Machismo, the Social Construction of Gender in Brazil” is based on extensive literature review and I use his definition of the Maria (Baldwin and Desouza 2001). One of the most important points he emphasizes is that the inferior position of the Maria is established through her interrelatedness with the superior, dominant Machista. The
22 aspect of relationality, crucial to the concept of hegemonic femininity, becomes visible here. The Maria is described as docile, self-sacrificing, a good mother, pure, piety and passive whereas the “powerful” Man takes the role of the provider, a task considered as superior in the context (ibidem). Sex for her should merely serve the purpose of reproduction; adultery is unacceptable (ibidem). The Machista, on the other hand, is free to fulfill his sexual needs however it pleases him, pardoned from social repercussions by his alleged natural male behavior (ibidem).
The second concept I chose is related to the oppressive beauty standards in Brazilian society, previously established to be an important dimension in the construction of femininity in Brazil. The body as an analytical lens to relate to hegemonic femininity is introduced hereafter. “Docile
bodies” is a concept coined by Michel Foucault describing bodies that are transformed, subjected
and used by power structures as a means of social control ( 1977). Foucault, along with thinkers such as Bourdieu (1991), Bordo ( 1997) and Butler (1990) recognized the body as a “potent new
form of social discipline, as the (re)production of social and symbolic hierarchies, as forms of producing and reaffirming patterns of social status that valorize some subjects while devaluing others, as forms of alienation” (Adelman and Ruggi 2008, 556). The analytical relevance of the
body as a way of exerting power also greatly influenced feminist scholarship. The inferior representation of femininity is often tied to the body, presenting female bodies as weak and fragile in relation to strong masculine bodies (Messerschmidt 2018b). Bodily normative femininity is achieved through dieting and reserved body language (Bartky 1997). There are no overt policing mechanisms for women in the regard of beauty standards, yet the invisible constraints of popular culture and the media-beauty complex result in women self-surveillance their bodies, and constant, obsessive self-surveillance reflects obedience to patriarchy (McRobbie 2009). Disciplining mechanisms in relation to the female body stand at the core of patriarchal control (Bartky 1997).
It was only after my field research that I decided to add two more concepts that represent a specific way of how hegemonic femininity can be performed. I noticed that it was at times difficult for me to link certain gender performances to hegemonic femininity, even if it appeared to be experienced as hegemonic by the feminist respondents. I learned that some practices that appeared to me as progressive might actually not be, hinting at possible untraditional patriarchal
23 power dynamics that are not clear, at least to me, or visible at first sight. A crucial publication that discusses patriarchal power structures “in disguise” recognized by scholars such as Budgeon (2014) and Messerschmidt (2018), is McRobbie's work “The Aftermath of Feminism” (McRobbie 2009). Disguised patriarchal power structures are described as hidden in plain sight, their normality leaving persons unaware of them and their coercive force but “secretly” influencing behavior. (ibidem) This inability to recognize patriarchal elements is especially common with so-called hybrid femininities. These are modern femininities that have incorporated certain aspects of culturally perceived superior masculine traits and are consequently considered progressive (Budgeon 2014). This way traits and characteristics associated with femininity remain presented as inferior. This means that alleged progressiveness of women that enact certain aspects of masculinity disguises the remaining unequal patriarchal value system of gender traits. Appropriating masculinity into femininity does not dissolve patriarchal judgments of gender traits, but merely obscures those (Messerschmidt 2018b). McRobbie discusses this extensively in her work and also conceptualizes multiple types of “girls” that appear progressive but are actually influenced by patriarchal dynamics. I include two types of “girls” here as concepts since I recognized components of those in my data.
The first concept is the Well-Educated Working Girl. This hybrid type of femininity is presented as an attractive, powerful, economically independent career woman that at the same time is in charge of the household (McRobbie 2009). She is hailed for “doing it all” and consequently repositioned in a privileged position within patriarchy (ibidem). Yet despite this alleged progress and opportunities, gender differences remain entrenched as she is for example expected to embody physical perfection and refrain from complaining about her double responsibility of work and household (ibidem). This way, the patriarchal household is not restructured; there is unevenness in the possibility of career progress, the economic focus remains on the husband (ibidem). The government is crucial in keeping the patriarchal household intact, providing free childcare facilities to take some burden from the Well-Educated Working Girl since otherwise, a restructuring of the household would be inevitable due to an unreasonable workload (ibidem.) The Well-Educated Working Girl is able to climb up the latter in a gender hierarchy since she gained respect through enacting certain aspects of masculinity but patriarchy prevails in a
24 disguised form as the woman and femininity remain in an inferior position in relation to the man and masculinity.
The second “girl” concept coined by McRobbie that I chose to include here is the Phallic Girl. In her work, McRobbie states that: “the Phallic Girl gives the impression of having won equality
with men by becoming like her male counterparts. But in this adoption of the phallus, there is no critique of masculine hegemony” (McRobbie 2009, 84). Further, the Phallic Girl is encouraged
and celebrated for enacting male sexuality, her sexual appetite makes her attractive to men (ibidem). This type of accepted femininity can appropriate certain masculine traits, as long as the conformation to the most basic requirement of femininity prevails, that is, the attractiveness to men (ibidem). This attractiveness might have transformed within these new structures of patriarchy but is nevertheless present (ibidem). The new sexual freedoms of the Phallic Girl are not accessible for black women, if they display similar behaviors they are not regarded as progressive and modern but as repulsive and undesirable (ibidem). This shows that the concept of the Phallic Girl presents a form of hegemonic femininity that needs to be analyzed with an intersectional lens, as not only gender but with the above example, race matters as well.
The last concept I will introduce in this chapter on theory was already mentioned in the introduction to this thesis, the concept of feminist wariness coined by Sandra Lee Bartky (Bartky 1975). This concept aims to describe the confusion, uncertainty, and insecurity a feminist may experience when trying to navigate in a patriarchal society. The focus of this thesis is on feminists and their own understanding of their gender performances. I chose to include the concept of feminist wariness to be able to categorize those gender performances that the feminists did not entirely understand themselves.
Feminist Wariness follows the fear of a feminist that agents of the patriarchy could be everywhere, “even inside her own mind since she can fall prey to self-doubt or to a temptation to
compliance” (432). Vigilance and Suspicion towards possible attacks are the consequence
(Bartky 1975). In relation to wariness is the feminist that denies herself on principle to be anything like the stereotypical woman, especially exhibiting considered inferior feminine characteristics such as “patience, meekness, complaisance, self-sacrifice, or any of the other
25 “feminine” virtues” (435) as she by no means wants to be placed in an inferior position in society, disregarding that this only reinforces gender hierarchies.
I have introduced Judith Butler’s concept of gender performativity, Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality and hegemonic femininity. Then, four specific ways of relating to hegemonic femininity, those are, the Maria, the female body as an object of patriarchal control, the Well-Educated Working Girl and the Phallic Girl. I have chosen the first two as they appeared to be relevant due to the literature surrounding Brazil and I have introduced the last two as they helped me to understand my data, especially the aspects that did not appear to me as hegemonic at first sight. While the concepts can help to shed some clarity on how the abstract concept of hegemonic femininity could materialize in real life, the Maria, the female body, the Well-Educated Working Girl and the Phallic Girl also have limitations when to be used as an analytical concept. I will elaborate further on these limitations in the next chapter on methods.
26 3. Methodology
This chapter aims to identify and justify the methodological choices of this research and present their limitations and my own positionality. The main aim of this thesis is to investigate how Brazilian feminists relate to and engage with the patriarchy, specifically with those female-gendered performances that reinforce the patriarchy. A secondary research aim is to find out how the intersectional nature of hegemonic femininity manifests itself in the gender performances of Brazilian feminists. As the motivations and experience of individuals are unique and personal, I rely on the testimonies of Brazilian feminists themselves to investigate these matters. I, therefore, chose to approach this research qualitatively, through semi-structured, in-depth interviews. This method is recognized as a valuable tool in feminist research to generate trustworthy and insightful data (Oakley 2016).
Research Design
My aim was to interview 10 to 15 feminists that identify as women from different socio-economic backgrounds, race, and ages, as such identifiers in addition to gender affect lived experiences and I wanted to know about different angles and perspectives in relation to my questions. I aimed for approximately one hour for the length of an interview so that there is enough time to go beyond surface matters but also does not ask too much from the respondents. I ended up interviewing 12 feminists and the interviews did on average last approximately one hour, as planned. All stated that they identify as women and feminists. I got in touch with the first respondents through contacts I had established beforehand in the Netherlands, for example through my former employer Warchild, friends and classmates. The feminist I was able to interview were all incredibly eager to contribute to my research and often referred me to friends for the possibility to conduct further interviews, which worked out well in most cases. In addition, I met one student coincidentally who turned out to be a devoted feminist and two feminist women at a manifestation for black empowerment, all agreed to be interviewed as well. Most interviews were conducted face to face, only one interview was conducted via Skype. The skype Interview was with a former classmate of mine, she is originally from São Paulo but now lives in London. Observing her activism during my undergraduate degree was one of the reasons
27 that influenced my interest in feminism in Latin-America and her input was crucial for my research.
Most of the interviews were conducted in English and took place one on one. Two interviews were conducted with groups. One group interview was conducted with three women and one with two women. In both cases, one of the feminists spoke English and the others only Portuguese, the English speaking feminists in the round translated my questions as well as their answers. One interview was in Portuguese with a friend as a translator present. The interviews were recorded with the oral consent of the participants and later on transcribed.
As stated before, the interest in the subject matter is very personal and I wanted to approach the interviews based on a feminist to feminist basis rather than a hierarchical exchange. I introduced myself before the interviews and briefly shared my own experiences of being a feminist, the empowering as well as the confusing dimensions of it and then stated that I came to São Paulo to find out about how feminists there experience the patriarchy. Shared experiences of being a woman, a feminist and the experience of female subordination contributed to a non-hierarchical exchange. While our worlds appear to be far apart, we still related on many levels. I was raised by a single mom and understood the stigma the single mothers I interview experienced, having observed it myself growing up. Many aspects of the macho culture in Brazil are similar to the macho mindset I know from Turkey, my own cultural background. The many shared experiences were coupled with just as many diverging experiences, which created curiosity on both sides and we exchanged and compared issues in our respective parts of the world, relating or acknowledging differences. This allowed for a relationship of trust and friendship. Dunscombe and Jessop turn the concept of friendship in research into an ethical question to be considered: “If interviewees are persuaded to participate in the interview by the researcher’s show of
empathy and the rapport achieved in conversation, how far can they be said to have given their ‘informed consent’ to make the disclosures that emerge during the interview?” ( 2002, 111).
In the case of the interviews I conducted, I did not experience the valid point Dunscombe and Jessop make as problematic. The feminists were eager to share their experience and are in fact used to do so, often discussing these same matters that came up in our conversations with their friends and ideological peers.
28 I was originally shy to ask about very personal matters such as sexuality, relationships with their partners or psychological problems relating to body image. But during the interviews it became clear that the feminists were not shy to speak about any topics, my carefully constructed questions that aimed to not intrude too much, were responded to with extreme openness. These were topics the feminists were used to discussing with their friends. Sensitive topics such as eating disorders, problems with present or past partners, abusive relationships and any issues in relation to oppression were addressed by the feminists often without me asking.
I started the interviews by asking the respondents about their background, how they grew up, in which kind of household and how they now organize their own households so I could get a sense of the person. I did not ask about hegemonic feminine behavior, as I did not expect that the feminists would be aware of what this abstract term meant. Explaining first how I use the term would have taken too much of too little valuable time. Instead, I asked whether the feminists recall situations when their feminist beliefs did not align with their behavior. Further, I wanted to know in which situations they were aware that their feminist mindset led to behavior that was in opposition to patriarchial norms. The respondents were incredible self-aware and reflective, stating that they often discussed these questions with their friends and partners. Still, despite this high level of self-reflection, sometimes they were unsure how to classify certain of their own behaviors. Human motivation is complex and multi-dimensional and we sometimes do not understand our own motivations. The red line during the interviews usually followed three areas: experienced contradictions, behavior experienced as explicitly counter-patriarchal and third, uncertainty on how to interpret own behavior. I, therefore, grouped the answers the feminists provided into three categories: Contradictions, Consistency, and Uncertainty. I decided to structure the discussion of the first sub-question “How do Brazilian feminists explain and reflect on their own gender performances in relation to the patriarchy?” along with those three categories.
When feminists reflected on a situation in which they experienced their behavior as contradictory to their feminist beliefs, I established building on the theoretical framework that these gender performances are hegemonic. I did the same for the second category. When feminists experienced their behavior as anti-patriarchic, building on the theoretical framework, I established those gender performances to be counter-hegemonic. Those behaviors that the
29 feminists were unsure on how to relate to the patriarchy I merely categorized through the concept of feminist wariness, as an outsider I cannot create an understanding of a gender performance that is not understood by the feminist herself.
In this way I tried to avoid imparting my own biases on the research and interpretation of the data. I might have otherwise, for example, presented a working mother that juggles work as well as household as defying the patriarchal norms of passivity and docility, whereas she herself feels constrained by the patriarchal control mechanism. This will become more clear in the findings and discussion section of this paper.
The first part, the experienced contradictions, is the point that was most extensively discussed with the feminists and will therefore also make up the biggest part of the answer of the first sub-question. This can be attributed to my own positionality and investment in the research topic since my own contradictions were the initial motivation for this research and I consequently asked that question first. That being said, the focus of the interview still rested with the area that the feminist was most eager to discuss. The different subjects that surfaced as important in the interviews were work, dating, sexuality, household dynamics, and beauty standards and will be discussed throughout chapter one and two. I built on how the feminists themselves understand their behavior and then analyzed the generated data through the concepts introduced in the theoretical framework so that I can form an answer to the main research question.
Most feminists voiced indifference to my question on whether they would like to be referred to in my thesis via their own names or pseudonyms. I consequently choose to use pseudonyms due to the sensitive and very private information the women disclosed at times.
In order to answer the second sub-question “how does the intersectional nature of hegemonic femininity manifest within the various understandings of the feminists of their gender performance?’ the feminists would need to reflect on their motivations in relation to their gender performances based on not only the feminist dimension of their identity, but also for example race, class, sexuality, religion or other. This was only marginally possible as the following section on limits shows.
30 Limitations and Positionality
Before my departure to São Paulo, I was not aware that my lack of Portuguese skills would limit me as much as it did. The metropolitan city São Paulo is an economic hub and global city and I expected that english would suffice to navigate myself there in addition to being accompanied by my Portuguese speaking classmate. I also expected that I would easily find feminists that would speak English. I was aware that the education system disadvantages those from lower classes, but my classmate Nina had in advance offered to help as a translator for interviews with feminists from lower-socio economic backgrounds. However, once in São Paulo, I realized that even among women from higher socio-economic levels English was not necessarily spoken sufficiently to conduct an interview. I evidentially did not want to burden my friend Nina to act as a translator for these interviews as well; the requirement that most of my respondents should be proficient in English consequently limited my choice and sample. That being said, in the end, I was still able to get great respondents and the data I gathered was richer than I could have wished for. In many cases, the excellent English skills of my respondents allowed for a fluent conversation, in other cases the fact that the feminists were not able to speak their mother tongue in conversation with me significantly slowed down the conversation and we would have been able to go more into depth with a shared language. A further limitation here is that language is not only made up of words, but has cultural meanings as well, and it is possible that due to translations some meanings got lost in the process (Temple and Young 2005). Further, translators might abstract questions or answers (ibidem).
Unfortunately, the time was not sufficient to discuss in much detail how the feminists judge their behaviors and motivations in relation to their socio-economic, religious or other identities. Our precious time was usually over quickly before we were able to discuss how their identity as a woman and feminist are influenced by other dimensions of their identity. Only class and race came up during the interviews, but also here it is not always clear to what degree these dimensions influenced specific choices. Hence, I can only give implicit insights for the second sub-question “how does the intersectional nature of hegemonic femininity manifest within the various understandings of the feminists of their gender performance?’. Some patterns transcended, but it is not always clear whether this is due to coincidence since my sample was small or if these are generalizable patterns.
31 As stated previously, the initial motivation of this research emerged due to my personal experience of being a feminist, the empowering aspects of it as well as the dilemmas. I am aware of my own positionality and possible biases that might influence how I interpreted the data. The analysis of the data builds on the theoretical framework established in the previous chapter. Here I introduced among others, four different concepts that present specific ways on how hegemonic femininity can be performed. Crucial is here that the different component of these types of femininities can but not must be experienced as hegemonic by the respondents. When thinking for example of Foucault’s notion on the body (1977), a woman might experience it as very empowering to get a breast enhancement, whereas another woman might get the same surgery because she is influenced by patriarchal control regarding the body. Hence, I was careful in employing these concepts, so that generalizations can be avoided. I predominantly paid attention to how the feminists themselves experience, explain and relate to their own gender performances and then assess whether this aligns with those concepts, or not. I only made suggestions on how gender performances could be interpreted in an alternative way if this appears to be an interesting possibility.
In order to further reduce possible biases, many direct quotes are supplied so that the reader has the possibility to make up his/her own mind in relation to the data generated and the questions asked in this study. The next chapter will now start with the discussion and findings of the first sub-question.
32 4. Many Shapes of Femininity
This chapter aims to answer the first sub-question of this research: “How do Brazilian feminists explain and reflect on their own gender performances in relation to the patriarchy?” I chose to further divide this chapter into three discussion points. First, the explanations and reflections of feminists in relation to contradictions they experienced between their own feministic convictions and their behaviors. The second section will discuss consistency, those behaviors, and events that were expressed as in line with the women’s feminist convictions and perceived as anti-patriarchic. The third section, uncertainty, will then explore experiences which the feminists were unable to classify, unsure on whether their behaviors are motivated by agents of the patriarchy or not. These three categories present the broader logic to how the feminists were understanding and reflecting on their own behaviors in relation to the patriarchy and I consequently grouped the answers in this manner and structured the chapter accordingly. The chapter will discuss different areas of the feminists’ lives for example work, dating, sexuality, household dynamics, and beauty standards since these themes transcended to be important for the feminists interviewed.
I Contradictions
Most of the feminists I interviewed were working professionals, significantly contributing to the finances of their households. Yet, if we think of the traditional tasks of men and women in Brazil, the ideal woman, the Maria, ideally occupies the docile function, whereas the Man provides (Baldwin and Desouza 2001). The non-adherence to this socially accepted type of femininity created conflicts with partners and family members of some of the feminists I spoke with. This was at times experienced as a dilemma. On the one hand, the feminists are convinced that they have the right to pursue a career if they desire this, and on the other hand, some did not want to put their relationships at risk with those family members and partners that still believe in the traditional roles of men and women. The feminists that found themselves in such a situation consequently had to find a way on how to deal with this dilemma. Mariam experienced this and reflects on the relationship with her now-divorced husband, she stated:
