Mônica Raisa Schpun

Università degli Studi di Milano

 

 

Belonging or solitude:

The Choices of Carlota Pereira de Queiroz^*

 

Carlota Pereira de Queiroz (1892-1982) belonged to a traditional elite family from São Paulo. Her paternal grandfather was a rich land owner and a member of the Partido Republicano Paulista¹ (P.R.P.; Paulista Republican Party), the nationally hegemonic party during most of the first republican period of the country (1889-1930). Furthermore, in 1870 he figured as one of the founders of the newspaper A Província de São Paulo, future O Estado de S. Paulo, a kind of “spokesperson” for the interests of the regional elite during this period. Her maternal grandfather, another important political leader of the region, was a member of the Partido Conservador (Conservative Party) at the end of the Empire. A rich businessman and landowner, he dedicated himself above all to political activities, exerting a strong local influence. Her mother, Maria Vicentina de Azevedo Pereira de Queiroz, belonged to a pious catholic family. On the other hand, her father, the politician and lawyer José Pereira de Queiroz, always exhibited atheist, even anticlerical, convictions, representing the strong positivist ideas which penetrated the ranks of the elite during that period.

Carlota concluded her basic schooling in public institutions (lay institutions, during that period) where the education, considered “modern”, was preferred by her parents. This distinguishes her education from the overall tendency of the local elite to opt for a feminine education, whether it be at home under the responsibility of foreign instructors, or in prestigious catholic institutions, run by nuns who were usually Belgian or French. Between 1907 and 1909, Carlota received her schooling as a teacher at the Caetano de Campos School for Primary Level Teachers, almost a rite of passage for women of respectable families during the time, who wanted to broaden their horizons, be cultured, and not be married early such as in the “olden days”. Many of her contemporaries, who later distinguished themselves in the public life - especially in the realm of arts and literature -, occupied the seats of the traditional big house on Republic Square. Others, perhaps the majority, did not follow a career path but, in a tendency that appeared confirmed in the 1910s and 1920s, delayed marriage for a few years due to their studies. Others still, a minority, used their schooling as normalists to truly become educators. Moved by necessity, but probably also by a feminine ambition that began to be echoed by the society of the time, they decided to work. This was the case of Carlota: in one of her depositions, she justified her decision to work by maintaining that, in the year of her graduation, the Pereira de Queiroz family was going through difficult times economically². However, even when the family situation stabilized she continued to work, increasingly dedicated to her professional activities.

Initially, upon invitation by the director of the School for Primary Level Teachers, Carlota worked in this same establishment, as a primary school supervisor and an art and music teacher. Starting in 1912, she became a Preschool teacher there, a position she held for ten years. Up until the beginning of the 1920s, Carlota participated in many activities linked to education, and she composed a theoretical reflection on this subject. That being the case, in 1922 at the Terceiro Congresso Americano da Criança e Primeiro Congresso Brasileiro de Proteção à Infância (Third American Congress for Children and First Brazilian Congress for the Protection of Infancy), of which she was one of the organizers, she presented her work, “O Problema da Educação Elementar - Os Sistemas Froebel e Montessori”, published in that same year³.             

During this period, the educational system of São Paulo was going through important changes. There was an increase in the number of schools, therefore also in the number of spots and teachers, which led to new considerations for pedagogical questions and for the processes of learning. Women from the new urban middle class found in teaching, especially elementary, new opportunities for employment that were appropriate for their moral standards. This field ended up establishing itself as a feminine bastion. Yet, to be fair to the movement which began to establish itself, at this time Carlota had already matured in her pedagogical reflections, having had professional experience in the field for over ten years. She was actually nearing the end of this phase of her career, which seemed to her somewhat limited:

 

“I became disillusioned with my career as a teacher; the environment was narrow, there weren’t many prospects for the future, the best positions were held by men. I aspired to greater things… I left the public magistery, only continuing to give private lessons to maintain some economic independence.”⁴

 

Regarding her aspirations, education was too feminine an occupation and, therefore, too devalued. To go further, she would have to challenge the limits imposed on women in her profession, destined to remain in the lowest levels of the hierarchy, or she would have to completely change career paths.

She chose the second option and, in 1920, even before the Congresso Brasileiro de Proteção à Infância, enrolled herself in the College of Medicine and Surgery of São Paulo, beginning an important change in her life - both professional and personal. In 1923, she changed medical schools, enrolling in Rio de Janeiro⁵. There, Carlota found a more urban environment, as compared to the more provincial São Paulo, and she benefited from the support and hospitality of her mentor and great encourager Miguel Couto, one of the most renowned doctors of the time. Carlota received her diploma in medicine in 1926, the year she defended her thesis on cancer, winning the Miguel Couto Prize ⁶. This was only the beginning of her career in medicine.

The majority of the few women who received a medical diploma in the country were not able to turn their formal education into a professional career. Simply completing a program in medicine, an extremely masculine career path, was already a considerable feat for a woman during that period. Exposure to the body and to nudity, necessary in the practice of medicine, were objects of strong social taboos. But it was even more difficult, once her studies were completed, to enter the world of medicine, whether it was through private practices, hospitals, laboratories or clinics, masculine temples of the profession. Studying did not present the same obstacles as living the medical profession, disposing of financial autonomy, “rubbing elbows” with male colleagues, or even contributing to the progress of science in deciphering the behavior of the human body. Carlota would not be deprived of experiencing this second part. She would be a doctor until later in life, passing through various institutions and being recognized by her equals as an authority in her area of specialization.

Soon after completing her studies, she became a corresponding member of the Association française pour l’etude du cancer (French Association for the Study of Cancer) and completed, between 1927 and 1929, various specialization courses in France and Germany. Beginning in 1928 - and until 1947 -, she was head of the Laboratory for the Pediatric Clinic at Santa Casa de Misericórdia of São Paulo and maintained her own private practice until 1933. Later, between 1938 and 1965, she maintained a laboratory for clinical analyses at her home. Specializing in Hematology, she held the position of head of Hematological services of the Clinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the College of Medicine at the University of São Paulo. At the same time, she conquered a place in the division of Social Medicine of the Society of Medicine and Surgery of São Paulo, with the paper “Das Vantagens da generalização do exame hematológico e sua aplicação em Medicina Social” (Of the Advantages of the generalization of the hematological exam and its application in Social Medicine)⁷. In 1942, Carlota became the first woman to join the National Academy of Medicine, also belonging to a similar institution in Argentina.

 

Amidst all this, Carlota never failed to notice, in various depositions about her experience as a doctor, that being a woman was an integral part of her professional identity⁸. She was aware that this element of her identity accentuated even more the brilliance of her career, for it was surely harder for her, a woman, to have achieved what she did than for a man with the same educational background, the same intellectual abilities, and the same passion for medicine. Recognizing this added dimension of her itinerary, Carlota occupied the position of president of the Associação Brasileira de Mulheres Médicas (Medical Women's Brazilian Association) between 1961 and 1967. During her term, she strove to always highlight questions which specifically involved female doctors, imposing her activism with the aim of widening the narrow path which she had had to traverse.

Carlota’s participation in all these prestigious institutions doubly highlights her career, indicating first and foremost her professional and scientific worth, and being recognized for such deeds by her colleagues, during her lifetime. But such participation also shows that her professional ambitions were never limited to an anonymous practice of her career. Carlota always aspired to having a social and public dimension in all her actions. This being the case, her path gains in difficulty: not only did she overcome the professional barriers which had a tendency of excluding women from careers such as medicine, but she also broke through the confidential nature of this line of work. Her actions can neither be described as timid, nor modest, as generally suggested by stereotypes of altruism where female activism is concerned. Carlota fully occupied the social standing which she deserved, same as a man could have done without much opposition. She refused, in her practice, to limit herself to social conventions traditionally reserved for women, those of modesty and silence. Despite it all, she never ceases to publicly demand a female identity for herself, as a doctor.

In the end, the path of Carlota Pereira de Queiroz seems exemplary to me, considering the difficult dealings of women of that time, to penetrate the public sphere of activity: before commencing her studies in medicine, Carlota spent over ten years working as a teacher, initially having opted for this schooling, typically female, and acceptable for the time. She lived a sort of social engagement, acquiring little by little the autonomy to make choices and decisions, however without having to initially scorn the destiny usually followed by a woman of her status. 

 

A revolution for the women

 

On the 9th of July, 1932, the Constitutionalist Revolution was exploding in São Paulo. The mobilization of the paulistanos was intense and was not restricted to the elite. In this generalized process of adherence, women found methods of social intervention that surpassed the previously existing possibilities. In a state of war, they had better alibis for exercising their citizenship.

Such possibilities were especially explored by the women of the elite. This because, despite the greater popularity later achieved by the movement, it was originally an initiative by the local elite, a focal point of opposition to Vargas which united, behind the flag of constitutionalization, liberals who truly believed in the importance of fighting for a lawful State, as well as segments of the political elite who were mainly preoccupied with the return of their group to the center of the national political scene, of which they had been pushed away since the coup of 1930. In this sense, men and women in the group found themselves more united through their ideals.

Moreover, as for access to the public domain of activities and to unlimited mobility in urban areas, elite women, especially, were monitored all the time and found, in the mobilization of 1932, a very legitimate and efficient excuse for joining the political process in question. In the beginning of the 1930s these women needed, more than others, powerful reasons for engaging in public/state activities. Some followed career paths, participated in artistic or intellectual activities, finally possessing responsibilities not limited to the personal and familial realm, even if compensation appeared secondarily and was not always guaranteed. But during a period in which all social assistance depended upon charity, without the existence of professional regulations or structured actions on the part of public officials, philanthropy remained, without a shadow of a doubt, a privileged possibility for social action by women of the elite. And the necessities created by the Constitutionalist movement, which had an unforeseen duration of almost three months, opened up a variety of new possibilities for action for these women, in the field of assistance (to soldiers, the wounded, to families, widows, orphans, and invalids)⁹.

Some organizations linked to the church, such as the Liga das Senhoras Católicas (League of Catholic Ladies), here had an important role. Uniting a considerable number of elite women around varied activities, the League became a privileged pivotal point of organization for female mobilization in 1932. But with the fighting, the need for assistance surpassed the normal activity level of the League and related institutions. The city became the stage for marches, not always at a convenient time for the agile and busy women of all ages who participated with the noble mission of collaborating with the revolutionary effort. Various locations downtown were offered to the organizers of this civic endeavor, where they ran shops for sewing, receiving and packaging donations, manufacturing, triage and for shipping everything that might bring physical and spiritual comfort to the soldiers of São Paulo.

Which does not mean that all rules of social interaction were found to be subverted, even only temporarily. The female and male fields of activity were well-established and even children participated in this separation: if eight or nine year old girls were able to bind bandages for the soldiers, boys of that age were employed in tasks closer to the male field of action. Such was the case with boy scouts who, at twelve years old, served as postmen, taking correspondence by bike to the trenches. Without being on the front, due to their age, they also weren’t totally in the rear, thus being able to approximate the male spheres of the battle.

But let’s address the home front, the space reserved for female work. The city was transformed temporarily, creating an urban dynamic which lived by and for the Revolution, with circuits and locations reserved for the necessities of the rebellion. If one thinks of the layout of the city of São Paulo, with its areas and points of reference, historical or not, one can say that the areas and reference points which opened themselves up to the actions of the Constitutionalist home front occupied key locations of the city. Besides the adjustment necessary for an event which became central to the lives of the citizens and its establishment as the overriding element of urban spatial dynamic, the novelty lay in the fact that women were instrumental in the establishment of such circuits and spaces, and in the operational transformation undergone by the areas open to their actions - from movie theater to a center for packaging goods sent to soldiers, and from areas for social events to workshops for sewing and uniform production, not to mention infirmaries, etc. Still respecting the division between female and male worlds of operation, women occupied their area and from there carried out activities of great importance to the rebels, which were far from frivolous or secondary.

The first entity created to assist soldiers of the Revolution (with uniforms, equipment, and nourishment) symbolically received the name of M.M.D.C.¹⁰ From this originated the Department of Auxiliary War Services and its subsections, the Department for Assistance to the Civilian Population and (the Department for) Auxiliary War Services. From the latter would arise the Department for Assistance to the Wounded (D.A.F.), organized and directed by Carlota Pereira de Queiroz, Lucia Burchard de Revoredo and Maria Guedes Penteado de Camargo who, since the beginning of the conflict, even before the wounded started appearing, already collaborated with various campaigns for assistance and support to the revolutionaries. The presence of Carlota in this field is more complex than that of the other ladies involved in charitable works. For besides participating in various charitable organizations, being very well-known and respected; in sum, being active in offering assistance, as typical of women of her status, Carlota had her career as an educator and, above all else, as a doctor. This way, her entrance into the public realm of activity did not depend on her actions with philanthropic organizations, it did it was not an excuse for her to gain access to responsibilities separate from those in the home, which I believe was a main factor, if not the main one, in explaining the intensive involvement of many elite women in the bosom of such organizations.

Even so, Carlota was a prominent name in the field of volunteerism, circulating with a degree of constancy among the most significant structures which offered assistance, believing in the importance of these actions. At no time in her discourses and texts did Carlota establish any sort of hierarchy which placed her professional activities on a higher plane than that of her philanthropic activities. Acting within the established philanthropic network of the city, as well as the one specifically mobilized to aid the Revolution of 1932, Carlota was amongst friends, sharing a common social goal with the women of her environment. She knew and was often very close to her partners in the cause, as is the case with Olivia Guedes Penteado, one of her closest friends and a key organizer of her political campaign in 1933. Where our retrospective eyes can see the contradictions between traditional forms of activism on one hand and, on the other, the search for a formalized professional forum which was not limited to the female realms already mentioned (such is the case with Medicine), the contemporary eyes of Carlota Pereira de Queiroz could not see them. She certainly did not live a contradictory life just because in many senses she broke away from the social realm originally assigned to her as a woman and as a member of the elite, while still strongly believing in the traditional forms of activism carried out by women in her group. Of course, this all occurred in a context where, as previously mentioned, all social assistance depended on charitable organizations and their militant members, which vastly broadened the scope and reach of such actions. But this does not fully explain wholehearted dedication of women like Carlota: besides the faith permeating the actions and mission of assistance of the Catholic Church, it was also a powerful form of creating personal identity in the midst of the elite world, which helps explain such adherence to the cause.     

Therefore, it was not only as a doctor, not even mainly as a doctor, that Carlota developed her role as creator and director of the D.A.F., where her professional identity blended with forms of giving aid typical for women of her status. Surely, she did not ignore the social significance of her medical diploma, or the fact that this placed her on a different level than the other paulistas who worked for the Revolution. Yet during her experience as director of the D.A.F., Carlota truly united her interest in medicine with her responsibilities in forms of aid, two facets of her life which actively permeated her public persona.

The prestigious position of Carlota Pereira de Queiroz, which gave her a place of prominence during such an exceptional juncture and which, during it, was reinforced through her proven aptitude, can be explained by a number of factors. It was not by chance that she was given the opportunity to show her talent: the position she occupied had not previously been given to just any man or woman. In the first place, her prestige within charitable organizations already existent in the city was already confirmed by 1932; second, her name as a doctor was already well-known by the local elite, and she served a significantly-sized clientele in her private practice. Third, beyond the reputation Carlota was able to build for herself since the beginning of her career, her social origins and family name are fundamental in explaining the level of prestige she was able to attain. For she can not be seen separately from the legacy of her name, its origins, and the fact that she belonged to one of the most illustrious families of the paulista elite, having influential politicians among the generations of relatives, as well as having interacted with the richest families in the city, through their being close or distant relatives, or even just friends. She was already well-known and recognized even before building a public persona, even before making herself known. And this "baggage", without diminishing her personal qualifications, undoubtedly contributed to the public recognition she received. However, this combination of factors was favorable only because Carlota knew how to balance the variables in question, adeptly negotiating her entrance into the public realm, playing her cards right and always weighing what the price to pay would be for her professional success and for opportunities for action within society. For a prestigious family name like hers must be honored by those who bear it, and Carlota never betrayed her heritage, a significant part of her identity. On the contrary, she broke innumerable barriers without ever breaking ties with the group to which she belonged and came to represent.

The paradigmatic example of Carlota Pereira de Queiroz shows that, at the core of this elite, the possibility existed for a woman to undertake such a reconversion, straying from the established paths. These included some professional and artistic activities, but they always reached the pivotal point of marriage, which led to the cessation of most of these careers or, at the very least, took their place as the focal point of female attention, making all other concerns secondary to the family. Carlota never married. At the same time, comparing her career path to those of others which, many times, were less successful, shows how personal sacrifices by each woman were necessary and required a great consciousness of the professional spot they desired and, most of all, of the elements available which, if poorly utilized, could become obstacles. This was the case with prestigious family, not always favorable elements during any form of breaking away, many times even being the main reason behind the ostracism experienced by women with plans of personal prominence. In Carlota's case, those elements strengthened her path, without imposing any form of break from the family, any barrier against the realization of her personal projects.

 

Elected amongst the elected

 

Carlota's initiative with the D.A.F. was clearly more than just a simple act of medical assistance to the victims of the Revolution. Besides marking a powerful moment in her charitable activities, the creation and management of this structure signified a true political obligation. Carlota became close to the leaders of the Revolution, confirming none-too-discreetly through this engagement a strong agreement with the ideals of the paulista elite fighting against Vargas. To be honest, there is nothing extraordinary in the fact that a woman of the elite backed the movement of ’32. All these women must have done so, even other women of different social levels. Bu to take a public stance, to get near to the directors of the movement, was something much more rare. Especially since Brazilian women, without having experienced the right to vote or to be eligible for office, were excluded from areas concerning political decisions.¹¹ This does not mean that they didn’t “do” politics. For example, the suffragettes of the Brazilian Federation for Women’s Progress (Federação Brasileira pelo Progresso Feminino), under the direction of Bertha Lutz, occupied in varied ways the political scene during the entire 1920s. This included the male forums for debate, when law proposals concerning a woman’s right to vote were discussed or voted upon by representatives and senators. The women went to the press, talked, discussed, made demands, made themselves heard whenever possible, building their own political niche and using forms of negotiation which were not essentially distinguishable from those employed by their male colleagues in the political game.¹² Despite this, they could not participate in the existent political parties or the electoral conflicts, or even express opinions and preferences by voting for one candidate over another. Getúlio Vargas would guarantee this right, at a national level, with the new Electoral Code, promulgated on the 24^th of February, 1932. Moreover, he promises elections for a national Constituent Assembly to take place in May of the following year. Carlota actively participated in the Constitutionalist Revolution knowing that the new political context, which ousted the paulista elite from power, brought changes for women. Changes which had been denied them during the whole previous republican period, when this same group was in power. The Revolution was defeated by the central government and the elections took place on the date anticipated. Paradoxically, Carlota was able to present herself as a candidate, and be elected, thanks to the new rules established by Vargas, against whom she would fight throughout the course of her political career. This can be explained by a greater loyalty at stake: that which linked Carlota to the paulista elite and to the ideas defended by the group, the same loyalty which explains her deep involvement in the movement of ’32. The exacerbated regionalism which emerged during that period united, in an efficient manner, the different political factions of the local elites, making paulistas a national vanguard, above all because of the solitary fight for democratic principles they launched themselves into.

There then appears, for the May 1933 elections, the Chapa Única por São Paulo Unido! (Single Platform for a United São Paulo), whose 22 candidates are chosen in the following manner: a committee of five members, the Committee of Five, represents the five organizations which make up the Front: the Commercial Association, the Catholic Electoral League (L.E.C.), the Federation of Volunteers (of the Revolution of ’32) and two traditional local parties, the Democratic Party (P.D.) and the Paulista Republican Party (P.R.P.). Each representative of the committee then presents a list of ten names and from the proposed set of fifty candidates 22 definitive ones are chosen, who shall represent the paulista opposition against the government party – the recently created Agricultural Party – and the Brazilian Socialist Party (P.S.B.), which doesn’t take part in the Chapa Única¹³.

The inclusion of Carlota’s name among the candidates of the Platform came about, in the first place, through the list from the Commercial Association which received suggestions of names from the Women’s Civic Association, among other groups. This group, of which Carlota was part of the Council, summoned a general assembly with the aim of selecting names and discussing the possibility of these belonging to women. From here the name of Carlota Pereira de Queiroz emerged acclaimed. Besides the Civic Association, thirteen other women’s associations presented her name. Having in mind the women’s mobilization during the movement, and the pressure exerted by women from the most prestigious families of the local elite, the Commercial Association accepts this nomination and includes a woman’s name on the list. An example of the pressure exerted, Olivia Guedes Penteado and Perola Byington, Carlota’s close friends, had the press publish a manifest, “Message from the Paulista Woman” (Mensagem da Mulher Paulista)¹⁴, asking for signatures and support for Carlota’s name. A true campaign will be run by these two women, after the inclusion of Carlota’s name in the list of definitive candidates for the Chapa Única, proposed not only by the Commercial Association but also by the Federation of Volunteers, the new paulista political force taking over since the Revolution of ’32 and strongly connected to those who mobilized for it.

Once her candidacy was formally declared, Carlota turned to the women’s electorate which was able, for the first time in Brazilian history, to manifest itself in the ballot boxes on a national scale. Even if women did not have the obligation to do so, which changes everything: they had to spontaneously register before the electoral dispute, in case they decided to participate. This way, the organizers of Carlota’s campaign took advantage of the structured “web” which they had at their disposal, composed of associations for feminists, for women, and for offering aid, in order to divulge Carlota’s candidacy and to inform women about the need for electoral registration, at least in the elite circle of which these organizations were a part, and where Carlota’s name was already well-known and respected.

Carlota was elected in 1933, having been the only woman to sign the Constitution of 1934, along with the other 252 constituents, all men. First female federal representative of the country, she was re-elected on October 14^th, 1934 for a mandate in the House of Representatives, by the then recently-established Constitutionalist Party¹⁵.

Carlota’s public identity, a result of her professional and political path which will sketch her profile in the National Constituent Assembly and, next, in the House of Representatives, was composed of a fusion of elements. Of these, two stand out: her background and social status, which explains her political affiliation, and the fact that she was a woman. It is hard to say which of these two was more important for if, on one hand, Carlota was indebted to the support she received from women, on the other hand she maintained an impartial position concerning the feminist voices which sought her support. When she addressed a public of women, assembled innumerable times by women’s or feminists’ associations to pay her homage before and (especially) after her election, she identified herself with the aforementioned women’s issues and asserted herself as a representative of women in the Assembly. However, she did not assume such representation in a direct manner: beginning by talking about the Revolution of ’32, she systematically referred to the strength in the principles of paulistas and, only here, thanks to the performance by women during the Constitutionalist movement, did she say herself to be a representative of the paulista woman. For she always stressed the fact of having been chosen by the “people of São Paulo”. And only through the paulista woman did Carlota generalize her identification and the mission which she claimed to bear, that of representing the Brazilian woman.

Two elements reinforced this constant impartiality of Carlota’s in relation to what, at the time, were considered “women’s issues”. In the first place, her distance from the suffragette's’ battles of the precious decade, in which she never played a significant role. Secondly, and applying the same logic, during the course of her journey as a constituent and a representative, Carlota never ceased to assert her disagreement with isolated actions on the part of women, contending that they must be on the side of men in politics, by taking part in the existing game of political partisanship.  

 

“The first speaker of the hour for this expedient was Ms. Carlota Pereira de Queiroz, of the Constitutionalist representation of São Paulo.

The speaker reported on her election to the Constituency and spoke of the life of partisanship in the country, to condemn the feminist parties. It is the belief of Ms. Carlota de Queiroz that such organizations must lose this exclusive character in order to receive representatives of the strong sex in their bosom…”¹⁶

 

The opposition between these ideas of Carlota’s and certain feminist aspirations appeared clearly in a homage given by the Women’s Associations of Rio de Janeiro to the “First Female Brazilian Representative”. The first speaker of the event, Maria Eugênia Celso, asserted:

 

“Feminism, of which you have not yet judged it opportune to publicly confess yourself a follower, Dr. Carlota Pereira de Queiroz, but of which you are, unwillingly for now, the illustrious representative, is, in the meantime, magnificently practiced by you.      

(…)

Dr. Carlota Pereira de Queiroz, saluting in you not only she who, in her own writing, will first brand this work on the seal of the new laws, but also she who, in having accepted this arduous position of honor, without meaning to, without even imagining it, brought with her the seed of this thing, still inexistent today but, in the future, the organized and powerful thing that the feminist party shall surely be one day, I salute, mainly, the personification of a noble cause and the triumph of a great idea.

It is what I was entrusted to tell you in the name of my feminist companions, in the name of the feminist associations of Rio, in the name of all the ladies here present, jubilant agreement to having this homage is what, in their silence, fraternally, say all the women of Brazil.”¹⁷

 

Here is the clear and direct response, prepared by Carlota for this occasion, and pronounced after the other speeches honoring her:

 

“The diploma of paulista representative gave me a place in the Constituent Assembly and the right to speak in the name of my state. Despite being the only woman representative in parliament, I don’t represent the Brazilian woman and because of this do not judge myself able to speak for her. My titles can be summed up into one – that of a paulista.

(…)

On the day of the solemn installation of this venerable Assembly, which is entrusted at this moment with the most elevated mission in national politics, I was overcome with emotion. It was too much for a woman’s fragile sensibilities, until recently guarded against these violent vibrations.

But, I thought about your past of battles…I thought about the heroism of the paulista woman, who raised me to such a high rank. And faced with the much broader significance of the mission with which I am entrusted, nothing could justify, before you who conquered it, my fellow countrymen and my paulista compatriots, this act of uncertainty on my part, so contradictory to your courage.

(…)

But so that I would also be able to speak in the name of the Brazilian woman, I would have had to receive special powers for this, and no one entrusted me with those. It would be necessary, most of all, to have a single organized woman’s party. And this isn’t what is conceived, nor what is in existence. For such a thing it would be necessary for us all to have the same convictions and, ultimately, to be able to identify all of our aspirations, to form one party. And thankfully this is not the case. Because a party under these conditions, which could include as its members about half the population of Brazil, could politically represent a danger to our country. But, it would be inadmissible if all women came to follow a single orientation.”¹⁸

 

Carlota’s speech was in this way diametrically opposed to the most daring proposals made by her host, who saved the best of her speech for last, and ended by predicting the creation, already visible on the horizon for the feminists she represented, of a party that would unite women under a common cause. Carlota disagreed. Apparently because her diagnosis of the most complex problems of the country does not seem to be reflected in the feminist outlook of Maria Eugênia Celso, among other voices.

Carlota had different priorities. Her primary identifications were different as well. She was more connected to the ideals expressed by the Single Platform for a United São Paulo, to the Constitutionalist ideals which originated this Front, and to the opposition created by the paulista elite against the Vargas government, than to the aspirations expressed by the feminist leaders of the country.

 

Woman in Politics vs. Woman’s Politics

 

Two events which occurred during Carlota’s mandate eloquently show that she had a fundamentally different social outlook than the feminists, and identifications which were stronger than any solidarity she could feel towards them. The two events occurred during her second mandate, at the end of the Constituency. The first, in the middle of 1935, was discussed by the press, and addressed Carlota’s political position. It referred to the closing, by Vargas’ political police, of the Women’s Union of Brazil. On the 23^rd of July, 1935, the newspaper A Manhã (The Morning) published an article about the issue, with the subtitle starting with “Ms. Carlota ran away”, under which was printed a picture of the representative. The newspaper referred to the discussion, provoked in the House of Representatives, concerning the request for information to the government proposed by the representative for the state of Paraná, Otávio da Silveira. He defended the request for atonement for the arbitrary act performed by the police who, having searched the headquarters of the Women’s Union, did not find any evidence of subversive or terrorist actions. A Manhã also affirmed that various representatives of the organization had watched the parliamentary debate and

 

“So as not to vote against women, which would surely have been the case, Ms. Carlota abandoned the area.”¹⁹

 

The subject gave way to other repercussions within the press, denouncing what seemed to be a traitorous attitude on Carlota’s part, as the only woman in the House of Representatives. The general tendency was to think that, more than any other representative, Carlota had the duty to defend this democratic cause, having natural reasons to identify with the victims, as opposed to her male colleagues. Actually, when Otávio da Silveira requested an explanation from the government, the representatives voted 105 against the request and 66 in favor of it. But Carlota emerged as the only true traitor to the cause. As a woman, she did not have, in this case, the liberty to practice her politics, as each of the other 104 representatives who, because of varied beliefs or interests, preferred to silence the request. For this, the same A Manhã referred once more to the subject a few days later, in an article titled “Provoked by North American feminists, Ms. Carlota de Queiroz defends for the first time, in the House of Representatives, the economic and political rights of women.” In smaller type, with irony, the paper launched, still, “And said dangerous ‘extremist’ practically defends some points of the Women’s Union program.”²⁰ The same picture of Carlota appeared printed below. The text was filled with ironic comments against a speech of nationalistic tone made by Carlota in the House, in which she defended the principles adopted concerning women, in the Constitution of 1934, in response to an article written on the subject by two Americans.²¹ In her speech, Carlota defended her usual point of view, justifying the choices made by the constituents, voicing opinions which could be closer to or further from those expressed by the Women’s Union. Neither more nor less courageous than the majority of her colleagues in relation to the women’s organization closed by the government, Carlota simply chose to play the game of politics and not identify herself, primarily, with feminism. A position which, besides, she had always held, as evidenced by the speech cited above, directed toward the feminists of Rio de Janeiro assembled in her honor.

The second occurrence selected here, exemplary in regard to Carlota’s political behavior, took place in 1937. The House created, in this year, a “Special Committee for the Elaboration of a Statute for Women”, whose first meeting took place on the 6^th of January, and where (then) representative Bertha Lutz – elected as a substitute in 1934 and having assumed her mandate in 1936 – was chosen as president. Carlota, cited in the records as a member of the committee, was only present at two meetings, out of the 13 which took place up until July 15^th, 1937: the second and twelfth. On the 22^nd of July of that same year she wrote a paper, addressed to the other members of the committee, about the project they proposed, of creating a “National Women’s Department”. Through such commentaries, she justified her “Separate Vote”²². The main point behind the disagreement expressed by Carlota was the fact that said Department was proposed as an autonomous body, and she believed that it should be under some currently- existent Ministry. As she saw it, presented as it was, the Women’s Department included characteristics of various ministries, with which it should be coordinated. But this is not the close of her proposal, for Carlota questioned, at the core, the legitimacy of an isolated body for addressing women’s issues:

 

“After achieving the integration of the woman, giving her the vote and the ability to exercise all public posts, (Constitution, Article 168), we would now once more create for her a situation of exception, isolating her interests administratively and obligating our men of State, through saying such, to alienate themselves from those interests, once they were not within their sight.”²³

 

According to Carlota, three Departments would be affected by the questions attributed to the National Women’s Department: Labor, Education, and Justice. Concerning the Labor Department, Carlota steered her arguments in the direction of proposing that such issues should be decided by a Department for Women’s Labor, directly linked to the aforementioned Department. Besides, according to her,

 

“…if on one hand it is attributed to the National Women’s Department, created by the project as a much greater extension, on the other it seems to me that, in our Brazilian case, the regulation of women’s work is not yet the problem of most interest to women.”²⁴

 

In her view, women’s priorities in Brazil were, before all else, linked to Education and Health:

 

“Therefore, if it is to the Labor Department that the issues attributed to the ‘National Women’s Department’ are most closely linked, it is primarily with the Department of Education and Health that we need to take care of women’s interests in Brazil. And because of this I would propose, preferably, if it must be created, that the ‘National Women’s Department’ would depend on the Department of Education and Health.”²⁵

 

And Carlota ended by speaking of the Justice Department, which should be responsible for some of the issues included in the National Women’s Department project but, in her opinion, creating a department for women’s issues in each State Department would also be inappropriate. The solution which seemed most convenient to her, keeping in mind the “necessities of the problem”, would be total dependency upon the entity proposed to the Department of Education and Health, under the name of “Department of Support to Women and Children”, future “Department of Social Assistance”. In the social diagnostic done by Carlota, this would be the perfect solution in case one decided to solve the principal women’s issues in Brazilian society, which were not those in the realm of labor or justice. The rationale which developed, then, clarifies two main issues. First, she avidly disagreed with the idea of having an isolated public action to address women, in the form of an entity that was autonomous and independent from the remainder of administrative structures, as proposed by the committee over which Bertha Lutz presided. Regarding this committee, she remained loyal to her previously expressed opinions, in which she condemned any isolated political action by women. Second, completely disfiguring the committee’s project, Carlota brought the issues to her field of action and proposed, for the entity that would treat women’s issues which were (in her view) the most urgent, a filiation, an administrative structure, objectives and even one name that would link it to the Department of Education and Health. Now Carlota knew well the structure and functioning of this Department for, as an educator, doctor, and representative, she reported for the committee for Public Health of the House of Representatives, having participated in the elaboration of a “Plan for the Reorganization of the Department of Education and Health”²⁶.

Carlota’s disagreement with the project of the “Special Committee for the Elaboration of a Statute for Women” shows clearly that her views were not truly feminist, as were those of Bertha Lutz. This latter woman, as well as Maria Eugênia Celso and other Brazilian feminists of the time, were basically concerned with the guarantee of civil and political rights for women, such as equality of conditions in and access to employment and justice. Not Carlota. She addressed women’s issues with the mind of an educator and a doctor, without forgetting her concern with offering assistance, which related to the protection of childhood, maternity, etc. Her “filter” was different, even if many times there were similarities between the diagnoses and proposals of one side and the other.

Therefore, I believe that part of the prestige and trust that Carlota conquered among her political colleagues, among men with whom she negotiated and worked, and who accepted her in their ranks, came directly from the fact that she didn’t present herself as a feminist, nor did she behave politically as such. Here we touch upon the complex domain of social representations of “feminine”, “masculine”, and politics. For despite being a woman, even as the only woman in the National Constituent Assembly, it was with men, before all else, with whom Carlota carried out her politics – as it had already been mainly with them that she practiced Medicine. This fact implied a domain particular to the extremely subtle game that surrounded male-female relations in the realm of politics. It seems to me that Carlota had a sharp consciousness of this issue and did very well for herself. To clarify the problem of the fundamental ambiguity surrounding the strange presence of a woman in a realm that is seen as naturally masculine, the comments made by an old colleague of Carlota’s is eloquent:

 

“She was able to neutralize this [the fact of her being a woman] in a complete manner. That phrase by A.C.S. ‘who would say that Carlota isn’t a man?’, to accomplish an extremely difficult task, defines things well. She was truly considered to be exceptional, and was comparable to the best leaders. All of my memories revolve around these concepts of leadership and respect.”²⁷

 

The discomfort caused by the strange, never-before-seen presence of a woman in the male areas of the Assembly seems to be resolved by bringing Carlota into the world of men, seeing her as one, instead of accepting her due to her differences. A mental process which seems to have alleviated the overriding tension. Truthfully, what bothered and scared her male colleagues was the possibility of feminine behavior that was out of sync with and strayed from the political culture, naturally identified with all masculine. And this sentiment was registered in the annals of the House of Representatives: on the 14^th of April, 1934, Carlota made a speech defending an amendment by the paulista delegates that addressed educational issues. At the end of the debate which follows, the constituent Carlos Reis made the following comments:

 

“My applause to the magnificent speech by Your Excellency, for the high concepts contained within it, in form and substance, principally because, in its superiority, it is completely stripped of silly sentimentality.”²⁸

 

In this way, it was with great relief that some verified, as was later done by one of her coreligionists, that

 

“She did not differentiate herself from us others in her manner of thinking, in her manner of asserting. She did not assert herself with a shyness that could define, in a manner of speaking, that women are the weak sex, she asserted herself with equal footing, as a human being.”²⁹

 

The solution found for such coexistence, still embarrassing, did not substantially transform the “natural” order of things, for the “whole” continues being male and the “part”, female. In this sense, it is only by equating herself to men, forsaking being a woman, that Carlota was finally able to be seen – by the men – as “a human being”. The identification of the world of politics with the male universe is something so strong, that Carlota Could not simply be the same as her colleagues in terms of politics, she had to be a “man”, as spontaneously said by A.C.S., in an anecdote that summarizes the issue well, and which did not gratuitously resist the times. 

This way, the crossroads that I attempted to draw here, between the personal itinerary of Carlota Pereira de Queiroz, and paulista and Brazilian politics, passes through two central coincidences. First, what Carlota sought after in her political life seems to coincide with what her male colleagues expected of her as a woman in politics: a presence that wasn’t out of tune with the overall political game, whether it be through “sentimental” speeches, a “feminist” posture, or for any other signal strange to the existing political culture. Fortunately, it was exactly that “masculine” character of political life that seems to have seduced Carlota, who gave up, in 1920, her career as an educator because the environment, in her eyes, presented itself as too limiting and feminine, two characteristics that walk hand in hand. From this tacit agreement, comes the prestige with which Carlota will continue her political career, after the experience with the Constitutionalist Party, in the Brazilian Democratic Union (U.D.B.), and in the National Democratic Union (U.D.N.). For if she lost the elections of 1945 and 1950, this does not mean that she didn’t maintain herself in political action. For many years she belonged to the directorial board of the party, respected by political leaders of regional and national expression.

Carlota’s regionalist identification with the state of São Paulo, her pride concerning the ties of her identity to the paulista elite, which were strengthened even more with the Revolution of ’32, second explanatory coincidence marked here, must not be underestimated. In her environment, such sentiments are a key element of social distinction and of mutual recognition. This way, on the 22^nd of October, 1933, a banquet was offered in homage to Carlota Pereira de Queiroz, in São Paulo. The organizers of the party, Olivia Guedes Penteado and her daughters, Carolina Penteado da Silva Telles and Maria Guedes Penteado de Camargo prepared, for the occasion, a publication³⁰. On the cover, the coat of arms of São Paulo. In the speeches that followed, as well as on the list of participants in the banquet, and on those of whom sent cards or telegrams of support, this brand of identification with São Paulo and its elite is a constant. This largely guaranteed, without a shadow of a doubt, the facilitated circulation of Carlota in the paulista political circles of the time, especially among the leaders that grouped around the “Single Platform for a United São Paulo” and, later, around the National Democratic Union.

The desire to carry out politics with and in the manner of men, surpassing their embarrassment and going from the “part” to the “whole”, as well as the liberal principles and regional interests that mixed within the opposition to Vargas composed of the paulista elite, explains in my view the fortunate event that made of Carlota Pereira de Queiroz the first female federal representative of Brazil, in 1933.              

To conclude, what’s left to say is that we must highlight the reach of Carlota’s personal choices. These, once made, evidently did not find the social conditions to establish themselves. The situation was conflict-ridden and it was far from dependent on the individual strategy adopted by her; her autonomy as a social player ran into very powerful barriers and decisions from above. This way if, on one hand, she sincerely did not appear to identify herself with the feminist ideals, on the other, her colleagues insisted on inviting her to give up any demands or behavior that might identify her as a feminist. And she chose to place herself on the stronger side. Going even a bit further, we could affirm that, identifying herself more with the politics than with feminism or with all things “female”, Carlota brought attention to a noteworthy reality: the two situations were mutually-exclusive, or at least coexisted poorly. Which means that the line which separated the “male” from the “female” also had the strength to separate institutional politics from the expression of gender identity, whether or not it was connected to politics and feminism. It is fair to say, then, choosing the political route, Carlota placed herself in an extremely limited space, with little room for maneuvering. And the extreme care she had her whole life, to hide the misogyny she faced in the political realm, is an indication of the degree of pressure she faced while building her career³¹. Perhaps this explains why Carlota had to choose between being a politician and assuming a feminist identity, or a female one. Having chosen feminism, Bertha Lutz, for example, did not publicly appear as a winner, at least not as much as Carlota, who rubbed elbows with men in politics. But she also didn’t pay the price for silence. If Carlota had greater access to public expression, as we saw, this was at the price of a less discordant speech, or one that carefully hid occasional disagreements.

This is all linked, clearly, to the strength of the paulista regionalism. I believe it shows, in the public performance of the local elite women, the expression of a tradition of very ingrained class complicity, and a specificity in relations between men and women of the group. In São Paulo, charity was surely the alibi for excellence which allowed the women of the elite to exercise an activity which was at the same time worthy of their social status and not geared towards domestic responsibilities. The intensive action by the League of Catholic Ladies and the span of works that took place throughout the entire 1920s is, in this case, very eloquent³². The urbanization and attraction exerted by the public realm of São Paulo, under construction during that period, led women to occupy their place in the bosom of philanthropic networks. Much before the mobilization of 1932, such networks responded to a project of assistance to the needy that, simultaneously to urban growth and the formation of a working class, walked hand-in-hand with immigration politics. Women then had a place within a broader social and political project. In giving assistance, they worked for the integration of these immigrants, laborers, poor and migrant workers, into an identity that guaranteed, cohesion and social order at the same time. Beside the men, they worked for the success of the social group to which they belonged, enriched by coffee, urbanized and still dominant in the rational political scene. After 1930, removed from power, the group developed countless strategies of reconversion. This way, it is completely normal to see women assume once more the class ideals and the complexity of before, transvested in the expressions of regionalism examined mainly through the civic mobilization of 1932 and the pre-electoral process of 1933. In this context, feminist discourse and actions didn't find their reason for being, didn't bring in any response, for women of the paulista elite conquered their place in another manner. And this despite the affinity they may have felt for someone like Bertha Lutz. It is not, by chance, then, that when she came to São Paulo, before the elections, the paulista women received her with great friendship and presented her with a gift of their state flag. Taking into consideration the history which pertains to them, no other symbol could have spoken more clearly for them, summarizing so perfectly the message they had to give. As for Carlota, if any hesitation could have existed between affirming herself as a woman in politics and, neutralizing said role, identifying herself with the interests of the social group to which she belonged, within the boundaries of action pertaining to her, the second alternative was clearly the one chosen.