Traditionally, Latin American society was one that was dominated by males. Based on the system of patriarchal power, men are destined to exercise all power over women. Women were generally thought to be weak, delicate and in constant need of male guardianship. Women meant to live their lives in an entirely domestic sphere, separated from the growing political crowds. Although there were many differences between the growing political parties, they remained unanimous in denying the right of citizenship to women. Even those radicals who are against gender inequality are finally against inequality they spoke of, ultimately reinforcing the idea of patriarchal authority. However, the all-male political scene was only a superficial view, and women in politics were more than perceived. Although generally male-dominated, women from all walks of life managed to influence the tumultuous political impact of the war. The elite women were based on the use of social influence, and some among the lower castes even joined the avid men in politics. Despite the unanimous denial of female suffrage, women continued to support their political parties, beginning the transition from the domestic world.
The concept of a woman’s honor is primarily coupled with sexual behavior and the fulfillment of her domestic role. As the idea evolved with independence, women’s honor was still based on sexual chastity and domestic virtue, but a new goal was introduced. Despite, apparently, the conservative notion of female honor, “their respects obtained a new recognition” and the notion of “motherhood of the republic” was born (Camerarius, 201). Women continued to perform the same functions they had done before independence, but now considered using their skills for the public good. The reformed role of women was to “nurturing the republican virtues in the members of their family [and]…to inspire. role in the public sphere” (Chambers, 202). Women were not considered citizens, but many elite women succeeded in this new popular discourse of honor, which rewarded respectable women with education and recognition of their worth. Although the new republican ideas of honor were based on the preservation of domestic virtue , officially introduced the role of women into the political spectrum.
Women consistently dominated social communication networks and were essential in influencing popular opinion at the neighborhood level. Often blurring the lines between domestic and community affairs, they used this tool to provoke conflict or to avoid those who had behaved in a shameful manner. As the tension between Liberals and Conservatives grew, Conservative elites began to use women’s “social power and power as a powerful weapon, ridiculing Liberal officials and insulting the baseness of democratic societies” (Sander, 93). The greatest and most powerful resistance of the Democratic societies does not arise from the dubious efforts of men to create calculating clubs, but from the strong social activities of women. The wives of the liberals joined, they condemned the liberal priest, and the combined petition made a refusal. An observer in Pasto credited the women with effectively shutting down the local Democratic Society, which had not met for several weeks because of the women’s efforts. Liberals spoke out against these actions, essentially telling women to stay at home and fulfill their domestic duties. Their comments “reflected the sameness that many Liberal men felt because of the political choice of women” (Sander, 93). Although it is consistent in terms of all kinds of denial of women’s citizenship, different political parties are concerned with the extent to which women participate in politics.
Essentially, there is a difference between conservative and liberal views regarding female political participation in their views of theoretical equality. Liberals considered all citizens equal, and only allowed their citizens political participation. Conservatives, on the other hand, believed that society was essentially unequal, allowing political participation by all members of society. For the Liberals, “public participation made the citizen”, while the Conservatives argued that “participation will not give [women] any reason to claim equality with men” (Sander, 94). Not that the Conservatives believed more strongly than the Liberals in the ability of women to take control of the state, but that the involvement of women in action was no less threatening than to the Liberals. Women’s participation not only made republicanism seem much more terrifying and foreign, it removed it from the patriarchal mold. Even the radical Liberal Jose Maria Quimper, who advocated equal rights for women, “feared that … protecting the power of women’s liberties … would lead to the violation of the fundamental rights of men as heads of families” (Castra, 236). By removing women from the power of their husbands and fathers, he “removed the impious citizen as a father from the family. If the masters could not dominate the slaves, or the rich politically the poor, men must dominate women.” (Sanders, 94). However, not all Liberals fought women’s participation so strongly, and many Liberals often held women in the middle.
There was a great disparity between the elite and the commoners or the subordinate women. Although elected women could benefit more from Republican ideas of female honor, they are generally stuck in efforts to reach beyond their traditional roles. As noted above, conservative elite women were able to extend their social influence to political ends, effectively making significant attacks on opposing political parties. However, the chosen women women bound by the ideas of patriarchy, with the largest part under the male control, the head of the household. Plebeian women, however, “often lived their lives outside the power of the patriarch” (Castra, 214). Popular liberals especially “women’s liberation” dominated liberals seemed unable or unwilling to do anything (Sanders, 53) This could be due to the lack of male control over their economic resources. For this reason, liberal women had more independence than most other groups. protesting men, and tearing apart fences in the ejidos with men. Although such an integral part of the political parties, liberal women “remained ideologically excluded from the liberality of the state and public life” (Sander, 96). they were held by the same principle of gender inequality.
Based on a strong patriarchal society, Latin American women were able to break away from their older domestic roles and enter a new era with men. Although denied their rights as citizens, women began to participate in political revolutions, eventually making significant enough impacts. The political role of women was made available by men, who tried to force women to return workers to their traditional roles. Both Republican and Liberal politicians theorists of the time allowed public opinion to be defined as arising from rational debate between educated men and citizens; Denying the women’s rumor had any effect. As the women of the lower ranks of the liberal populace fought with the men, they therefore remained unequal, being prevented from being obtained by every state. However, this movement of women in the political realm became a big step, to leave the former role in the former feminine house.
