Traditionally, Latin American society was one that was dominated by the male population. Based on a patriarchal system of power, men were intended to wield total control over women. Females were generally considered to be weak, delicate, and in constant need of a male guardian. Women were meant to live their lives in a completely domestic domain, remaining separate from the increasing political turmoil. In spite of the many discrepancies between the growing political parties, they remained unanimous in denying the right of citizenship to women. Even those radicals who spoke out against gender inequality eventually supported the idea of patriarchal authority. Yet, a wholly male political scene was merely a superficial view, and women played a greater role in politics than perceived. Though commonly male dominated, women of all classes managed to impact the turbulent political warfare. Elite women relied on their use of social influence, and some amongst the lower castes even joined men in avid political activity. In spite of a unanimous denial for female suffrage, women continued to support their political factions, beginning the transition out of their domestic world.
The original concept of female honor was linked primarily to sexual conduct and her fulfillment of a domestic role. As the idea evolved with independence, honor for women was still to be based on their sexual purity and domestic virtue, but a new goal was introduced. Despite the seemingly conservative notion of female honor, “their services gained a new recognition” and the idea of “republican motherhood” was born (Chambers, 201). Women continued to perform the same functions as prior to independence, but they were now supposed put their skills to use for the public good. The reformed role of women “was to nurture republican virtues in members of their family [and]… to extend this inspirational role into the public sphere” (Chambers, 202). It was ideologically impossible for female citizenship, but many elite women took advantage of this new republican discourse of honor, as it rewarded virtuous women with an education and recognition of their social value. Although the new republican ideas of honor were based on maintaining domestic virtue, they officially introduced a role for women in the political spectrum.
Women consistently dominated the networks of social communication, and were essential in influencing popular opinion at the neighborhood level. Oftentimes blurring the lines between domestic and community concerns, they used this as a means to provoke conflict or to shun those who had acted immorally. As tension between to Liberals and Conservatives grew, elite Conservative women began to use “their social influence and control as a potent weapon, mocking Liberal officeholders and insulting the vile Democratic societies” (Sanders, 93). The greatest and most forceful opposition to the Democratic societies came not from the male’s hesitant attempts to create counter clubs, but from the vehement social reactions by the women. They snubbed wives of liberals, condemned a liberal priest, and organized petition drives as a form of protest. An observer in Pasto gave women credit for effectively shutting down the local Democratic Society, who had not met for several weeks as a result of the women’s efforts. Liberals spoke out against these actions, essentially telling women to remain in their homes and fulfill their domestic roles. Their comments “reflected the animosity that many Liberal men felt for women’s political participation in elections” (Sanders, 93). Although in agreement in terms of a complete denial of female citizenship, the different political party diverged on issues concerning the extent to which women should participate in politics.
Essentially, the difference between the Conservative and the Liberal views as to female political participation was based on their theoretical beliefs of equality. Liberals held all citizens to be inherently equal, and allowed political participation only for its citizens. Conservatives, however, believed society to be essentially unequal, thereby allowing for political participation by all members of society. For liberals, “political participation made the citizen,” while Conservatives held that “participation would give [women] no grounds to claim equal standing with men” (Sanders, 94). It is not that Conservatives believed any more strongly than the Liberals in the female’s ability to engage in politics, but that the implications of female activity were not as threatening as to the Liberals. Women’s participation not only made republicanism seem that much more frightening and foreign, it removed them from the patriarchal mold. Even radical Liberal Jose Maria Quimper, who advocated equal rights for women, “feared that… to protect the potential freedoms of women… could lead to the violation of men’s basic rights as heads of households” (Chambers, 236). By taking women away from the control of their husbands and fathers, it would erode “the base of the citizen as a padre de familia. If masters could not rule over slaves or the rich over the poor politically, men must still rule over women” (Sanders, 94). Yet, not all Liberals fought so valiantly against the participation of females, and many of the popular Liberals oftentimes held women in their midst.
There existed a great disparity between the elite and the plebeian, or subaltern, women. Although the elite women were able to benefit more from the Republican concepts of female honor, they were generally stifled in attempts to reach beyond their traditional roles. As aforementioned, elite Conservative women were able to extend their social influence for political purposes, making significant impacts on the opposing political factions. Yet, elite women continued to be bound by the ideas of patriarchy, as the vast majority remained under the control of a male head of the household. Plebeian women, however “often lived their lives beyond the control of a patriarch” (Chambers, 214). Popular liberals in particular “seemed somewhat unable or unwilling to exercise control over popular liberal women” (Sanders, 53). This could have stemmed from a variety of reasons ranging from a lack of male land ownership to their own economic resources. Regardless of the reasons, popular liberal females had a greater deal of independence than most other groups, and participated in political life to a great degree. They ran the taverns which were the meeting places for popular liberals to discuss politics, joined the men in protests, and tore down fences in the ejidos with the men. Despite becoming such an integral part of the political party, popular liberal women “remained ideologically excluded from the liberal conception of politics and public life” (Sanders, 96). Women were inherently equal in the sense that they were all regarded with the same idea of gender inequality.
Coming from a strong patriarchal based society, Latin American women were able to break from their traditional domestic roles and enter into the new era with the men. Although denied their rights as citizens, women began participating in the political revolutions, ultimately making fairly significant impacts. The political role of women was downplayed by men who sought to force women back to their traditional roles as caretakers. Both Republican and Liberal political theorists of the time continued to define public opinion as resulting from rational debate amongst educated male citizens, denying that the gossip of women had any effect. Even as women from the subaltern popular liberals fought alongside the men, they remained ideologically unequal, barred from ever achieving citizenship. Yet, this movement of women into the political realm became an important step in leaving the original feminine role in the home in the past.
