Fifty eight (90%) out of the 62 female students who participated in the eight group discussions were in their third year. Participants came from six different Mekong Delta provinces and were studying some 26 majors. The ratios of those who had a position in class or school versus no position were about 1:1. All participants were of the country’s major Kinh ethnicity, except one who was of the Muong ethnic group. Eighty percent reported no religion, 10% were Buddhist, and the rest were Catholic and Thiền Lâm (a school of Zen Buddhism in Vietnam). None was married.
What characterizes gender relations in students’ perceptions?
The division of labor
The most prominent dimensions related to this structure included housework organization, employment opportunities, segregating men’s fields and women’s fields, and the possibility to pursue higher education. Although six students in five groups acknowledged that today men helped with housework and women went beyond ‘kitchen duties’ to join social activities, the unequal allocation of housework and childcare was identified by 23 participants across eight groups.
Women can also get a [paying] job in society, but one constraint is that women must do all housework, by default, often after working hours. Although we now benefit from technology, such as washing machines, women still have to take care of their children. Men may help a little bit, but they often take care of social affairs, they just help in part. The main responsibility still falls on women’s shoulders. Because women have to take care of their families, their positions in society are not as high or strong as men’s, and women cannot reach their full potential in society.
Childcare was also regarded as a woman’s ‘heaven-given function’ (‘thiên chức’). These social views on housework and childcare imperceptibly became the norm as well as a standard by which to judge a duteous (‘đảm đang’) woman. Because of this, three participants clearly stated that they would be willing to accept the housewife role and not look for paid work, even though they were third-year degree students.
All participants in eight groups acknowledged that women today are more equal to men in joining the social labor force, having paying jobs, and contributing to household income. However, four participants in one group provided in-depth critiques for the current promotion of women’s roles in society:
In contests [for the purpose of promoting gender equity, often held by unions in public organizations] it is often asked what women can do… such as whether women are ‘capable of national affairs and duteous at housework’ (‘giỏi việc nước, đảm việc nhà’); they are expected to be good at both work in the society and in the family; it adds a burden for women… So, empowering women turns out to reinforce the traditional roles of women and make women more burdened.
In the mass media, they hardly praise a man who is ‘capable of national affairs, duteous at housework,’ but when there is a successful woman, they portray her as a symbolic character. Why don’t they interview some male leaders to see if they are good at housework?
In addition, opportunities to find a job were believed to be biased towards men. Six participants gave examples of local firms that recruited only men for certain positions, without clear or convincing reasons, including electrical engineering, milk production, computational software programming, aquicultural development, and fertilizer marketing. Seven participants believed that men were highly favorable for lead, management or supervisory positions and in such fields as land management, internet administration, or even at-home private tutoring – a popular part-time job for students. The most frequent reason for this was the perceived difference in competence between men and women (12 participants), men being more capable of leading, communicating, and having a sense of propriety. Another reason for recruiting men was that ‘women will get married after 1–2 years of working and then they must take care of house, which consumes a lot of their time thus they cannot fulfill their duties at work.’
Men’s and women’s fields were also segregated in some academic majors. Although four groups agreed that male and female students had equal opportunities to select study majors in school, the actual selection of certain majors was clearly associated with gender. Examples of men’s fields were construction, mechanics, information technology, electrical engineering, electronics, physical education, land management and rural development. Women tended to major in accounting and preschool pedagogics. ‘A male student who selected preschool pedagogics would be seen as extraordinarily brave.’
I think there is no equality in academic majors. I was admitted to economics and land administration. All of my family elders asked me which one I would study. They advised me to study economics. They said for land administration, girls were weak so could not learn anything [laugh].
With regard to educational opportunities, 14 participants confirmed such equalities as females were able to go to school, to freely select desired majors, to study in non-discriminatory environments, and to perform in academic settings as well as males do. Nonetheless, seven participants referred to the uneven openings for higher education.
Now and then, here and there, people keep saying ‘what’s the point for girls to study too much… later on, they all will get married, they can do nothing [laughing].’ People just think it is over when a female gets married [laughing].
If a female gets a higher education, such as a master’s or doctoral degree, then people often say that it’s difficult for her to get married [laughing] because it is often said that we should be lower than men; men don’t like women who are one-level higher than they due to their pride and patriarchal thinking.
Regarding other aspects of the division of labor, two participants were concerned about the fact that husbands’ families compelled married women to stop working in order to take care of the family. One participant raised a critical question about a labor policy: ‘Why is the mandatory retirement age for women earlier [five years] than that of men while women are still healthy and are capable to work?’
The division of power
The situation of women in positions of authority was the most revealing dimension at the societal and institutional levels. Five participants thought that women, just like men, could enter government, could be leaders in governmental or organizational authority bodies, could engage in politics, and could rise to high positions. In contrast, eight participants cited nuances of the imbalances on this dimension. Although there were women in authority positions, their numbers were fewer than men. Usually, men were first-in-command and women were their deputies or assistants. Sometimes, women were put in a board of director position ‘merely in order to have males and females.’
I read a review regarding employees’ competence in an organization. It asked why their leading body consists of only males in the time of [gender] equity. So, people in that organization thought that they should make some upper positions available for females so that outside people would see equity when they looked at the organization. However, the selected female was not really competent. I think this was not good and was unfair. Let’s promote a woman because of her actual competence. Don’t treat women like that because it is intrinsically inequitable; not [be concerned about] how it looks in the eyes of outsiders.
These for-and-against perceptions were similarly observed in discussions at the institutional level. Twelve students perceived a balance in female students’ authority while 16 students perceived an imbalance. ‘Many members of the [school] associations, even a senior female on the executive board, declare that the head position should be reserved for males; it cannot pass to females.’ Another participant said ‘the head teacher of my class used to tell us that male student should be the class captain because females were not good at diplomatic issues.’
One reason that men were more accepted in leadership positions was the belief that they were more skillful in social propriety, which meant that men knew how best to behave in social settings or matters in order to establish good relationships. This was inter-related with a dimension in social cathexis – a double standard on receiving guests and drinking. In the Mekong Delta, meetings are often followed by a reception with alcoholic drinks. While excessive drinking was acceptable for men, a drunk female would be criticized by others or scolded by her parents (three groups agreed).
Another shared dimension between the power structure and cathexis was discussing important matters and making decisions within the family. Three participants argued that the head of a household could be a woman and that decisions were reached with family members’ consent. Five students believed that men were still considered the bread-winners regardless of women’s contribution to the household income. Seven students perceived that a man is still the ultimate decision maker for family issues, with or without prior discussions among other members. Two students explained that valuable properties such as houses, farming lands, and motorbikes were mostly in men’s names. Two groups agreed that wives commonly had control of family incomes, including their husbands’ earnings. Nonetheless, who made decisions regarding large household expenditures seemed still to be open to debate. Finally, a less recurrent but central dimension was patrilocality, which required a wife to move to their husband’s house upon marriage (two groups). There was little discussion about this because the practice was quickly accepted as fact.
Cathexis
Eighteen participants in all eight groups brought up the social phenomenon of son preference as a dimension of gender inequity, and five believed that it was observable even among highly educated couples living in urban areas. Two participants judged that the existence of the monogamy law and the two-child policy helped protect women from such social and familial adversities as of having many children or son expectations. The question of whether a female should take the initiative in expressing her love to a male emerged as a debated dimension for gender equality. Tradition expects women to be passive in meeting men and while dating. Six students believed it is now acceptable for women to take the initiative while eight others did not. ‘When a female chases after a male, she will be mocked [as being] eager for masculine attractiveness.’ ‘Some male students joke that being shown expressions of love by a female is a huge dishonor [for the male].’
Fifteen participants across five groups found it inequitable that females were much more vulnerable to blame and criticism for a variety of issues: having premarital sex, premarital pregnancy, breaking up with boyfriends, being childless, sonless, having a spoilt child, and being a single mother for any reason. All members of one group agreed that such traditional views as ‘a spoilt child is the mother’s fault’ (‘con hư tại mẹ’) were persistent. An old saying underscores attitudes toward premarital pregnancy: ‘Having a girl is like having a jar of fish sauce hung at an end of the bed’ (‘có con gái như hũ mắm treo đầu giường’), which could break at any time and stink up the whole house (due to the shame of premarital pregnancy). Elders and parents tend to strictly supervise their daughters, for example not allowing them to be out late at night or overnight. Nine participants considered this inequitable.
Women were subject to a number of social double standards. Being a virgin until the wedding night was the most commonly reported (18 participants). ‘Society really attaches much importance to virginity of females; …virginity is everything in a girl’s life.’ If a dating couple had sex and it was discovered, the female would be mocked as ‘being foolishly induced’ or ‘self-indulgent’ while the male would not be criticized. Losing one’s virginity takes women’s power away, and results in maltreatment and violence (four participants).
A male friend told me he would not sincerely commit himself to a relationship with [a female who had lost her virginity], it’s just a transient relationship. He thinks if he can have sex with her, then other males can too; she would accept other men.
The next two connected double standards concerned having friends of the opposite sex (seven participants) and promiscuity (13 participants). A woman’s decency would be questioned if she had many male friends. She is supposed to be monogamous with her boyfriend, but he can flirt or tease other girls. An adulteress was condemned more severely than an adulterer.
A man who’s got women all over the place often proudly flaunts his relationships… If a man has relationships with many women, he will be named ‘đào hoa’, ‘ong bướm’ (lady-killer). If a woman does [the same], she will be disparaged as ‘lăng nhăng’ (misconduct), ‘lẳng lơ’ (light)… Only beautiful words for men.
Double standards were also noted in breaking up and separation (six participants). If a female took the initiative to say goodbye to her boyfriend, she might be belittled such as ‘bring in the new, throw away the old’ (‘có mới nới cũ’), ‘fleetingly hedonic’ (‘vui qua đường’), or ‘changing boyfriends as often as changing clothes’ (‘thay bồ như thay áo’).
With regards to socially emotional attachments, women in the Mekong Delta appeared to conform to such traditional attitudes as meekness, sacrifice, concession, and sufferance.
I think one traditional ideology for Vietnamese women is sufferance (‘chịu đựng’). This has many meanings. Women can suffer hardship in order to bring up their children and to pay for their schooling. In terms of sentiment, women suffer their husbands’ oppression or indiscretions, such as drinking, gambling, or violence, for the good of their children and the whole family. So, the word ‘sufferance’ makes women become unduly resigned to their fate.
Influence of inequitable gender relations on female sexual and reproductive health
Responding to the open-ended question ‘How may the discussed aspects of gender inequity influence women’s sexual or reproductive health?’, 17 participants across seven groups referred to different examples of the negative influence. First, females had less access to sexual and reproductive health information than males because of double standards and social attitudes towards females. One group agreed that ‘men have more rights to access and learn the information,’ and that ‘females are more likely to be scolded when asking elders about sexual matters.’ Another group felt it was more uncomfortable for females to search for this type of sensitive information on the internet because they might be teased for doing so while it was quite a normal thing for males to do. (In the Mekong Delta, the majority of people use public internet shops to access the internet).
Second, vilification hindered girls and women from obtaining sexual and reproductive healthcare such as gynecological examinations. Two groups agreed upon the fact that many women do not get gynecological examinations partially because it made them look like they had done something wrong (e.g., pregnant out of wedlock) and ‘it was something dark and secret to do.’
If I have a health problem, and I want to go for a [gynecological] examination, I feel ashamed and rather afraid of going there. This is because, for example, if we go there and meet an acquaintance, s/he will sneer at us… Even my Mom says so. I have had [gynecological] problems, and I wanted to have an examination, but my Mom told me that I should talk to her so that she could buy some medicine [self-prescribed] for me rather than going [to a clinic]; people would mock me for it. I don’t really know why it is so, but I dare not [contradict] my Mom. Although sometimes I feel discomfort, I just follow some traditional remedies; I haven’t had an examination yet.
Several additional examples highlighted how gender inequity may influence women’s communication and negotiation ability. Two participants believed that unmarried young females were not capable of communicating and negotiating sexual issues. Two other participants perceived that many women in rural areas had to passively and responsively ‘pamper the husbands’ sexual desire’; thus they could not refuse their husbands’ sexual requests during their menstrual cycle or postpartum period. Three participants mentioned that under the social ideas of son preference or a large family with many children and grandchildren (‘con đàn cháu đống’), women were expected to have several pregnancies and quick recoveries after giving birth. They could not resist the husbands’ or mothers-in-law’s wishes regarding the number or the sex of the children. Thus, they did not have much control over the number and timing of their pregnancies. ‘Some females do not want to get married because,’ they joked, ‘we will not be respected after getting married and will be considered a baby machine.’ Two other participants in the group said that they had witnessed domestic violence due to a woman’s attempt to resist her husband wishes.
Other inequalities in sexual and reproductive health included women’s responsibility for contraception (three participants) and men’s lack of responsibility regarding unwanted pregnancies (four participants). ‘Men often resist using condoms; they just force women to use contraceptive pills, to use an intrauterine device. All responsibility is on the woman.’ For unmarried females who were sexually active, this was more difficult because of the stigma of getting, carrying and using a contraceptive. When an unmarried couple had an unwanted pregnancy, ‘the male often told the female to seek an abortion, regardless of long-term consequences on the female’s reproductive capacity.’ Additionally, ‘the female, not the male, was often blamed why she let this happen to her.’ Other less salient influences of gender inequalities on reproductive health included doing heavy housework shortly after child bearing (two participants) due to women’s roles, and early marriage (one participant) in some rural families, at which age the girls’ reproductive organs and functions might not yet be fully developed.
We further explored institutional perspectives regarding safe-sex practices by asking the question: ‘What would teachers or school employees think about a male versus a female student if they know that the student talks about safe-sex practices, has had sex and carries a condom?’ Although opinions regarding talking about sexual issues varied from conventional to open-minded, most participants thought that these were not different for males or females. Regarding premarital sex and carrying a condom, most participants perceived that these looked bad, or even terrible, to faculty and school employees. About one half of the participants thought that disdain was similar for males and females while the other half believed females were more harshly criticized.