BAHAMIAN KINSHIP AND THE POWER OF WOMEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment

of the Master of Philosophy Degree

in Social Anthropology

August 1993

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicolette Bethel

Corpus Christi College

Department of Social Anthropology

Introduction

            This thesis is an introduction to a topic which warrants further study:  the centrality of Bahamian women not only in their families[1] but also in society at large.

            Seven years ago, as an officer in the Ministry of Youth, Sports and Community Affairs, Nassau, I was struck by the high public[2] involvement of women in Bahamian society.  The officers I worked with were primarily women (see Appendix 1); the majority of those taking part in our programmes were girls.  In 1987, a study conducted by the Ministry's Women's Affairs Unit and the Commonwealth Secretariat revealed that the proportion of Bahamian women in prominent public positions was higher than in countries where similar studies had taken place (see p.15 below).  In 1989, I began teaching in a small private high school.  There too, girls out-performed boys, improving as they got older, while the boys' achievements declined.  Young women, I realized, were being better trained to take up positions of public prominence than young men.

            It seems possible that the domestic centrality of Bahamian women — the "matrifocality" of the Bahamian home — has influenced women's strength in the public domain.  Roughly half the women I worked with in the ministry were mothers who had never been married, and one-quarter of my students lived with their mothers only.[3]  However, conventional theories of matrifocality shed little light on the situation:  these single mothers are middle class women — white-collar workers in the ministry, or women who can afford their children's private education.  Furthermore, women's prominence is considered no anomaly; my (middle-class) students, male and female alike, took it for granted.

            My fieldwork was conducted among middle-class youngsters of high-school and college age.  In a series of unstructured interviews, they were asked their opinions about family, marriage and the roles of men and women, and their own family backgrounds were taken into account.  I have also relied on my experiences as a Youth Officer (1986-1989) and as a high school teacher (1989-1992).  My observations are limited to Nassau, the capital, where over 70% of the Bahamian population reside, and are backed up by recent studies carried out in Jamaica and the rest of the Commonwealth Caribbean, where similar trends are emerging.[4]

            One point remains to be made.  The availability of statistics in The Bahamas is haphazard at best.  Numerical data is not always easy to obtain, and is often out-of-date.  Many of the figures I include in my text are estimates made by the relevant agencies, and should be read as such.  As far as possible I have relied on samples of my own, which are small.  However, what I have included should suffice to indicate general trends.

Statement of Problem

            The Bahamas today is a society where the prominence of women in almost every field — and the corresponding absence of men — is not only remarkable but also, for politicians and planners, worrying (Miller, 1991:94).  Not only do women constitute half the workforce in The Bahamas, but they are increasingly employed in the professions and in managerial positions traditionally held by men.  Between 1970 and 1980, the number of females in the professions rose by 65%, and by 1991 more women than men were applying for jobs.[5]  Moreover, the prospect of continued female employment in the professions is strong.[6]  Bahamian girls perform better in school than boys, leave high school with better qualifications, and go on to college.  While their sisters are entering law, medicine and finance, young Bahamian men are still becoming construction workers, mechanics, service station attendants and the like[7].

            What is the reason for this?  Churchmen and social workers seek the trouble in the "breakdown" of the traditional family patterns.  Turnquest notes:

 

The traditional extended family no longer plays a significant role in Bahamian society [and] there has also been a breakdown in the nuclear family ... the housewife-mother is an increasingly rare figure [as often] both parents work outside the home.  All too often ... children are left unsupervised after school.  The single-parent family creates a similar position for children ... as the father is not only a source of emotional support, but also helps maintain a balance of standards and values within a family, children from such homes are often poorly motivated [and] can be seen as contributing to an uneven development of the sexes:  boys ... tend to become insecure, while girls are strong-minded and aggressive.   (1987:4-5)

 

It is easy to suggest that family structure is one reason that females are becoming more active in Bahamian society; their traditional prominence in the home is well-documented.[8]  The issue, however, is more complex.  First, Bahamian patterns of matrifocality thirty years ago were fairly conservative by West Indian standards.[9]  Nevertheless the average Bahamian women today is more influential than her Caribbean counterparts.[10]  Second, female dominance of domestic life, and the accompanying marginality of males, are widely considered to be markers of social and economic disadvantage (R.Smith 1956; Liebow 1967; Rodman 1971), and are often tied to the equally marginal status of women in society (Stack 1974; Rubenstein 1978; Morris 1981).  Yet in The Bahamas, while the family has grown increasingly mother-centred since the 1960s,[11] the economy during the same period has experienced considerable growth.[12]  Third, it is difficult to sustain the argument that racism and social disadvantage are the cause.[13]  Although whites account for 15% of the population, and prior to 1967 dominated the economic and political life, they are no longer visible members of the community, and have been politically dormant for twenty-five years.[14] 

            Finally, the mother-centred family is as much a feature of the middle classes as it is of the lower.[15]  A considerable proportion of the population is middle-class, evidence of the economic growth of the 1970s and 1980s; these middle classes, like the politicians who rule the country, are black (see below).  Contemporary black Bahamians are economically powerful and politically dominant.  Nevertheless the matrifocal form of the family thrives.  Conventional theories of matrifocality and their applications to the position of women in Bahamian society do not hold.

Theories of Matrifocality

            Classic matrifocality, as defined by R.T. Smith for British Guiana (1956), was a system where

 

a woman in the status of "mother" is usually the de facto leader of the group, and conversely the husband-father, although de jure head ... (if present) is usually marginal to the complex of internal relationships of the group.  By "marginal" we mean that he associates relatively infrequently with the other members of the group, and is on the fringe of the effective ties which bind the group together.  (1956:223)

 

The male's role was economically central to the maintenance of the family group (1956:226).  However, because the Afro-Guianese men in question occupied a low socio-economic position, their overall contribution to the home was limited at best; dispossession in society rendered them marginal at home (1956:227-8).[16]  A crucial component of Smith's thesis was that female domestic centrality and the corresponding marginality of men varied over time.  Following Fortes' (1970) description of the domestic cycle of Ashanti households, Smith argued that men were most important to the family structure at the beginning of the Guianese domestic cycle, and lost authority as they migrated in search of work, or as they aged and were no longer able to provide for their families (1956:111-112).  Matrifocality, he concluded, was an adaptation of the universal nuclear family structure to adverse socio-economic conditions.[17]  For Smith, matrifocality did not mean either that women were necessarily heads of their households, or that their authority extended beyond the domestic sphere; what it did involve was the exclusion of males from an active place in both public and domestic life.[18]

            Two studies in particular fit Smith's model well — Clarke's comparison of three Jamaican villages, and Gonzalez's investigation of Black Carib communities in British Honduras.  Both note that the West Indian family encompasses a range of structures (Clarke, 1966:113-123; Gonzalez, 1969:4), the most striking of which is the female-centred family. Clarke, like Smith, ties family structure to varying socio-economic conditions.  One village in her sample demonstrates the effect of poverty upon family forms.  There the land is poor and land holdings so small that the inhabitants are barely able to subsist; legal marriage is beyond the means of most couples, who tend rather to cohabit on a permanent basis with one another, and raise children together.  Unlike Smith, however, she does not imply a sweeping likeness among all groups of similar standing.[19]  She suggests that it is economic stability, not merely the possession of wealth, which allows for the development of elementary family forms.  The workers on the sugar estate in Clarke's study make far more money than the inhabitants of either of her other villages, but because their earnings fluctuate between periods of comparative wealth during the sugar crop and hardship out-of-season it is difficult for them to maintain elementary families.  It is here that households consisting of a single mother and her offspring are most common.  Only where inhabitants' access to productive land provides a steady income all year round is the nuclear family based on marriage the norm.

            Gonzalez concentrates on one type of community — that of Black Caribs in British Honduras.  She points out that many groups among whom female-centred families occur are those which are found on the edge of industrialized societies (1969:8).  They are dependent upon those larger societies for their survival, but have not been assimilated into them; often, their members are exploited as manual labourers, but are not given full membership in the wider society (1969:9-10).  Moreover, the communities in question are "neoteric",[20] or newly-formed, and lack traditions which allow them high levels of social integration.[21]  They exhibit a high degree of structural flexibility:  "a capacity for change [is] built into these systems, which must continually adapt themselves or be annihilated." (1969:10)  They are further prevented from full incorporation into the wider industrialized society by the fact that they are often constituted of mixed-bloods (1969:9) — a fact which, while certainly true of the Black Caribs, is less true of the villages studied by Smith and Clarke.  But the absence of males as husband-fathers does not automatically give authority to females.  For this reason Gonzalez terms such households "consanguineal";[22] for while males may hold positions of authority, they are generally related to the other members by blood, and not by affiliation (1969:60-61).

            Common to almost all studies of matrifocality are issues of disadvantage.  Matrifocality is often seen as an adaptation of family structures to the exigencies of poverty or other adverse conditions — in Rodman's words, "a matrifocal household is matrifocal by default, not by design" (1971:183).[23]  Such a view, while accurate to a degree, is ultimately simplistic.[24]  If disadvantage were the only factor affecting family structure, or even the most important, then Caribbean and African-American families should adjust to improving conditions by moving away from matrifocality.  As we shall see, this is not always the case.

            A more complex interpretation is presented by Martinez-Alier (1974) in her study of Cuban marriage during slavery and after, which considers the institution of class in the creation and maintenance of matrifocal families in ex-slave societies.  Unlike M.G.Smith, for whom West Indian class stratification based on criteria of colour was evidence of his theory of cultural pluralism,[25] Martinez-Alier points out that the factors which affected the formation of matrifocal families operated throughout the whole society, regardless of wealth or status.  Throughout the region there was traditionally a correlation between skin colour and class,[26] originating in slavery (see footnote 25).  Although in most territories there existed social or legal sanctions against interracial marriage, it was common for men of higher rank (and lighter colour) to form extra-legal unions with women of any class.[27]  The resulting offspring were often accorded higher status than their black siblings, although their social standing was less exalted than that of their paler relatives.  Far from being outside the tradition of matrifocal family forms, then, the middle and upper classes were active participants in it (1974:117).

            What is perhaps most interesting about Martinez-Alier's analysis is that it raises ideas not only of class but also of women's agency.  As she points out, a woman might choose to bear children out of wedlock for a man of higher status than herself, in order to afford them greater social privileges than if she married a man of her own class.  That such a practice was not limited to Cuba alone is shown clearly in R.T.Smith's later studies of Jamaican and Guyanese society, where it is still the custom among some lower- and lower-middle-class women to form unions with men of higher class; that such an action is profitable is evidenced by the fact that the fathers of these children, while not necessarily offering social recognition, are more likely to provide for their "outside" offspring financially or socially, often educating them in private schools or even sending them to live with middle-class relatives.[28]  By considering aspects of class and colour, then, Martinez-Alier encourages the view that matrifocality, while often the product of social disadvantage, might also be formed by women's conscious design.

            That such an idea is not far-fetched may be illustrated by looking at the economic place of women in Caribbean society.  Paradoxically, the same conditions which are believed to prevent the formation of elementary families often allow women a certain measure of economic autonomy.  Not only did slavery render the position of the black man tenuous; but it also created a division of labour based more on class than on sex (R.T.Smith, 1987).  Caribbean women have always worked outside the home (Powell, 1986; Safa 1986).  In fact, one would be hard pressed to decide where the domestic unit ended and the productive unit began (see Mintz, 1964; Morris, 1981).  Where women work, they are less dependent on men for financial support than where they do not; thus they are often able to act as the stable focus of their families.[29]

            Moreover, a woman's choice to bear children may be an economic one.  While marriage is not considered by Caribbean women to be crucial to the attainment of womanhood, childbearing is (Clarke, 1966; Powell, 1986); yet there is little idea that children add to one's economic hardship.  Clarke notes that in Jamaica, children are said to "'cost nothing'" (1966:180).  And various researchers[30] have pointed out that children, like men, are often considered financial resources.  The woman who earns money by petty trading or the fixing and selling of food will often have her children helping her (Mintz, 1964; Morris, 1981; Pine, 1982).  Unlike men, however, children are believed reliable; men may leave, but children are an investment in one's future (Clarke, 1966; Powell, 1986).  Far from being economically central to the home, then, as Smith assumed, men are in fact peripheral — often viewed by women as one resource among many (Safa, 1986:8).  One man's money, after all, is as good as another's.  As Baby Suggs remarks in Toni Morrison's Beloved:  "A man ain't nothing but a man ... but a son?  Well now, that's somebody." (Morrison, 1988).

 

Structural and functional matrifocality

            Most of the above studies have approached the matrifocal family from a purely structural point of view — they attempt to account for the relatively large number households headed by women in the physical absence of men.  This approach, however, has its limitations, for it assumes that in households with a resident male head, matrifocality disappears.  Yet the economic autonomy of sexes in the Caribbean affects the function of the household as well as its structure (Powell, 1986; Safa, 1986).  Not all homes in which the husband/father is absent for long periods at a time are "matrifocal" in the classic sense, where the decision-making is left primarily or wholly up to the wife/mother.  The families of career soldiers, naval officers, fishermen, itinerant workers, travelling salesmen and British Members of Parliament, for example, while "matrifocal" in structure, may nevertheless function as traditional nuclear families, where the male's economic contribution to the home is central and his authority unquestioned.  Similarly, the physical presence of the husband/father does not guarantee the absence of matrifocality.  Paul's study of Bermudian families demonstrates this:

 

... the black Bermudian family, based on legal or religious marriage, is characterized by a functional matrifocal emphasis.  The role of wives-mothers is not one of "subservient chattels" (Lowenthal 1972:111).  Wives-mothers carry out the most part the socialization of the children, [sic] the planning of the families and are also the disciplinary figures ... the husband-father role tends to be reduced to a breadwinner role.  (Paul, 1983:100)[31]

 

            As early as 1957 Clarke noted the ambivalent status of the father even in households which followed traditional "nuclear" family patterns where he was nominally the head (1966:159).[32]  And Powell (1986) observed that throughout the Caribbean, women are the primary makers of decisions within the home whether they are married or not.  Although, as she points out, "female headship is confined largely to households in which a man in the role of husband/partner is absent" (1986:104), the women involved in her study "see themselves rather than their men-folk as autonomous decision-makers" (1986:106); "'Partners' do not feature in any of the areas as prime-decision-makers." (1986:107).[33]  Powell's study questions the idea that women in co-residential unions have considerably less influence in the home than their unattached counterparts; the women she interviewed are the functional heads of their households.

            The matrifocal household, therefore, must be viewed as being more than "matrifocal by default".  There is little to be gained by reducing the matrifocal family to a mere response to disadvantage; for where that disadvantage is removed, the matrifocal family does not necessarily disappear.  The idea that matrifocality is limited only to those homes in which the male is absent is equally fruitless; if this were the case, then the former conservatism of matrifocal family forms in The Bahamas would appear puzzling in the light of modern trends.  If women's agency is ignored, there is nothing in existing theories of matrifocality to account for the present structure of Bahamian society.  If, however, it is recognized that 1)  structural matrifocality may be the result of a woman's choice and 2)  families with nominal male heads may be functionally matrifocal, then a link may be sought in Bahamian family structure for the comparative prominence of women in society at large.

Matrifocality and Bahamian society

            If matrifocality is associated with poverty, lower-class status or political dispossession, The Bahamas should exhibit low numbers of matrifocal families.  First, Bahamians' standard of living is more like that of North Americans than of other "developing" nations; for the boom which began after the Second World War has only recently (like the world economy) shown signs of recession.[34]

            Second, class distinctions differ from those found elsewhere in the Caribbean,[35] owing to the presence of native whites.  Until the late 1950s class was overshadowed by a colour bar which discriminated against black and mulatto Bahamians alike.[36]  Although social distinctions were made on the basis of skin shade, political alliances between blacks and mulattos were formed early, and the darkness of one's skin did not necessarily exclude one from holding prominent positions in black society.

            Between 1945 and 1967 improved educational opportunities saw the development of a male-dominated professional class, representative of both black and "coloured" Bahamians; the most prominent of these men formed the first majority government in 1967.  It was not until after the election of that government that widespread access to secondary and tertiary education, coupled with a booming economy, created a black middle class consisting of public servants, bankers, doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, teachers, journalists, artists, musicians and intellectuals.  Figures are not available to measure the proportion of these middle classes in Bahamian society.  However, the results of the 1992 general election indicate that their influence is strong; in that year, a party representing middle-class interests ousted one whose strength lay in working-class support.

            Third, black Bahamians are politically dominant.  Until 1967 The Bahamas was a British colony governed by a minority of native whites, but for the better part of a generation blacks have been in power.  Indeed, Bahamians set themselves apart from many other Caribbean people by electing leaders who are not representatives of either the coloured middle or the white upper classes.[37]

            By many accounts, Bahamian family forms should be in a process of transformation away from matrifocality.  Certain factors indicate this is not the case.  Figures are sketchy, but those available reveal that in 1980, although approximately 22% of the adult Bahamian population was legally married, 55% of the total population was under the age of 15 (Draft National Policy Statement on Women, 1991; The Link, 2(1), 1987).  This suggests that a large proportion of minor children resided with their unmarried parents.  Chances are good that these parents are mothers; in 1987, an estimated 64% of all households in New Providence, the site of the capital, were headed by single parents, most of whom were women.[38]

            Bahamian families are functionally as well as structurally matrifocal.[39]  Even where the husband/fathers are present, mothers perform the majority of the tasks in the home, including that of providing economic support for their families.  In families where both parents are present and working, it is often the case that the mother's income is used to finance the welfare of the children, while the father's is expended on luxuries.[40]  Mothers are often the providers of discipline and stability in the home;[41] it is they who involve themselves in their children's schooling, and who make most of the important decisions in the home.[42]

            In Bahamian society, mothers are considered responsible for the well-being of the family and, by extension, society itself.  This view is borne out by attitudes which are often taken for granted.  For instance, while men may be forgiven for making mistakes, women may not.  During the 1980s, when crack addiction was rife, rehabilitation programmes and half-way houses for men were established.  Virtually none existed for women, despite evidence that the rehabilitation of female crack addicts was more difficult to achieve than that of males.[43]  Furthermore, given the high demand on existing resources, it is more difficult for women to be treated by primary care institutions than it is for men.  One magistrate described how she repeatedly sentenced a female addict to be admitted to a rehabilitation centre, only to discover that each time the woman had been released after a night or two.  Such a step, she argued, would never be taken with a man.  Not only are men believed more dangerous, but they are also considered morally weaker than women, and more in need of help.  Woman, she claimed, is the "pillar" of society.[44]  When she falls she falls hard; and her family falls with her.  Consequently the female drug addict is judged more harshly than her male counterpart.

            Another example of the centrality of the mother to the family is the popular tendency to consider the children of one woman by various men full siblings, and the children of one man by different mothers half siblings.  As one (male) student put it: 

 

... my grandmother, right, she got married.  She got married three times because her first two husbands died.  She had something like sixteen kids ... She had children for different men, right?  But yet it still seem as though they are full sisters and brothers.  Now I mean if it was say a guy having children they would be half brothers and half sisters ...

 

            In the middle class, marriage or motherhood (not fatherhood) demarcates the time for setting up house — which may explain the tendency of Bahamians to refer to their parental home as their mother's house, regardless of whether or not their father is present.  It is unusual for teenagers to move out of their parents' home unless they leave the city or settlement.  Daughters may leave home in their twenties when they marry (earlier for women, as in the rest of the Caribbean, than for men) or have borne children; it is not uncommon for sons to remain at home until they are in their thirties, unless they marry younger.  In some cases a young man of means may buy or rent an apartment in order to afford himself some privacy, but his mother's house is always home.  Such men may set up temporary living arrangements with women other than their mothers, but when these are over, are likely to return to their mothers' houses.[45]

            Women's primacy extends beyond the domestic sphere.  Half the workforce are women, who may well hold positions of authority.  Education, for instance, is almost completely female-dominated — a fact which is as applicable to the upper strata of tertiary institutions as it is to kindergarten and primary school.  In The College of The Bahamas, the top three positions (Principal, Vice-Principal and Dean of Academic Affairs) as well as the chairmanship of almost every academic division have, for the better part of the College's eighteen-year existence, been occupied by women (Appendix 4).  In secondary schools, most of the teachers are female (e.g. Appendix 2), and girls make up the majority of students in secondary and tertiary institutions (Appendix 3).

            In the public service, women are almost equally prominent.  Although their promotions are not as easily won as in education, it is nevertheless not uncommon to find women in positions of great prominence.  Many Bahamian magistrates (a number are West Indian) are female, as are many Crown Prosecutors.  For the better part of a decade, the Financial Secretary, the Director of the Archives, successive Directors of Education, and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism have all been women.

            Women's presence in the private sector is marked.  Bahamian women, more educated than their male counterparts, are better qualified to enter the labour market.  For example, the majority of participants in the B.A. programme in Banking and Finance at the College of The Bahamas have been women whose training qualifies them for top managerial positions.[46]  Furthermore, many employers prefer to hire women, who, they claim, make more reliable employees than men.  They are likely to remain with one firm, while men are prone to move from job to job, always seeking better deals.[47]  Because many working women are the main providers for their families.[48] they are more interested in obtaining job security than in seeking the highest salaries available to them.

            It is arguable that women, to some extent, control public opinion, as many journalists are female.  In radio and television, women predominate.  Newscasters, with few exceptions, are women; men are relegated to those particularly "male" jobs like sportscasting and disk jockeying.  Similarly, in the daily newspapers, women are commonly reporters while men are photographers and sports writers.[49]

            Part of the reason for women's success in the professions is that they function well in occupations which are structurally hierarchical:  the civil service, banking and finance,  law, education.  The hours of work they demand are rigid and offer little flexibility; they require regular attendance for most of the year; and they necessitate relatively high levels of literacy — they require, as one respondent put it, the use of "the mind".  And in The Bahamas, these qualities are more firmly associated with women than with men.  Logic, for instance, is considered by young people to be a female trait:

 

Last term I taught a fifth-form class ... which consisted of thirteen girls and two boys.  [When] I asked the class [why girls predominated] the most interesting observation came from a young woman who declared that boys simply are not logical creatures; unlike girls, their actions are based on feeling rather than on sense.  It was interesting not only because it was an obvious reversal of the ... myth that men are logical and women emotional, but also because the whole class, with the exception of... one boy ... agreed with her.  Even more interesting was the fact that their agreement came not out of a long pondering of the idea, but spontaneously, as if she had put her finger on a truth they had always known but never articulated.                  (N.Bethel, 1992:11)

 

This was not an isolated case.  Interviews with young people revealed similar opinions.  One boy drew attention to "how females use their mental stability" to keep families together, and a girl claimed "it's the mind ... of the woman" that makes the difference in male and female achievements.

            The strength of females in Bahamian society cannot be viewed as the result of either liberal legislation or effective political representation on women's behalf.  Paradoxically, the legal position of women in the Bahamas is one of the weakest in the Caribbean region.[50]  Even today, intestacy means the oldest male relative inherits property.[51]  Until 1991, neither marital rape nor incest was considered a criminal offence.[52]  There was, until 1988, no uniform legislation on the duties of employers towards female employees, despite copious amounts of labour law.  And in matters of immigration, while a foreign wife has the right to be considered for citizenship, and is generally allowed to work, a foreign husband must apply for citizenship like any immigrant, taking his chances with obtaining a work permit.  The legitimate offspring of a Bahamian father is Bahamian; however, a Bahamian woman's legitimate child automatically assumes the nationality of its father, and at eighteen becomes eligible for Bahamian citizenship.  Paradoxically, only in cases of illegitimacy do the children of Bahamian mothers and non-Bahamian fathers automatically become Bahamian citizens (M.Bethel, n.d.).

            In terms of active political representation for women, the Bahamian example is equally weak.  In every organization from the churches to the trade unions to the political parties, females are under-represented in the leadership.[53]  In government, the involvement of females is minimal.  Bahamian women were not accorded the right to vote until 1960.  Although one woman — a veteran of the struggle for black majority government — was appointed to the Senate after 1973 and given a ministerial post, the position was largely honourary and she was removed some years later.  A woman was not elected to Parliament until 1982, and female representation in government remains slim. In the 1992 general election, when four women (of the forty-nine Members of Parliament) gained seats, the victory was hailed by feminists as a progressive step.  In its political and legal structure at least, Bahamian society is highly patriarchal.

            This is not to say that women have no power[54] in The Bahamas.  Mothers are the stable centres and, often, the heads, of their homes.  Women control education; they predominate in the public service and are increasingly involved in law and the media; they occupy many top positions in banking.  Such is the prominence of women in The Bahamas today that middle-class high-school students show no surprise at the idea that a woman can do anything she wants.  For them it is men, not women, who are limited.  As a teacher I was told more than once, by boys, that they refused to study harder because girls would out-perform them whatever they did.  And when, as part of my MPhil fieldwork, I asked eleventh-grade students to draw family trees, a young man explained the traditional anthropological symbol for a man, a triangle, thus:  "a man, he could only do three things".[55]  For him, the female symbol was quite naturally a circle because "a woman is whole, she could do many things".

Education

            In 1986, Miller pointed to the proliferation of Jamaican women in schools, predicting that if it continued, Jamaican men would be at a disadvantage.  By 1991 the trend was established.  By 1988, 58.5% of high school students were female; in the 1986/7 academic year, 55.3% of University of the West Indies students were women.[56]

            Similarly comprehensive statistics are not available for The Bahamas.  However, it is safe to say that a comparable trend exists.  As in Jamaica, the majority of Bahamian teachers are women (see p.15 above), and girls are both numerically and academically stronger in secondary schools than boys.[57]  Boys are more likely than girls to drop out of school after the legal leaving age of fourteen (Stuart, 1989); they are less qualified for admission to schools requiring a minimum academic achievement to enter Grade 10.[58]  Later the gap becomes more marked.  At the College of The Bahamas, 30% of the students are male (Appendix 4); more women are enrolled in every faculty except technology.

            Appendix 5 looks at the performance of high school students in the light of several factors.  Although the sample is small (a class of 29 — Table 1), it is representative of the entire  form — roughly 100 students.  The school is a private church high school, in the middle of the fee-paying range.  Moderately high prestige is conferred on the families of the students who attend, and the student body is made up primarily of children from middle-class backgrounds.  A small majority of the teachers are female (Appendix 2).[59]  The class in question was the top stream of Grade 11, the uppermost form.  The top three students also held the first places in the year; only the boy was not in the upper tenth of the whole form.[60]  The class is unrepresentative of average Grade 11 top streams because the number of boys in it is almost equal to the number of girls (Table 2); but when the students' overall performances are compared in terms of their class positions, it becomes clear that girls do far better (Table 3).[61]

 

Family backgrounds

            Fourteen of the students came from homes where their parents were married (Table 4), while the other fifteen lived in single-parent households.  Of the latter, seven were the result of divorce; seven were households headed by a mother who had never married the student's father.  Only one child resided with her widowed father.  This in itself was unusual.  Often such children are looked after by their mother's relatives, even if they are nominally resident with their fathers, unless their father remarries.[62]

            One might guess that those students whose parents were married were more likely to do well than those whose homes were headed by single parents.  However, this was not the case.  Of the top ten students, six came from "nuclear" families, while the other four had been raised in single-parent homes (Table 5).[63]  In the middle strata, three students had married parents, while the remaining six lived with one parent only; and of the ten students at the bottom of the class, half had parents who were married to each other.  Of these, four are male.  Moreover, of the boys whose parents were married, none were in the top third of the class.

            Both students whose parents were married but whose fathers were absent or shared (one father worked on another island, and the other supported a second family) were in the top third of the class, despite predictions to the contrary.  Once more, both were female.

            A significant number of the single-parent homes were the result of divorce.  This suggests that though middle-class Bahamians favour marriage, such unions are likely to break up while children are minors.  Of the students whose parents were divorced, only one a girl.  She was in the top ten; most of her male counterparts were spread through the middle and bottom of the sample.

            Of those whose parents were never married, two students, both girls, were in the top ten.  Two fell in the middle range (girls again), and three in the bottom.  Of these last, two were male.

            What emerges is that coming from a single-parent home is not necessarily an academic handicap in The Bahamas.[64]  Two other factors seem relevant.  First, children from homes which have never included their father are more likely to succeed in school than children whose parents are divorced.  And second, boys from single-parent homes are less likely to do well than girls from similar backgrounds.  One might conclude, then, that parents who are married and parents who are single produce children who are equally likely to do well, or poorly, in school, though boys appear more likely to be adversely affected by their fathers' absences or their parents' divorces.  Marriage, however, is no guarantee that one's son will do well in school; if one is a boy, one seems less likely to excel academically whatever background one comes from. 

 

Case studies

            Interesting contrasts may be drawn by looking at those students whose siblings attend the same school.  Not surprisingly, girls generally do well, particularly if they are the eldest children; their brothers tend to coast through high school, often on the verge of failing.  Arlette (Number 1) had a brother who came so close to failing Grade 7 that he was threatened with being kept back; the brother of Cheryl (Number 3) did fail and had to repeat.  Conversely, David (Number 12 - 28th in the class) and Geoff (Number 5 - 29th) both had sisters whose school records were commendable.

            The poor performance of the boys in this class is not a mere matter of the different abilities of the sexes; often very bright boys choose not to excel.  Geoff's low standing, for instance, was due to the fact that for large portions of the academic year he turned in no work at all.  His reasoning was that he hated being singled out as being bright, as he felt that it placed him above his (male) peers.  Similarly, Terry (Number 16 - 23rd), while willing to participate orally in class, systematically avoided written work.  Peter (Number 19 - 20th) had originally maintained a place firmly in the middle range of the group.  That meant, however, that he was consistently doing better in school than his best friend, Ray, who was 27th.  By the end of his last year, he had slid to his place at the top of the bottom third of the class.  Although he could give no reason for his poor performance other than that he found the work harder, his teachers observed that he was spending much more time with his friends than before, and less on his studies.  For him, guarding the equal standing he shared with Ray was more important than maintaining his school average. 

            This seems indicate that, for boys, self-worth is derived from one's ability to fit in with one's peers, and not necessarily from performing well in school.  Girls, on the other hand, appeared to find self-worth in academic excellence.  This is reflected in their ability to overcome extraordinary obstacles.  The cases of Denise (Number 26) and Ray (Number 27) illustrate the contrasting reactions of boys and girls to similar environments.  Both had parents whose divorces occurred while they were in high school — Ray in Grades 8 and 9, and Denise in Grades 10 and 11.  Both were placed by their parents in the middle of messy separations, and subjected to considerable emotional turmoil at crucial junctures in their schooling; Grades 9 and 11 are important examination grades.  Denise reacted by working as hard as possible, moving in the space of a year from a place in the middle of the class to fourth.  Ray, on the other hand, concentrated only fitfully on academics, spending time with his friends and girlfriend, involving himself in competitive sports, but rarely excelling at any one thing.

            Lynette (Number 14) provides another case in point.  At fourteen, she was the youngest person in the class and the eldest daughter of a single mother.  She and her sister had the same father, but their parents had never married one another; their father, who lived and worked on another island, had several children by different women.  When he was in town he might give his daughters money and allow them to visit him and his current girlfriend.  Lynette's mother wanted to give her daughters a private education but found it difficult to afford; the girls were often absent from school until the fees were paid.  In addition, Lynette disliked the man to whom her mother had recently become engaged, and often moved (or was moved) from home to home, sometimes staying with her grandmother or an "aunt".[65]

            Despite everything, Lynette managed to maintain a high average in school, never placing lower than twelfth in the class — and only then because she had missed more than half a term.  As of Grade 10, she was awarded a scholarship, and her year-round attendance at school was assured.  She entered the top tenth of the year, and there she remained, never moving more than one or two positions at the most. 

            The dual system observed here — peer recognition for boys, individual excellence for girls — recalls Wilson's (1969) theory of a dual value system for the sexes in the Caribbean.[66]  Studies of the region, he argues, draw a distinction between the values that men hold and those espoused by women.  For men, reputation is important, for women, respectability (1969:74).[67]

            If one applies Wilson's theory to modern Bahamian academic trends one finds a model with which to approach the divergence of male and female performances.  He mentions, for instance, men's tendency to form peer groups while women involve themselves in networks of kin (1969:80-81).  Beginning at about Grade 9, boys organize themselves into groups[68] whose chief pastimes are playing basketball, hanging around the cafeteria or lining the walkways "chatting up" girls.[69]  At about the same time, boys who previously involved themselves in extra- curricular activities begin rejecting them for the greater pleasure of associating with the gang.[70]

            Wilson points out that a large part of reputation depends upon one's proficiency "in undermining, disobeying or circumventing the legal system" (1969:81).  If "academic" is substituted for Wilson's "legal", we have a fair picture of the behaviour of teenage Bahamian schoolboys.  Upper-form boys, unlike girls, commonly react negatively to various symbols of authority.  Terry (Number 16), for instance, was extremely hostile to criticism from male teachers; his response was insolent, almost physically challenging.  For Kevin (Number 8), Danny (Number 23) and Marcus (Number 28), any criticism by teachers had to be countered.  Geoff, explaining why many boys make poor prefects, observed that exercising such authority would damage a boy's standing among his peers; prefects are viewed primarily as the teachers' police (1969:80-81).[71]

            Such boys exhibit a highly-developed sense of corporate duty.  Homework, when it is done, is often done in groups, with the brightest boy working out answers and the weaker ones copying them down.  The solidarity displayed among them is high, almost amounting to a code of honour; to insult one is to insult all.  If one fights, all fight; and if one is barely passing in school (as is often the case), all aim barely to be passing in school.[72] 

            Girls, on the other hand, conform in school, which suggests that they are more comfortable with the hierarchical nature of school life.  In this way they fit Wilson's description of women's preoccupations with "respectability".[73]  Although it is not uncommon for younger girls to resist authority, this tendency peaks in Grade 9, (at the time boys' rebellion begins), after which girls apply themselves to their work.[74]  Female peer groups are smaller and less flexible than male ones, and display hierarchies which are often absent from boys' gangs; one girl is treated as leader by tacit agreement of the members.[75]  Female competition, even among members of the group, is considerable.  It is not uncommon, in the upper forms, for girls to work alone, to associate exclusively with no particular group, and to spend their free time doing various extra-curricular activities.  Girls make the best prefects; they are aware of the school rules, and have little compunction about enforcing them.

            For boys, then, solidarity with one's peers is far more highly valued than excelling in school.  Many of them seemed to derive satisfaction by not doing well.  Indeed, the ideal academic performance is to achieve a passing grade.  To do any less is to jeopardize one's future, but to do more than that is to set oneself apart from the crowd.[76]  School helps boys secure membership in a group which provides them with protection, a sense of identity, and a code of honour.  Their low achievement is a mark of their manhood, of their equality with their fellows; and in this way it may well be nothing less than what is expected by society of them.

            Girls, on the other hand, are not so constrained by stringent ideas of equality.  Competition for top place is stiff among them, and the groups they form are small and tightly-knit — not unlike closed groups of kin.  They are willing to accept positions of responsibility, and are meticulous in executing their duties.  Indeed, for girls, academic success provides a tool for dealing with adversity, a way of gaining self-respect.  For them, school provides the means to find good jobs, which in turn enable them to bring up their families in security.  Their high achievement in school is nothing less than what is expected, indeed required, by society of them; in the words of one fifteen-year-old girl:  "My mum says all the time, get your education, get your house, get your car, then you get your husband."  (N.Bethel, 1988:11).

Conclusion

            Discussions of women and power are complex.  Distinctions are made between the domestic and public domains (Rosaldo 1974), power and authority (Lamphere, 1974), global and local power (Connell, 1987).  It is common to consider women universally subordinate to men;[77] but the Bahamian case challenges set ideas.  As space does not allow an extended discussion of these, I shall outline a few general points to be taken up at a later date.

            In The Bahamas, the prominence of women is such that students take it for granted.  Women hold positions of authority not only within their families, but also in a range of professions commonly considered "male".  Young women receive better academic training than young men, thus readying them to become a new generation of professionals, and girls are better prepared to exercise authority than boys.

            The Bahamian family, despite relative prosperity among all classes, is both structurally and functionally matrifocal.  While middle-class Bahamians still choose to marry, many of these marriages break up while the children are still minors.  As a result, mothers, whatever their class background, are likely to be the economic, social and emotional centres of their children's lives.

            The political authority of women, however, remains limited.  Few Bahamian women are elected to political offices, and the frame of Bahamian society — the structure of laws, the hierarchy of politics and so on — is dominated by men.  Nevertheless, young Bahamian women appear more self-confident and ambitious than their male counterparts.[78]

            How might the prominence of women be related to matrifocality?  First, it is possible that both structural and functional matrifocality socialize girls and boys in opposite ways.  This view is supported by Bahamians themselves.  One young woman observed that

 

... mothers would have their daughters stay home, clean and, you know, do things like that, and I think once you in a home you gonna find something to do, when TV is boring you read a book ... whereas guys probably have this motive to go outside, or play [basket]ball, shoot marbles, you know, that's the things you find to do outside ... [girls] get used to being inside, finding something interesting to do, reading books, you know, things that advance them.

 

            This analysis recalls Austin's theory of "inside" and "outside" ideology (1979).  For Bahamian women, however, the "inside" world is not limited to the domestic sphere.  It is Bahamian women who appear attracted to "inside", white-collar jobs (1979:506); as another young woman observed:

 

They're the jobs that they [women] mostly hold.  Professional jobs.  I mean if you go to a school, a high school, ... and you ask the people in the class you find that most of the females, the girls would say "I'm going to be a lawyer, a doctor, something professional," you know?  Even, I mean, some of the guys, some of the guys wouldn't know what they want to do.[79]

 

            Caribbean society has traditionally seen a high level of economic autonomy of the sexes.  In The Bahamas, where prosperity has expanded economic and educational opportunities, women have become even less dependent on the financial contributions of men — hence a rise in matrifocality.  Respondents point out that daughters are taught to be independent:

 

... [in] single parent homes [the mother] knows that her daughter has to be able to stand on her own no matter what happens ... because she wants to make sure that her daughter can make it, cause she knows what she had to go through herself.  And I don't know why she ignores her son, but the basic reason why is because she knows her daughter ... no one's gonna be there for her, she's on her own.

 

... sometimes they [mothers] probably even tell that child, your children — their daughters, I should say — you know, "You marry him but you don't — once you have your education, your degree, if he leave you, you could tell him to hell with you!"  You know?  And when the people don't want ... to hire you because you're a woman, you say, "Man, I have my degree, I go put up my own lil shack and my lil shingle!"

 

It is tempting to liken the structure of Bahamian society itself to a matrifocal family.  Nominally, it is governed by males, but women exercise considerable autonomy and power.  In practical terms, indeed, young middle-class women have more access to positions of authority than young middle-class men.  While boys may aspire to middle-class professions, girls seem more likely to attain them (Appendix 5, Table 1).

Some idea of Bahamian women's power may be gleaned from interviews with middle-class young women.  Despite their belief that "[women] don't get the credit they deserve", they are reluctant feminists:  "About the power of women ... I think it's gone too far too fast"; and "I think if men could just step up a little bit and we could step back a little bit we could be on par."  As one young woman pointed out:

 

... society is showing us now, even if you look at the schools, and homes and ... the job market, there are more women working, there are more women who have higher standards than men, you know when they come out of school — and I don't know, I can't help but think, try and visualise what our men will be like in the next ten years.  I mean [there are] those that hold positions now, but there's no one to replace them, I mean, except those who are qualified ... if you have more women coming out of school with more degrees with men, obviously women are eventually going to take over — as they are now doing!  You have ladies who are holding positions that they never held before.  I don't particularly mean to dwell on this feministic thing either, but I believe that people should get credit for what they can do ... And I think in the next few years if men don't shake up, women are going to take control.

 


Notes

[1]      For the sake of convenience, I will call this "matrifocality".

[2]      I use "public" in the sense put forward by Rosaldo (1974:23-35), in her discussion of the public and domestic domains.

[3]      These are figures for women who were raising children without ever marrying the father(s).  More still are single parents as the result of divorce or, more rarely, widowhood.

[4]      See Miller, 1986, 1991.

[5]      Draft National Policy Statement on Women, 1991:1,2.  Unfortunately, only figures for women could be obtained.  However, it is fair to speculate, from the academic involvement of females from the 1980s onwards (see Appendix 3), that the numbers of women entering most professions are greater than the corresponding numbers of men.

[6]      The trend is relatively new.  In 1963, 1 in 74 Bahamian females had tertiary level education.  In 1986 the figure had risen to 1 in 8 females, and by 1993 70% of the students enrolled at the College of The Bahamas were female.  (Statistics:  Draft National Policy Statement on Women, 1991; College of The Bahamas records office, 1993.  See Appendix 3.)

[7]      Compare Miller, 1991:72-87.

[8]      Otterbein, 1965; Gelda and Griffin, 1978; Rubenstein, 1978.

[9]      Otterbein, 1965:78, note 2.

[10]      Women's Affairs Unit/Commonwealth Secretariat study, 1987.  Women are magistrates and Crown Prosecutors.  They hold managerial positions in most, if not all, of the banks in The Bahamas, and, in off-shore banks particularly, hold higher positions than their Bahamian male counterparts.  Female doctors are considered as trustworthy as males; the official doctor for pilots, for instance, is a women.  In education and in the civil service women are commonly appointed principals of schools, directors of departments and permanent secretaries.  Achievements of a similar extent have not yet been reported for women in other Caribbean countries (see, for example, Miller, 1986:4; Safa, 1986;16-19; Gordon, 1989:67-78).

[11]      Otterbein 1965, Rubenstein 1978; National Draft Policy on Women 1991.

[12]      Cash, Gordon and Saunders, 1992.

[13]      As claimed, for example, by writers like Liebow (1967), Stack (1974), Ogbu (1978) and others researching African-American life.

[14]      The first black majority government, elected in 1967, was not overturned until 1992.  During its years in power, it took steps to undo the discriminatory policies espoused by its predecessors.  So aggressive was the stand taken that the average black student today is unlikely even to have met a white Bahamian.

[15]      A fact which conflicts with theories linking matrifocality to the lower classes — for example those advanced by M.Smith (1966), Rodman (1971), and Morris (1981).

[16]      But the similar position of the East Indian man in the social system did not have the same effect on the family.  According to the census figures Smith included in his book, in 1946 the East Indians formed 43.51% of the population as opposed to the Africans' 38.17%.  In the rigid colonial structure of the time, then, they were as likely as the blacks to form much of the economically-disadvantaged lower class.  Social mobility for Afro-Guianese seemed at least as common as that of the East Indians; the majority of the East Indian population was composed of estate labourers and considered 'the lowest status group in the whole community' (1956:201).  Despite East Indians' marginality in Guianese society, Smith admitted that "the position of the husband-father in the East Indian groups is much more stable and secure than in the Negro groups".  (1956:192-201; 272)

[17]      Smith's theory was welcomed by various writers during the 1960s and 1970s, among them Kunstadter, 1963; Otterbein, 1965; Liebow, 1967; Gonzalez, 1969; Rodman, 1971; and Tanner, 1974.

[18]      Not all theorists accept these limitations.  See, for example, Kunstadter (1965), who cites the matrilinear Nayar as an example of a "matrifocal" people, or Tanner (1974), who finds matrifocality among the patrilinear Minangkabau of Indonesia.  But Nayar men wield jural authority in their capacities as eldest brother; and Minangkabau men are extremely active in wider Indonesian society.

[19]      To assert that R.T.Smith took the stand that all black West Indian family structures were matrifocal is in itself a generalization; in fact, he did note that middle-class Guianese families conformed to western models.  However, he pointed out that such families are concentrated in urban centres, and posited that the socio-economic standing of the majority of Guianese blacks was uniform.  He has been amply criticized by M.G.Smith (1966) for his apparent blindness to variations of family forms within communities.

[20]      "Recent in origins; modern; new."  Gonzalez 1969:10.

[21]      It is unlikely that Gonzalez would consider the settlements of East Indian immigrants, for instance, "neoteric" communities.  However, her theory does not fully explain why these groups should be any different from the Black Caribs.  Neither people suffered enslavement; both were marginalized economically; both groups occupy the borders of industrialized economies, and in both, men are used to provide cheap labour.  The one difference between them is that the Black Caribs are mixed-bloods, while the East Indians, at least at the time when Gonzalez's study was being carried out, were not.

[22]      "...if the members of the household are related through a series of consanguineal ties, and no two members are bound together in an affinal relationship, we have what is called a 'consanguineal household'."  (Gonzalez, 1969:4).  For her, the only difference between these homes and others is the absence of affines; thus she rejects the idea of matrifocality.  For a full discussion, see Solien de Gonzalez, 1965:1541-1548.

[23]      Compare Lamphere:  "the domestic authority of women comes only at the expense of men, and at the same time working-class and Black women (along with their men) do not have access to the centers of power or an equal place in the labor force." (1974:111).

[24]      See M.G. Smith's (1966) critique of R.Smith; see too Austin, 1983.

[25]      M.G.Smith (1965) hypothesized that West Indian culture, deriving as it did from two major traditions, African and European, was a plural one.  The upper classes, by and large descendants of the European masters, followed traditional European cultural patterns, which were particularly evident in their family organizations.  The lower classes, descended largely from slaves, adhered more closely to family patterns derived from their African heritage and re-formed during slavery.  The middle classes, an intermediate group consisting of mulattoes, modelled their culture on that of the Europeans, aspiring as they did to the positions of prominence originally held by the plantation owners.  Each cultural pattern, Smith argued, was distinct from the others (1965:92-115).  Austin, while recognising the value of Smith's approach, pointed out that his account of the self-sufficiency of the individual groups was substantially exaggerated (1983:226-7).

[26]      This relation varies from country to country, of course.  In societies where there was a substantial number of whites the lightness of one's skin might have had less relevance than in countries where the lighter-skinned groups took positions of prominence in the absence of Europeans.

[27]      Martinez-Alier, 1974:57-60; R.T. Smith, 1988:84-101.  Interestingly, M.G. Smith (1962) mentions the tendency of middle-class men to form "extra-residential" liaisons with women of lower status, but he apparently does not see in this any contradiction of his theory of the ultimate separateness of the "mating patterns" of the different classes.

[28]      See Smith, 1987:166; 1988:114.

[29]      See Clarke, 1966:153-4.  That the economic autonomy of women assists in the development of matrifocality was noted by Kunstadter (1963), Otterbein (1965) and Tanner (1974).  Kunstadter reasoned that, in complex economies, women's access to economic resources is higher, thus rendering them more able to subsist without the permanent help of a man (1963:61-2).  Otterbein observed that  "in order for female-headed households to exist as domestic units, the socio-economic system must be so organized that adult females living alone ... can obtain the means — money, goods, and services — to support their households."  (1965:70).  And Tanner noted that in societies which tend toward mother-focused homes "men and women have relatively similar economic resources."  (1974:155).

[30]      Mintz, 1964; Morris, 1981; Barrow, 1986; Safa, 1986.

[31]      See too Paul, 1983:83-91.  And Tanner, while pushing her point too far, is nevertheless correct in observing that matrifocality may be detected in family function as well as in structure (1974:132).

[32]      That ambivalence, not unnaturally, increased if the household was established on the wife's land.

[33]      In order to determine the extent of women's actual authority within the family, which she ties to the power to make crucial decisions, Powell questioned the women in her study on their ability to affect the domestic life of the family, the location of the home, the school the children attend, the disposal of incomes and so on.  For details, see 1986:106.

[34]      The Bahamian GDP, the third highest in the region, is the highest among independent Caribbean nations.

[35]      See M.G.Smith, 1965:92-115; R.T.Smith, 1987:169-180.

[36]      This discrimination was due in part to the proximity of The Bahamas to the USA and its popularity as a tourist destination.  Two of the major hotels in Nassau, for instance, were owned and run by American companies whose racial policies were no less stringent than in the USA (Saunders, 1985); and the white Bahamian government supported these policies.  One particular incident shows the ultimate powerlessness of mulattos in the face of this discrimination:  during the 1920s a fair-skinned photographer, renowned for his Spanish looks and "straight" hair, who mixed only with whites, was banned from the gardens of a hotel by virtue of his race.

[37]      In fact, Bahamians joke that if a man is short, black and ugly, he is sure to be elected Prime Minister — the former Prime Minister had a false eye; his successor speaks with a lisp; both men are short, and have dark, not light, complexions.  For an indication of the extent of black Bahamians' political power, see Frank's (1978) account of how a single black man engineered the arrest and deportation of two foreign white fishermen.

[38]      National Draft Policy Statement on Women, 1991:2.  The compositions of these households — i.e. whether they contain minor children, adults, grandchildren or other kin — are not specified.  Nor is it stated what proportion of this 64% of households are not headed by women, nor what types of households are the remaining 36%.

[39]      Compare Paul, 1983:57-96.

[40]      And, perhaps, on other things.  Consider this man's reply to a female magistrate who felt more men should sit on the bench:  "No, men can't do that job.  Men need plenty money because they got to take care of all they sweethearts."  Compare Paul:  "Many [Bermudian] husbands and wives did not know the amount of each other's wages ... Secrecy over wages ... secures husband and wife a certain amount of independence in financial matters." (1983:79-80)

[41]      Compare Paul, 1983:69.

[42]      Compare Paul, 1983:57-71; Powell, 1986:106.

[43]      Drug Action Service, informal communication, 1993.

[44]      Compare this idea with the Bermudian one that the man is the head of the family but the woman is the neck — she supports and directs the head.  Paul, 1983:85.

[45]      Compare Gonzalez, 1969:57-60.

[46]      COB, informal communication, 1993.

[47]      Women's Affairs Unit/Commonwealth Secretariat study, 1987.

[48]      ibid.

[49]      The most notorious, and arguably the most powerful, reporter is a woman.  The weeklies are exceptions to this rule.  One of them is a tabloid (see Connell, 1987:108), and the other an analytical journal noted for its strong male advocacy.

[50]      For an idea of Caribbean women's status, see Miller, 1991:87-88.

[51]      Statute Law of The Bahamas, chapter 99, Section 7.

[52]      Statute Law of The Bahamas, Sexual Offenses Act, 1991.  Even so, a husband can only be charged with raping his wife if he is divorced or separated from her, or where he is banned from seeing her by injunction; prosecution of such cases are subject to the agreement of the Attorney-General (1991:9).

[53]      Women's Affairs Unit/Commonwealth Secretariat study, 1987. Compare R. Clarke, 1986:107-155.

[54]      In this context, I am using "power" in the sense that it is used by Rosaldo (1974:21), who adopts the following definition by M.G.Smith (1960):  "Authority is ... the right to make a particular decision and command obedience ... Power ... is the ability to act effectively on persons or things, to make or secure favourable decisions which are not of right allocated to the individuals or their roles."  See too Lamphere, 1974:99.

[55]      Unfortunately, I did not ask him what three things a man could do.

[56]      Statistics are similar for the teaching profession and literacy rate.  In 1985, 82.3% of teaching students were women (Miller, 1986:13-15), and in 1987, 86.7% of women were literate, and 77% of men.  (Miller, 1991:75-78).

[57]      Boys may do well in primary school; the two sexes may enter high school with equally good grades.  However, in Grade 9, females begin to outstrip males in every academic subject.

[58]      In the school where I worked, more boys than girls failed to qualify for entry into Grade 10.

[59]      Bahamian women comprise the largest single group of teachers and Bahamian men the second smallest.

[60]      It was a boy who replaced him, coming fourth overall.

[61]      Almost the same number of boys and girls is found in the middle section of the class.

[62]      In other words, these relatives take over the practical responsibilities of bringing up the children.   I can think of only two instances of students whose single fathers performed these duties (and in the first case, the case of this child, the daughter performed many of them herself).  Both fathers were widowers and neither was Bahamian.  One was a Guyanese East Indian; the other was English.

[63]      This difference is far too small to be significant, given the size of the sample.  If the class is divided in two, (Table 6) six students from two-parent homes would fall in the top half and six in the bottom.

[64]      See Miller, 1991:79, who makes the same point for Jamaica.

[65]      This woman was not in fact a blood relation.  The fact that she was called "aunt" and that her home was open to Lynette make her a good example of the "fictive kinship" discussed by Liebow (1967) and Stack (1974) for inner-city black Americans.

[66]      While Wilson's description of male 'reputation' has considerable analytical value, his consideration of women's 'respectability' leaves much to be desired, its primary assumption being the limitation of Caribbean women's activities to the domestic sphere.  See Barrow, 1986:137-138.

[67]      He contrasts men's preoccupations with appearances, spending money and joking with pals in bars (1969:73-6) and women's preoccupations with church, marriage, and child-rearing (1969:77-8).  Also interesting is Austin's account of "inside" and "outside" ideology (1979).  "Inside" she associates with respectability, middle-class values, and women, "outside" with reputation, working-class activities and men.

[68]      These groups may overlap with the neighbourhood gangs to which several of the same boys belong.  The difference between the two types of gang is one of degree.  The "gangs" in this particular high school, are relatively harmless; they are rarely involved in the dealing of drugs, and are unlikely to be armed with weapons more lethal than screwdrivers and belt buckles.  However, there are occasions on which a boy's school affiliations may mesh or clash with his neighbourhood membership, in which case representatives of the more highly organised, more dangerous gangs may make their appearance on campus, armed with anything from cutlasses to guns.  Membership in each type of gang serves the same purpose for teenage boys:  it provides them with an identity, it gives them a sense of community, and it calls out of them a measure of corporate obligation.

[69]      Often the girls in question are two or three years younger, as those in the boys' years consider themselves too mature for such pastimes.  Girls may be found in the library or in classrooms, discussing their studies.  Again, compare Austin, 1979.

[70]      The one exception to this rule is basketball, skill in which enhances one's standing in the gang.  Compare Frey (1993).

[71]      Alternatively, they are seen as an extension of the gang into the world of authority, a network of "connections" who allow one to get away with breaking rules.  Neither perception is conducive to the proper execution of a prefect's duties.

[72]      This is not to say that gangs have no leaders.  But among peers no one is automatically better than anyone else; one must prove one's worth as a leader by being a better fighter, by having better connections (i.e. to outside gangs and weapons) or by being better able to manipulate the authority structure of the school.

[73]      "Respectability", however, for the average middle-class Bahamian woman, has less to do with marriage than with one's ability to obtain a good job and provide for one's family:  see p.27 below.

[74]      Lower-form girls tend to resist the authority of female teachers, suggesting that they are exercising their new-found womanhood.  Perhaps it is not coincidental that upper-form boys often go out with 7th to 9th-grade girls, as upper-form girls generally have older boyfriends.

[75]      Rosaldo notes that women are "integrated vertically" and men "horizontally" into the adult world (1974:25), and that women's orientation "is relatively more individual and particularistic than that of men."  (1974:35)

[76]      Those boys who manage to do relatively well are one of two types:  either they are outsiders in the school's male world, mixing more with girls than with other boys (Number 4), or they are reformed rebels (Number 8) who need prove nothing to their peers. 

[77]      Ortner, 1974.  See too Sanday, 1981:1-12, for a discussion of this point.

[78]      Even in the House of Assembly, women fare proportionately better than men:  of the four female members of parliament, two are ministers and one is Deputy Speaker.

[79]      Respondents, when asked to list jobs they associated with men, included engineers, architects, mechanics, carpenters and builders in their list — "Anything to do with using the hands."  All are jobs which involve some measures of work in the open air — "outside" jobs.