The initial debate surrounding gender and migration stated that access to cash through

remittances would result in women's increased control of household and personal autonomy and

power. This study shows that, in spite of an increase in money flowing into the community,

remittances are not passed on to the young wives but rather to the in-laws. Women's power

comes only through marriage and age, resulting in the internalized oppression of the younger

female generation. The younger women receive money through allowances-an act of

communal infantilization that emphasizes patriarchy through the in-laws' pecuniary power,

which consequently stresses the husband's authority. Furthermore, the women's allowance is

often just enough to live on. She can do nothing without him, so her value becomes intimately

dependent on his presence. Thus, current trends in transnational migration seem to reinforce

patriarchy (Moran-Taylor 2003:371); even so, if more women migrate, build wealth, and return

to Guatemala, these trends may change.

 This study also attempted to look at the differences between Maya and Ladino women and

whether migration affected them differentially. While past research suggested that Maya women

live under less patriarchal constraints than Ladina women, this work shows that both groups'

gender roles are scripted by the traditional ideals of marianismo and machismo. The only

difference is Maya women's apparent physical mobility. In fact, Maya women do have more

physical mobility, but it has more to do with the burden of labor that necessitates their movement

than freedom of movement per se. Even though they may be out and about more often than

Ladina women, they are still being monitored by relatives and the community. Ladina women,

including return migrants or those with husbands in the United States, are also very aware of the

physical restrictions on them and of the community expectations regarding their behavior. The