who frequented her house to receive payments for the loan her husband took out to finance his

migration.

 Another story involves a young woman whose husband trusts her enough to send her all

his money directly, including money that is to be spent on land purchases and home construction.

The migrant is one of five brothers who have migrated to Boston-the only one of the five who

sends his money directly to his wife, rather than to his mother. The wife, who is "foolish and

weak," falls in love and runs off with a furniture salesman from another town, taking all her

husband's money along with her. As the story goes, fate is not kind to her, and the salesman

eventually leaves her. When she returns to the family compound, the husband orders his family

to accept her back. He still sends money, but now it goes directly to his mother, who allots an

allowance to the wife.

 Though the truth (or fiction) of the anecdotes is unverified, they nevertheless both function

as powerful social controls over women. In each version, the woman's infidelity becomes a

strong source of shame and a lesson for her of the consequences of violating the cultural order,

whether this violation involves infidelity or the misuse of money entrusted to her by her husband.

While the stories warn women of the danger of transgressing community norms, they warn men

of the danger of trusting their wives. While the Marianismo model may portray women as more

spiritually strong and thus more able to resist temptation, patriarchy still reigns over a woman's

access to remittances and her ability to move freely.

Remittance Expenditures: Productive or Reproductive?

 A central question related to the impact of transnational migration on sending

communities is whether remittances are used for productive or reproductive activities. In the

previous chapter, I discussed how the Maya are limited in their ability to invest in productive

activities such as cattle ranching, and how their use of remittances is often restricted to fixed