It was merely two years before the Indonesian independence was announced that Inggit had to witness her husband taking another much younger woman.  Soekarno, who had been married to Inggit for about two decades, decided to take another wife, Fatmah or Fatmawati.

Although Inggit refused to stay with Soekarno and his Fatmah in a polygamous relationship, Inggit had to leave without creating any conflict, as was portrayed by the autobiographical book of Inggit, Kuantar ke Gerbang which was written by Ramadhan KH.  Her son in law then said:

Ini jalan satu-satunya, Bu.  Negeri kita memerlukan Bapak.  Dia kepunyaan kita semua.  Rakyat memerlukan Bapak sebagai pemimpinnya, tidak yang lain.  Dan apa yang akan terjadi dengan Indonesia, kalau Bapak hancur?

[This is the only way, Mother.  Our country needs Father.  He belongs to all of us.  The people need Father as their leader, not anyone else.  And what will happen to Indonesia, if Father is destroyed?] (Ganarsih, 1988; 291).

For the sake of the people, a man’s ego must be supported with a woman’s sacrifice. It was Soekarno who could do something for the nation.  It was Soekarno who was important for the nation, not Inggit.  Although she was the one who accompanied Sukarno and had even funded his activism, when facing the conflict between the two, Inggit’s merits were not to be regarded seriously.  As a woman, she had to keep making self-sacrifices for the benefit of the country.

However, while this sacrifice may imply Inggit’s submissiveness to Soekarno, her sacrifice may make her greater than Soekarno.  If it were not for Inggit, the nation would crumble.  In this case, Inggit’s sacrifice is not only for one man, but for the entire nation.  Inggit, who had given moral and financial supports to Soekarno.  She was the one who had smuggled books, newspapers, letters and various information from Soekarno’s political mates when he was imprisoned.  She was the one who had winded up her brain to insert codes and messages in the prison.  Inggit, who bravely accompanied Sukarno in his exile and suffered with him there, was no longer with her husband when he was about to reap the rewards of their long struggles and sufferings.

Rob Willer states that individuals are encouraged to make sacrifice for the greater goods of the society, because the promise of higher status or respect.  The reward for Soekarno, the man, is a national recognition and status, as the first President of Indonesia and the Father of the nation.  And the reward for Inggit?

For her sacrifice, Inggit is elevated more than the other wives of Soekarno, as Poeradisastra states in the introduction:

Inilah bedanya Inggit dari yang lain-lain: naraka katut, suarga ora nunut. . . .  Dengan kebesaran jiwa Inggit memaafkan “Fatimah” [Fatmah], bekas anak angkatnya, yang menjalin kasih sayang dengan ayah angkatnya.

[This is the difference between Inggit and the other (wives): carried to hell, but not following to heaven . . . With her big heart, Inggit forgives “Fatimah” (Fatmah), her ex-adopted daughter, who had had a love affair with her adopted father] (Ganarsih, 1988; ix).

In this case, Inggit is judged by her reaction to Soekarno’s infidelity.  She is considered more prominent than other women (that is, the other wives of Soekarno) because of these characteristics.  In this “competition”, a woman’s merit is thus based upon her service to her husband.  The woman who shows the most devotion will be appreciated, not the one who rebels and transgresses.  It is Inggit who “wins” the “competition” because she has proved to be the most dedicated in relation to her husband Soekarno.

Hence, the picture of Inggit that the text produces is still mainly that of a faithful woman who is devoted and caring to her only lover, Soekarno.  And this is the irony: that while Soekarno claimed that he promoted women’s rights and supported the growth of women’s organisations, the interest of his own wife was somehow ignored.  While his view on women was quite progressive for that era, he did not seem to apply the idea of gender equality in his own house.  Soekarno entered the palace with Fatmawati, whereas Inggit had to return to her simple home in a village in Bandung.

Somehow the portrayal of Inggit in this biographical book is what has been popularised in public and the expectancy of women to self-sacrice for the sake of men becomes a kind of a norm.

This “legacy” is to be found nowadays, when women are to be at the background, when their role in politics is merely as the supporter of men.  When their role in politics is still discouraged.  Although the 30% quota for women was finally introduced, this was without a struggle and the result was rather disapointing – as many feminists still found out that the patriarchal ideology still plays a huge role in controlling who could or could not be selected.  As after the quota, several women who are involved in politics have not been active in voicing women’s rights.  Many elected female legislative members are merely ornaments who could get the top because of their skill in attracting publicity and funding for their campaign.  The majority of women can still only win the heart of the society if they conform to rather than rebel against patriarchal system.  For this reason, we also found that many women were in support the anti-pornographic law and also of polygamy.  Women have still been competing in pleasing the men and supporting the patriarchal culture around them.

Indonesia’s independence has indeed not been the privilege of all of its citizens![]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

Related posts:

1. Between God and women

Darwin under Scrutiny

Once when I was in Indonesia, I was trying to defend Darwin’s theory in front of several people who rejected it completely because of their religious views.  One of them asked me: “But as a feminist, shouldn’t you be against Darwin as well?  Doesn’t Darwin discriminate women, whereas all (male and female) are equal in God’s eye?”.

Indeed, Darwin’s theory generally has been viewed to be quite problematic by religious fundamentalists as well as feminists.  The argument of humans deriving from monkeys does not seem to make sense for people who are strongly convinced that the human was uniquely created by God and in God’s image.  In the USA, Darwin’s theory of evolution has even been banned by several schools.

As Darwin’s theory states the importance of survival of the fittest in nature, this also induces the idea that men are considered to be evolutionary advanced because in general, they are bigger and stronger. In The Origin of Species, Darwin states that because males are always in competition to get their females, they are required to get better and better, whereas the weaker males are eliminated by not producing as many offspring because of their lack of ability to get a partner.  In other words, inequalities of the sexes are considered natural, and can even be justified.  Male aggressiveness and domination over females are often understood in this light.

At this point, the religious fundamentalists and feminists seem to have a similar stance – the refusal of Darwin’s theory.  Both have claimed to have been ignored and underestimated by the followers of Darwin. Indeed, discrimination against women and God in Darwin’s theory is sometimes seen to overlap.  Jerry Bergman in his article “The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism”, begins with the argument that discrimination against women is one of the main themes in Darwin’s theory.  According to Bergman, because men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, in Darwin’s theory, they have been conditioned to be more evolutionary advanced than female.  Bergman concludes that the cause of this sexism is Darwin’s disappointment with God: “A critical reason for Darwin’s conclusion was his rejection of the biblical account, which taught that man and woman were specific creations of God, made not to dominate but to complement each other”.

Both the feminists and religious groups have argued against Darwin’s theory based on the inaccuracy of human perception.  However, I want to emphasise the distinctions between the religious fundamentalists from the feminists regarding Darwin.

The Distinctions

While several religious denominations have been avoiding Darwin by either prohibiting or shutting themselves from his theory, more and more feminist groups are getting closer to science, to prove the blemish in interpreting Darwin’s theory.  As some feminists are now using the theory of evolution to claim a more “equal” place for women.  In other words, they are using science to scrutinise science.

Sarah Hrdy, who is known as a Darwinian feminist, demystifies sexist stereotypes by applying the logic of the survival of the fittest.  Reflecting on her research on bonobo monkeys, she notices that females who have the advantage of reproduction (as she carries the baby in her womb), are also more able to confuse the males and dominate them.

Sharing more than 98 percent of human genetic profile, bonobos are thus one of our closest “relatives”.  They enjoy sex all day long, and seem to use it not only for procreation but also for attachment with others.  Females often hang out together and engage in homosexual activities – this cement the bonds amongst them and in some ways allow them to form alliances against males.

In mating, the females are not hesitant in approaching the males and they can be quite promiscuous in doing so.  As females have multiple partners, the males do not know which offspring are theirs. The status of a male also depends on the position of his mother, to whom he remains closely bonded for her entire life.

The theory of evolution can thus be interpreted in such a way that the species characters are never fixed.  Indeed, Darwin’s theory can also open a new interpretation as he implies that the variation of species is not limited, so there is a possibility of an open-ended becoming.  Such a transformation in some ways explains why bonobo monkeys are different from their closest relative chimpanzees, in which males dominate the group and are quite patriarchal.  As the open-ended becoming is possible in Darwin’s theory, male dominance is thus no longer a law or a condition, but rather a process.  As such, different genders or sexes have the chance or opportunity to swap positions: the possibility of fluidity is huge.

The patriarchal notions of Darwin’s theory have been further challenged after the discovery of cloning.  In brief, cloning is a sexless way to create an exact genetic progeny.  The argument nearly swung the other way around, as with the cloning of Dolly, females can thus reproduce themselves.  If we are to follow the rationale of “the survival of the fittest”, that is, the main aim of living organisms is to sustain its species by reproduction, males do not have any importance in this regeneration, as females can sustain the generation on their own.  However, recent finding has revealed that males may also be cloned.

The case of Darwin in relation to gender theories in some ways can be compared with the debate between Einstein and Bohr, instead of between Darwin and religion.  When Bohr disputed Einstein’s theory, he was using Einstein’s theory of relativity to prove it.

They have not been running away from evidence, but are inspecting it.  By doing this, they can see it from different perspectives, instead of avoiding it completely.  On the other hand, the religious groups which maintain the arguments that the earth is only 6000 years old and that humans were created in God’s image rather than a result of the evolution from monkeys, is rather similar to insisting that the earth is the centre of the Universe.  These people do not base their argument on human lack of objectivity.  Rather, they insist on their views without being bothered scrutinizing them properly.

Indeed, isn’t it the paradox of science that the more the scientists research and observe, the more they will find inaccuracy in their observation?  In other words, the more you inquire it, the more you are aware of human lack of objectivity.  It is only through inquiring, researching and investigating that Copernicus came to the conclusion that the centre of the Universe is no longer the Earth but the Sun. This finding brought an awareness that human observation of the space could be deceiving – as from where they are, humans will easily conclude that the heavenly bodies all go around the planet they live.

Einstein could claim “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one” only after he studied science scrupulously.  As scientific tools were progressing, Niels Bohr further found out that absolute objectivity in science was doubtful, as the role of the observer cannot be disregarded in any scientific conclusion.  Accordingly, as most scientific observers have been males (and only recently do women have more opportunities to take part in science), it is no wonder that the conclusion often leans towards supporting a patriarchal system.  The inclusion of women’s points of view will transform the perspectives in science as well.

Such acknowledgment of scientific partiality was however achieved not via accusation or assumption without any detailed study.  Human awareness can only be better attained or at least learnt by endless analysis, which results in more exactness and meticulousness – this often includes the understanding of its lack and shortcomings.

In this view, Darwinian feminists have revealed that Darwin’s theory can offer various possibilities.  They have offered different perspectives, without ostracizing science.  On the other hand, while the religious groups seem to base their counter-argument against Darwin on the illusion of reality and human objectivity, the insistence of their own belief without allowing any scrutiny is also a form of persistence on human arrogance and it is an argument which in the end beats itself off.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

Related posts:

1. Indonesian independence and the sacrifice of women