|
Research |
||
Haitian Women's Role in Sexual Decision-Making: The Gap Between AIDS Knowledge and Behavior ChangeII. Presentation of Findings |
|
||
|
5. Men's Perspectives on Women's Rights A. Household Decisions If there is understanding in the home The topic of women's rights met an ambivalent response in the men's groups. With respect to household duties, most men reacted negatively to the story of Joujou's extreme dependence on René's authority for such everyday decisions as cooking and child care. Once a man gives his partner money for household expenses, they said, she has the right to decide how to spend it, provided that she "carries out her responsibilities to his satisfaction." However, examples participants gave to illustrate men's satisfaction belied their support of women's rights to make even ordinary housekeeping decisions. Decision-making frequently seemed to mean compliance on the part of the woman rather than actual independence. Even in the matter of preparing food, there were overtones of sexual subordination of women, as in the following dialogue from Savanne:
Statements in support of joint decision-making were similarly couched in terms that suggested that men are supposed to make the decisions and women to agree. Decisions which men believed should be made together in this fashion were use of a family planning method, whether and where to send children to school, and with whom their children should associate. There was some debate over whether a woman had the right to take a sick child to the clinic in the man's absence. While, in general, men wanted to be consulted about a service that required payment of a fee, opinion favored granting her the authority to act in emergencies with the understanding that she would inform him of her actions at a later time. A Delmas man, who believed that a woman should make her own decisions about children's health care, however added that men tend to assume authority because women expect it of them:
B. Sexual Freedom and Women's Rights If she realizes There was remarkable correspondence between men and women in their views on women's rights to protect themselves from HIV infection, to refuse sex, and to ask that the partner use a condom. Many men spoke of monogamy as an ideal, but they also accepted multiple sexual relationships as a fact of life, at least for men. In both Savanne and Delmas, male participants seemed to take for granted a double standard that grants sexual freedom to men and denies women the right to question their partners' activity. They frequently prefaced their remarks with "if" clauses, "If the woman suspects her husband has another woman ..." or "If she realizes that you live dangerously ...," implying that it is not normal for women to know about their steady partners' sexual affairs but that they sometimes find out. Some of the men in Savanne expressed resentment at women's objections to their partners' extra-conjugal affairs. "The only problem that I see between men and women at home," complained a 28-year-old man in a "ménaj" relationship, "is that the woman is always against the fact that her husband has affairs. She would like her husband to stay only with her" The comment of a Delmas man illustrates the thinking of many men on male responsibility for transmitting HIV to women who do not necessarily know their partners are at risk. He explained that men can infect their wives, because,
Participants were well aware of the chain of transmission and men's position as the link between HIV-infected women and women at home. However, they were also anxious to preserve their independence without one woman interfering in their affairs with another. A Savanne man with a stable partner ("maryé/plasé") explained how he would attempt to control such a dual relationship:
You can't trust women On the other hand, men were also emphatic that the woman they define as a "wife" or "principal partner" has no right to have other men. Men as well as women tended to speak from personal experience on many of the issues under discussion, but men were less likely to believe, or to admit, that their own wives might be unfaithful. When they alluded to the possibility of their own wives' infidelity, they did so in terms of a man's power to control a woman's behavior. This finding is in contrast to the remarks of many women that they (or women like themselves) could not trust their men, knew little or nothing about their partners' extramarital activity, and felt powerless to control their behavior outside the home. Men expected "loose women" ("fem lib") to have multiple partners, but this norm did not apply to the woman who by law or by custom has agreed to exchange sexual fidelity and domestic labor for a long-term relationship and the economic protection that such a relationship traditionally offers. Men sometimes warned, however, that even in these more stable relationships, women were in need of surveillance and discipline. Witness this response from a Savanne men's group to a moderator's question concerning types of decisions that "belong to" men:
C. Women's Right to Refuse Sex The extent to which women are able to control access to their bodies is obviously a critical element in their capacity to protect themselves from contracting AIDS. Men debated the circumstances under which a woman should have the right to refuse sex and the range of reactions she might expect to experience from male partners when she did refuse. Sharp differences of opinion polarized these discussions, highlighting the struggle men have to resolve a basic contradiction between their right to demand compliance and the right of women to refuse. She has to resign herself One perspective, more common among men in Savanne than in Delmas, was that women who are well treated by their partners actually have no reason to deny them sexual gratification. Their use of words like "joy" and "understanding" highlighted the importance of personal relations and material well-being in the conjugal agreement. The following comments from men in Savanne offer an illustration:
A Delmas man reasoned that, to avoid problems in their relationship, a woman should accept her man's right to have other sexual partners on occasions when she does not want to engage in sex herself:
She has the right to refuse ... sometimes For the most part, however, men in both Savanne and Delmas tended to grant women the right to refuse sex - under certain conditions. Some men who expressed a relatively compromising attitude maintained, for example, that "you have to try to understand the reason she refuses" (Delmas). A few men even conceded that "just as a man does not feel like making love sometimes, the woman also has a right not to feel like it" (Savanne). However, a more central position, particularly in Delmas, was that there are certain circumstances that justify a woman's refusal. Fatigue, ill-health, menstruation, and family planning were the most commonly mentioned but often with little enthusiasm, as when a married Delmas man agreed that working hard all day might be an acceptable excuse but that "if the woman is not tired, has no work to do, there is no reason to refuse." Men also cited hunger, unhappiness, and financial neglect as reasons women can sometimes refuse, but they resented what they perceived as manipulation on the part of women:
Although men made little direct reference, positive or negative, to women's economic dependence, they acknowledged the unhappiness of those who feel neglected or abandoned by men seeking their own pleasure. A vivid description by a man in Savanne illustrates their awareness of this problem:
Women have the right to refuse, but Even though participants tended to agree that most men would overlook a partner's occasional refusal, their comments also offered numerous examples of valid objection by a man to any such decision on the part of a woman. Frequent disclaimers such as, "Women have the right to refuse, but ...," revealed the difficulty men were experiencing as they struggled to resolve competing issues of freedom and responsibility. There was clearly a limit to most men's tolerance for sexual rejection.
Transcripts from Savanne indicated a greater tendency on the part of some men to use force, or at least forceful persuasion, with an unwilling partner. As in their response to women they suspected of infidelity, Savanne men were also more likely to condone or suggest violence in the case of a woman refusing to accept sexual contact. Their remarks reflect different degrees of coercion, with only a fine line separating the force of persuasion from undisguised violence.
Occasionally, Savanne men took a harsher stand, arguing that some men understandably react to women's resistance with violence, sometimes in a manner that suggested rape.
If her husband has sex with any kind of woman Refusing sex because of a partner's promiscuity provided a different kind of justification from refusal for some temporary indisposition like menstruation or fatigue. Almost without exception, men in both Delmas and Savanne concurred on the danger of sex with multiple partners and agreed that women have a right to protect themselves from AIDS at any cost, including anger and even retaliation from a possibly infected partner. In fact, the story of Joujou led many men to advise her to leave René, or at least to refuse sex, rather than risk the disease:
Numerous allusions to the "other women" of supposedly faithful partners reinforced the point that a great many men were aware of women's concern about the threat posed by their partners' sexual freedom, as in this Savanne man's comment:
This comment is significant for several reasons. First, it represents the view of most male participants that when women discover that sexual contact with their partners puts them at risk of contracting HIV, they are right to protect themselves. Even men who earlier had condemned the woman who refused sex for what they considered trivial reasons, when the issue was redefined to include the possibility of HIV transmission, later reversed their position. Second, the issue of refusal now takes on a temporal dimension. The speaker above seems to suggest that the woman's decision to refuse sex is relatively recent, linked to the appearance of a new disease and a fear that did not exist in the past. Third, the phrase, "she can avoid sex with him that day" raises a question about participants' understanding of transmission. Similar comments of both men and women in other groups suggest that some people still do not fully appreciate the nature of the risk. Then who is responsible? Although many men believed that women had a right to refuse sex with a promiscuous partner, these men also warned that this strategy could backfire, lead the partner to accuse her of infidelity, and give him reason to return to his other women. While arguing in favor of a woman's right to reject such a partner, a Savanne man also added,
Several others expanded on his point, reflecting the opinion that refusing sex ultimately threatens the stability of the whole family:
Later in the same discussion, two other Savanne men summarized the following very common approach to the problem:
There was a strong tendency for men to resolve the issue by increasing, not decreasing, sexual contact. Their rationale was that if the woman at home pays more attention to his needs, the promiscuous partner may forget his other sources of sexual pleasure. The number of times they proposed such a solution suggested that blaming the wife or primary partner for creating the problems that lead to HIV infection is a familiar response for many participants. Their logical conclusion seemed to be that a woman who refuses sex, in reality is increasing the chance that her partner will become infected by other women. By resuming the customary role of compliant, nurturing wife, she supposedly solves the problem with no cost to domestic harmony, helping to preserve the balance of power that sustains a man's sense of freedom. This perspective is, of course, analogous to the anxiety which women in this study frequently expressed concerning the retaliatory behavior of an angry or dissatisfied partner who "can always go to his other woman." D. Condoms Joujou will have to get a condom for René Discussion of condoms provoked controversy among men, just as it did among women. In general, men viewed condoms as an unfortunate, but sometimes necessary, alternative to giving up one's sexual freedom. Men were emphatic that Joujou in the story had a right to insist that René use condoms, although some men advised that she take the safer course and leave him. Some said that Joujou would have to obtain the condoms herself, while others believed that it was René's responsibility. As discussion moved from this hypothetical situation to real life as they perceived it, the men expressed differences of opinion on most condom-related issues, e.g. their reliability as protection against HIV, women's rights to ask men to use them, men's reactions to being asked, and women's attitudes toward using them. Like the women, most male participants recognized the value of condoms in AIDS prevention, but some questioned their dependability. They were less concerned about perforation, however, than about the fit of the condom and the possibility that it would come off during the sexual act. Some explained that men risked contact with infected sperm if the man should lose his erection, and therefore the condom, before he withdrew. The majority of men advised that Joujou insist on condoms if René continued his affairs with other women. Sometimes men mentioned this as a first strategy for Joujou, but more often they saw it as an alternative to leaving him if she were unwilling to take that step. Some believed that if an AIDS test confirmed that René was HIV-infected, Joujou should leave, because "whether he uses condoms or not, if René has it, she can die if she has sexual contact with him." This comment was made by a 25-year-old man in two unions ("plasé" and "vivavek") who had six children. The same man said he thought insisting on a condom would probably be enough to make René decide to give up the other women. Several other men agreed with him that, if Joujou has discovered René's risky behavior, then he must choose between "breaking with the other women or using condoms" because "if he cannot live only with one woman he has to take precautions." Many, however, took for granted a man's need to have more than one woman, and therefore his responsibility to accept the use of condoms, as in the following remark by a Savanne man in a "vivavek" relationship with one child:
There are times when she can not ask her husband Despite the fact that condoms seemed to provide a reasonable alternative in such situations, men were divided on the rights of different categories of women to demand that their partners use them. "What kinds of women can ask a man to use condoms?" the moderators asked each group. The first response was usually a comment such as, "every woman has the right to ask," because "condoms save lives and protect you from having children" (Delmas). In discussing the matter further, however, most men revealed their ambivalence, including the prior condition that a man should already have the number of children he wants. Like the women in the study, male participants frequently combined contraception and disease prevention in their remarks on condoms and sometimes shifted the focus of the discussion from AIDS to family planning. The Creole word, "planin", was often substituted for the word, "kapot", or condom. Not surprisingly, they appeared more at ease putting the emphasis on contraception, rather than disease prevention. In fact, several men suggested that a woman who is trying to convince a partner to use condoms will be more successful if she uses the argument that having fewer children will enable them to provide food and pay school fees for those they already have. And it would be inappropriate, they said, to use condoms if the couple did not already have "three or four" children. Thus, in the eyes of men, women who wish to avoid pregnancy have an unquestioned right to ask a partner to use condoms. Several men in different groups cited school girls who do not want parents to discover their sexual relationships when they get pregnant. This example was used often enough to suggest that adolescent girls are a familiar source of sexual entertainment for older men. A 40-year-old married participant in Savanne explained:
As the above quote implies, men were seldom willing to give women in long-term relationships the right to ask for condoms, except for family planning. The prototype of the woman who was not entitled to ask was:
Sometimes participants referred to the man's outside sexual activity as allowing his regular partner the right to demand condoms "if he has extramarital relationships" A Savanne man said that his wife can ask, because "she knows that I don't have sex only with her." However, most remarks on this topic suggested that the longer the union, the less power women have to initiate behavior change, because conjugal expectations are stronger and women therefore are under more constraint to ignore their partners' extramarital behavior. In addition to school girls, prostitutes, and women in bars, other women with multiple partners were also entitled to insist on condoms. For such women, fidelity may or may not be an issue, but a wife or long-term partner who suggests using condoms will by so doing, shatter the "understanding" that has sustained their union. To raise the issue seemed to many men like an admission of guilt. A woman who has "good behavior" and is faithful and respectful in the presence of her husband, will not ask, because she will not want him to think she is HIV-infected or has another man. Men commonly remarked that if one partner brings up the subject after many years in a stable relationship, the other will have a right to begin "asking some questions, since we are not used to using condoms." E. Negotiating Change He could realize he is poison in the home When they believed the woman has a right to ask for condoms, male participants generally expected less resistance on the part of men than did female participants. In both Delmas and Savanne there were men who said that some men who should use condoms would refuse but that others who had more than one partner would comply if their partners used discretion and tact to convince them. A married Delmas man thought that shame might be a motivating factor in René's decision to reform his risky behavior for the sake of his home life:
The success of strategies for convincing their partners seemed to depend heavily on a woman's skill in communicating the message that, since "there is AIDS out there" her man will have to take precautions if he wants to continue their relationship. Male participants constructed messages like the following, playing the role of the woman to demonstrate how she might influence a male partner:
A Delmas man offered similar advice in response to Joujou's discovery that René had other women:
The above comment again reflects the blurred distinction between disease prevention and contraception, illustrating how participants, both men and women, used family planning terms as metaphor for disease prevention. A few men even suggested that if it is a man who is trying to convince a resistant partner to accept condoms for protection, he should use the argument that he does not want more children -- a strategy similar to one which was proposed in some of the women's groups. Many men claimed to believe that with soft words and firm resolve a woman can induce a man to reflect on his lifestyle and consider a change. Avoiding the necessity of a condom may be sufficient incentive, they said, to convince a man to give up other partners. Or, he may be willing to use a condom if the alternative is losing his primary partner. In either case, the participants were drawing on their knowledge of women's bargaining skill to make the point that at least some men can be convinced. A 42-year-old Delmas man who himself maintained both "plasé" and "vivavek" relationships, offered his opinion that:
A playboy is born a playboy Participants alluded occasionally to distrust and the fear of disclosure that a woman might cause by raising the question of condoms, but the possibility of inciting anger and retaliation were mentioned much less often in discussion of condom use than in similar discussions of refusal to engage in sex. Nevertheless, male participants expressed some doubt as to the sincerity of men who agreed to use condoms. "A playboy ("vagabon") is born a playboy," said a married man in Delmas. The danger he saw was that:
In Savanne, a 26-year-old man in a "ménaj" (casual) relationship told his group that some men might appear to agree, but
Some women don't like condoms at all On the other hand, a number of men gave examples of women's resistance to condoms. They were well aware of women's reasons for disliking or distrusting condoms, namely the decrease in sexual pleasure and their fears that the condom will break or remain in the vagina or that the lubrication will cause disease. It was not clear whether the men shared these beliefs, but almost none of them volunteered complaints of their own. They focused instead on women's resistance. Several men told stories of girlfriends who had refused condoms. Others explained that fear of raising suspicion about her own behavior might make a woman decline a man's offer of protection. Another line of reasoning, expressed by a young unmarried man in Savanne, again demonstrated the interplay between disease prevention and family planning:
A married man in Delmas pointed out that condom use should be a joint decision, even if the man first has to convince his partner:
This participant's approach was different from that of most men, who were more likely to emphasize confrontation than collaboration. Nevertheless, it is not inconsistent with the majority point of view that men have to compromise if their wives discover their sexual exploits, a position which may herald a shift toward greater willingness to accept joint responsibility for preventing AIDS. |
|||
 |
|||
