Gender relations and doing gender

The students described that to some extent, there exists clear gender roles in Ethiopia today – although it was highlighted that there is a difference between urban and rural areas as well as according to your education level and religion. The differences between the past and the present was also elaborated on by the students, pointing at how things had been worse but that changes had and were occurring, and that things were better now. Although agreement could be seen among the students on this, they differed in their perceptions of how much change had actually occurred. Some highlighted the effort made by the government, while others

critically claimed that not enough had been done, that the laws were weak or simply not enough, and that not much change had actually occurred. The students therefore ended up pointing at (some) changes which have occurred and the common description that things in many aspects are better now, but that there still are problems. There are still clearly defined gender roles and gendered expectations for women and men in Ethiopia. As one students stated, “Still there is, in the culture, there is such a thing that certain roles are given to women and certain roles are given to men (…) the expectations are very different” (Genet).

Women are expected to be soft, emotional, caring, nurturing, not strong and a person needing help from others. Moreover, women were described since restricted as many women would not be allowed to go anywhere without the permission of the husband. On the other hand, men were expected to be strong, the provider, heroic, and free to go everywhere and do whatever they want. The clearly defined gender roles were also visible when different tasks were given to women and men. Women are expected to cook for the husband and children, to protect and raise their children and take care of the family. Everything in the house was described as the

68 responsibility and obligation of women. Thus, a gendered division of labour was visible.

These tasks were not assigned for men however, and as some female students stated; a man never cooks. This gendered division of labour was visible even if the woman was working.

The differences, both in regard to personal characteristics and the different tasks provided for women and men, were by some seen as founded in religion, stating that “our Bible teach us that the man and the women, we have our roles” (Hirut). Living in accordance with this was respecting the religious believes. Others stated it was in accordance with culture, tradition and custom, and some mentioned that things were regarded more efficiently when done by women or men.

Men were not only seen as superior, but as obviously superior, even today. Thus, indicating that this was taken for granted. Men are more dominant – although improvement compared to earlier times had occurred – and women could still be dominated by men today. Men also possess more (societal and relational) power than women and controlled position. It was also stated that men still feel dominant over women today, and that the man can control the family.

This was, by some, described as the duty of the husband. According to the students, this leads to women being denied many of their rights, as well as allowing men things women are not.

Some thought that women have been afraid to show their power.

A picture of a gendered hierarchy and an unequal power distribution is painted.²⁸ The hierarchy and men as superior was also visible when a female student said that women can work, but the work should not make her ‘more busy’ than the man, nor should she earn more money than him. The man has to make “More money, he has to be more educated than you (…) so in any aspect he has to be more than his wife” (Sara). It was also stated that “There are few women who can make decisions, but most of them cannot. For example, their older brother can decide for them, their parents can decide for them or their husband can decide for them” (Ruth).

28 The term ‘patriarchy’ was however only used by one of the students.

69 The gendered descriptions provided by the students could be interpreted as a perception of gender as an essence and identity – or roles – they naturally possess. This is seen through the ways they talk about gender where certain roles are given to women and men. However, this can also be seen in light the doing gender approach – where gender is being done in everyday interaction, and not merely – or at all – a role they naturally possess. Moreover, it is

something one must learn how to do correctly, and is internalized throughout life and taken up by the individuals to enact in order to be competent members of society, and to do their gender right: “You know it in your heart, it is custom. I grew up looking at my mom doing all that kinda stuff, so I’m expected to do it” (Hirut).

Applying the doing gender approach one can clearly see different ways of doing gender, where women are doing their gender through for instance housework and (to some extent) doing submissive, while men do their gender through being strong and superior, and to some extent doing domination. When stating “men are obviously superior. Many things are allowed for men, but not for women” (Sara), both the doing gender is visible – that there are different things which women and men are allowed to do in order to perform their genders – as well as the gender hierarchy. In describing men as possessing control over his family, but describing it as a duty of the husband, one can see it as an expression of the gender hierarchy and male power, but also as a duty – a way of doing their gender right.

One can also see ways of doing gender when students described the ways women and men should behave; for women to be soft and emotional, while men should be strong and can do whatever they want. This creates ways which gender should be done in order to be done properly, as well as creating ways in which gender can be done wrong. The relational aspect between the two (e.g. in regard to power) is also visible, as for the case where one of the students elaborated on the fact that women can work, but the work should not make her ‘more busy’ than the man, nor should she earn more money than him, and that the man has to be more than his wife. The interactional aspect of doing gender is clearly visible.

Doing gender is maybe more interesting when illustrating violations of the right way to do gender. One student got corrected by her friends: “if you can’t cook like that, oh you are not

70 going to get a husband” (Ruth). The same student stated that she did not want to get married nor have children, and received major reactions when she told this to others. Violations of gendered norms could result in harassment: “You can experience it while you’re walking, or like sitting in the café, or in class. Some may say ‘shut up, you’re a woman’ or ‘you can’t stand here because you’re a woman’” (Ehete). Obviously, there are some things one cannot say or do due to the ways one’s gender should be done.