The Tribune

By Dr Ian Bethell-Bennett

We seem to have an understanding of submission as something ultimate and complete; that men are completely in charge of women and must rule over them with an iron fist. We have the irony, as discussed last week, of being a country where women are the dominant bread winners, and more households are headed by single women.

Yet we speak as a country that is run by men for the benefit of men, but only men of a particular group. What is even more interesting is the apparent schizophrenia of Christianity in the country. It is meant to be about mercy and love, but seems more concerned about control. Its patriarchal nature is becoming obvious. There is also a regressive and insular thinking that threatens to undermine all forms of national development.

In discussions around women being able to pass on their citizenship like their male counterparts can do, the apparent opposition becomes clear. This is most pronounced among some members of the Christian Council. However, it seems unclear as to why the country is choosing to support men ‘dominating’ women and women being second-class citizens.

Whenever there are power imbalances someone benefits from the imbalance. Christianity has always been explained to us through biblical analogies; that one needed grace, empathy and understanding as today could be my day and tomorrow could be yours, but the current understanding seems to indicate that we care little for empowering men and women through empathy and grace.

At this juncture, all that is being proposed in the changes is that Bahamian women and men be equal in the face of the law, with their ability to pass on their citizenship. It is about moving women from a position of legal inferiority to a more equitable one.

This has nothing to do with changing the ways in which husbands and wives relate, nor changing the Christian doctrine as regards relationships between God and man. There have been many indications that these matters will arise, which are all smoke and mirrors. When a subterfuge is created it is usually with the desire to manage outcomes in a way that will benefit one group over all others.

As we discuss Bill #4, which is where a great deal of the resistance and smoke and mirrors arises, we need to see it as a way to remedy the situation where women are discriminated against based on their sex.

It must be stated clearly that discrimination based on religion is not allowed, but we can and do pay a woman less because she is a woman. We cannot pay someone less because he or she is Seventh Day Adventist or Mormon or Jehovah Witness, nor would we cant to.

We should not choose to allow the continued differentiation between women and men where women earn less than men for doing the same job, or where women lose their benefits when they marry because they are subject to their husbands. In fact, society’s understanding of patriarchy means that men are supposed to take control of everything, especially women.

Again, the cultural reality is that a great many women are more educated than their male counterparts. In studies we see that more women than men graduate high school and college, yet women earn less than men when they go into the job market. This is discrimination based on sex and gender.

When some businesses refuse to open accounts for women because they do not have their husbands with them, this is discrimination based on sex. Why in a society that is made up of more women than men do we choose to discriminate against women? Further, in efforts to allow men to also pass on their citizenship to their children who may be born outside of marriage to a non-Bahamian woman, why do we see this as threatening a way of life? Which way of life is it threatening? In a society where a large percentage of children are born outside of marriage to philandering men, why would we choose to continue to disenfranchise these children; is it only because they are foreign?

As the world faces the globalisation reality and more people than ever travel away from their homes for periods of time or to stay, more children are born in countries that are not their parents’ homes. More people than ever live in countries where they were not born. However, nationally we seem to be holding on to an outdated reality where, should a woman choose to gain experience abroad and should she marry and have children there, she should stay there because we refuse to allow her the ease of having children who can easily access her Bahamian citizenship. Our way of thinking seems to be regressive, it limits the nation to a reactive position as opposed to being a leader in promoting national development. A country that refuses to progress actually slides backwards as global cities move forward.

Further, we seem to be intent on limiting Bahamians as well as our participation in the global village. By insisting that we remain antiquated in the way we interpret Christianity, citizenship and equality, we impose unreasonable controls on ourselves. As with other areas of our development, we are plummeting in the global rankings. At the same time, those in power are telling us that we are one of the best little countries in the world. Moreover, we are making it easier for non-Bahamians who invest in land and homes in this country to have a more robust life for themselves and their children, and are undermining and in fact disenfranchising Bahamian citizens. Current thinking seems to be that all Bahamians must stay home or risk not being Bahamian.

While the discussion is being couched in such a way that makes it appear about gender, sex, being God-fearing, being good Christians and protecting the nation, it is in fact undermining the nation’s and its people’s ability to progress by refusing to allow all those hundreds of young Bahamians who travel beyond our strictures of acceptance to develop beyond our shores the same advantages we give those who invest in our shores. And we usually bar full Bahamian participation in those areas. Are we saying, as a Member of Parliament affirmed initially, that anyone who develops links outside of the Bahamas, especially if female, has children and develops an international career, should be banished by our antiquated laws?

This makes bad national development sense! We also seem to be forgetting that today it is you and tomorrow it will be me, where is the grace or Christian humility in our rigid way of thinking? We are far too happy to exclude based on false “truths” without a care in the world of what the fallout will be.