It should not be controversial to state that South Africa remains a deeply sexist and patriarchal society. Despite the fact that our Parliament has the third largest number of women members (just over 44%, the highest number after Rwanda with 56% and Sweden with 46%), most women in South Africa still carry a shockingly unequal burden in caring for children and taking care of the home (usually without remuneration), find it difficult to break through the glass ceiling in the corporate world, and are often subjected to sexism and even harrassment at the hands of men.
It should also not be controversial to point out the obvious fact that our current President (who is also the President of the ANC) is a patriarch and – in his private affairs, at least - a Zulu traditionalist.
During his rape trial President Zuma gave evidence in formal Zulu, which some commentators have argued was aimed at establishing himself as “an authentic Zulu man”. Some commentators (including Shireen Hassim and Mmatshilo Motsei) pointed out that the idiom he used at the trial was deeply patriarchal, referring for example to Khwezi’s private parts as “her father’s kraal”. Zuma claimed that as a Zulu man he had no choice but to have sex with Khwezi because she invited it in her dress; that he had been taught that leaving a woman in a state of arousal “was the worst thing a man could do”.
In the light of the above, the ANC discussion document on gender, tabled at the ANC NGC this week, makes for interesting and, I would argue that given the political context, provocative reading. But the authors of the document did not seem to have the courage of their convictions as the document shies away from the implications of its very persuasive gender analysis when it has to make recommendations about how effectively to deal with the problems.
On one level, the document merely re-affirms the ANC’s long standing commitment to gender equality and its opposition to sexism. If it was not for the ANC policy that 50% of its elected representatives should be women, our Parliament would not have had the high number of women it does have (the DA being rather more male oriented – despite its female leader).
The ANC was also instrumental in drafting the South African Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and gender and subjects the right of individuals to enjoy their culture to the equality provision in the Bill of Rights. In terms of our Constitution, no one has the right to engage in cultural practices that in any way discriminate against women. Equality trumps tradition and culture in our Constitution. (That is why those who claim that polygamy is a constitutional right are wrong: if our courts decide that polygamous practices discriminate against women, they will have a duty to declare such practices unconstitutional or to develop the customary law to bring it in line with the Constitution.)
The ANC document on gender provides an admirable definition of what the ANC means by Gender Equality.
It implies a fair distribution of resources between men and women, the redistribution of power and care responsibilities, and freedom from gender-based violence. It entails that the underlying causes of discrimination are systematically identified and removed in order to give men and women equal opportunities. It takes into account women’s existing subordinate position within social relations at aims at the restructuring of society so as to eradicate male domination… Gender inequality and other forms of patriarchy-related social ills are an integral part of what should be the transformation agenda of the ANC. IN effect what this NGC must look at are ways of actually addressing patriarchy within its realms and the realms of society as a whole, as well as look at the concept of “decolonizing the human mind”.
The document points out that the manner in which almost all societies still unfairly allocate social roles, duties and responsibilities to men and women (with women carrying a disproportionate load), reflects the power that men still hold over women in our society. According to the ANC document, patriarchy – “a whole system encompassing ideologies, beliefs, values and practices” – subordinates women in all spheres of life. In this regard, the traditional family remains the most oppressive institution where patriarchy asserts itself most profoundly in order to ensure the continued subjugation of women and the domination of men.
One of the ways in which this scandalous state of affairs can be dealt with, according to the ANC, is by the fast tracking of a Gender Equity Bill which will help to achieve 50/50 parity in the private sector and the corporate world. The document also suggests that the Electoral Law should be amended to force all political parties to adhere to a 50/50 gender balance in nominating candidates for election to the legislature. The document further recommends that many other steps should be taken to help eradicate gender discrimination and to address the effects of past gender injustice in the public sphere and to help women gain access to social and economic benefits and services.
What is entirely absent from the document is any recommendations on how to deal with two of the most profound problems facing women in South Africa. First, it is silent on the way in which most women who live in rural areas under traditional rule are subjugated and oppressed because of the overwhelming influence of traditional leaders and the iron grip of a traditional culture (a culture which has been fundamentally transformed, and in some respects disfigured, by colonialism and apartheid). Second, the document makes no recommendations about ways of addressing patriarchy in the private sphere - a pervasive problem which results in the oppression of women in the family.
The drafters of our Bill of Rights understood that much of the subjugation of women (and black South Africans as a whole) happened in the private sphere and hence deliberately included provisions to make clear that the equality clause also applied to private relations and institutions. It furthermore included section 9(2) which states that true equality can only be achieved if the state took positive measures to promote the achievement of equality. As the Constitutional Court stated in the case of Minister of Finance v Van Heerden that section 9 of our Constitution:
embraces for good reason a substantive conception of equality inclusive of measures to redress existing inequality. Absent a positive commitment progressively to eradicate socially constructed barriers to equality and to root out systematic or institutionalised under-privilege, the constitutional promise of equality before the law and its equal protection and benefit must, in the context of our country, ring hollow.
The state therefore has a duty to take steps to address the oppression of women in the private sphere. This oppression includes the way that men relate to and treat women in intimate relationships inside and outside marriage. This is not a short-term project as one cannot legislate away sexism (just as one cannot legislate away racism). But one can begin to take steps to protect women who suffer under patriarchal husbands and boyfriends. This our government has not shown any appetite to do.
While the ANC document recognises this fact, it contains no suggestions about what positive action should be taken to eradicate patriarchy. One looks in vain for suggestions of what measures could be taken to deal with the cultural assumptions and traditional practices that help to keep many women subjugated. The fact that many women in personal and intimate relationships remain little more than second class citizens who must obey the instructions of the patriarchal boyfriend, husband or father and must serve him and his children without complaint, is also not addressed.
Could this reticence on the part of the discussion document have anything to do with the fact that the leader of the ANC is a patriarch and traditionalist, a man with three wives and – as far as we know – at least two more girlfriends, a man with more than 20 children who seem to believe that women (or at least the women in his personal life) should take care of the home and the children?
This is of course an awkward point to make. On the one hand, one is acutely aware of the need to respect different cultural traditions and practices and to avoid the snobbish cultural imperialism of someone who assumes their way of doing things and being in the world is the only correct way. Given our history in which traditional African culture and custom have been denigrated and, at times, strategically used and abused by colonial rulers to reinforce the supremacy of their dominant Western culture and their rule, one could easily be accused of cultural imperialism for raising this point.
But as the Constitution makes clear that gender equality trumps culture and tradition and as black women living in rural areas are probably the most vulnerable and most marginalised and oppressed group in our country, it is important that any attenmpt to address gender inequality focuses on the way in which traditional cultural practices – including, possibly, practices such as polygamy – help to keep women subjugated and in their place. The fact that the ANC document is silent on this issue, says much about the inherent contradictions in the ANC, who styles itself as a modern movement who opposes sexism and patriarchy, while at the same time being led by Mr Zuma who has demonstrated in the past that he has not freed himself entirely of patriarchal tendencies.
i totally agree with the above discusssion women have long been opressed by not only their fathers but all the men in our lives, fathers, boyfriends, husband and every other male species you could think of, women take up positions of being always second in everything and in that case making many things to seem un equal, our president is one of the greatest example to the whole unequality of gender, he has (even though not saying it) shown that he himself treats women as ordering objets and obeying people who should do whatever a men says yes women are rising as most women are in top postions in most places, women are represented in the parlisment as well but the question still stands WHO IS REPRESENTING THE WOMEN, GIRL, LADY IN THE RURAL AREA WHERE OPRESSION IS AT ITS HIGHEST? and that question is not answered as our leaders and leading party never mantions it, it is treated as a “non important” issue i just hope that in the next coming years,decades, centuries women will continue rising and striving for the goal to be treated equally and have say to what goes on in their OWN LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just like Blacks, Women are their worst enemies. They are always willing and ready to sell out and act on behalf of their master.
@Pierre,
I think it is very important that if a point is to be argued, examples relevant to that particular point are be used.
Other than to entice ridicule on the president, I do not understand how the quoted testimony of Zuma’s trial adds to the point being made on this article.
As patriarchy is essential an exercise of authority from the fathers side, I do not understand which part of the, referred to, testimony suggests Zuma as having held any authority on the lady concerned. Or even testifying to give impression of such authority.
On ‘my father’s kraal’ translation, you are obviously dwelling on something you (or the person translating) have no understand of, so until you ask me to explain to you, I will consider any explanation a lost cause.
What about men who suffer under patriarchal husbands and boyfriends?
What measures could be taken to deal with the women who keep many other women subjugated, the many women in personal and intimate relationships who remain little more than second class citizens who must obey the instructions of the patriarchal girlfriend?
I HATE Women’s Month. In my experience it is a waste of resources and a platform for people who have no concept of gender politics, to spew nonsense and hot air.
My e-mail inbox has at least 70 invitations – yes I counted them – for me to be a guest speaker at functions to empower women.
I am sure there are many constructive and worthy initiatives but the invitations I have, from government departments, NGO’s, corporates and learning institutions, are far from constructive.
Of course I am flattered that there are some people who believe I have something worthwhile to say. But for me a gathering of educated and empowered women, being addressed by an equally educated and empowered woman, is just a complete waste of time.
If women want to get together and have a great party, or if they want a platform to talk about their achievements and congratulate themselves, then they have every right to do so. But they must not call it women empowerment.
In my view the events around Women’s Day trivialise the real struggles of women and the blatant inequality in our society.
Of course there are perfect examples of the strides women have made in South Africa.
Women in the state and civil society were able to secure substantial political and legal advances over the last 20 years.
There is a significant representation of women in state and private institutions.
As far as the representation of women in Parliament is concerned, South Africa is at the top of the list with the highest representation in the SADC region.
But we must be careful not to be duped into believing that the central place accorded to women in the new political order means gender equality has been achieved.
Cosmetic changes have been made but in terms of making a difference in the lives of the women who are genuinely shackled and not empowered to negotiate their income, safe sex, access to healthcare and justice in the event of the endemic gender-based violence, there is absolutely nothing to celebrate. In my view patriarchy and sexist men are only part of the problem.
The biggest obstacle to gender equality is empowered women themselves.
How do you explain the fact that in a country with the highest representation of women in Parliament, it took so many years for the Sexual Offences Act to be passed?
The women in Parliament and various ministries should have used their platform to be vociferous in demanding justice for raped women and challenging this violent expression of male power.
When the conviction rate for rape and domestic violence is reported to be low, when a rape victim’s case is postponed 22 times, it is not the NGOs that should be marching but the women in Parliament.
It is they who are empowered and are in a position to challenge their male comrades and demand that other women who do not have a voice, must also be heard.
When a woman is denied access to a bed in hospital or is forced to give birth at a street corner, or when she loses her child at the hands of an uncaring health system, it is the women in government and Parliament who should be jumping to her defence instead of protecting their incompetent colleagues.
As for women who populate posh offices in corporate South Africa, if I get one more invitation to speak to women I am going to hit the roof.
Enough talking.
In addition to having their sumptuous breakfasts and lunches and enjoying an address by a well-known woman, they must get out of their comfort zones and fight the cause of other women for whom empowered is an elusive dream. Women’s Day will see more rallies, workshops, breakfasts, award ceremonies and more talking.
There is much to reward and celebrate but it is my sense that too much energy is spent celebrating as opposed to fixing the ills of society.
Redi Direko
@ Khosi,
In my view, you define “Patriarchy” too narrowly. You seem to understand it as “an exercise of authority from the fathers side” – but it is more commonly used to mean a society managed by and for men. And I would think that this is how Pierre uses it – in which case his quotes would seem to make sense (as least to me as a non-Zulu).
A quote from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary on Patriarchy: “a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family, or a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage” – As I said, Pierre probably means the second definition.
Khosi, I must admit your point makes no sense to me. You say I should give examples but then you dismiss the examples I gave by using a very narrow definition of patriarchy (as Ricky noted above). Besides, I like about 5 million other South Africans, have viewed Zuma’s actions and words as demonstrating that he has patriarchal tendencies so its hardly something new or original I am saying. I have no direct proof that the earth is round either but I am pretty confident that if I claimed it I would not be far off the mark. Some things really do not need the scientific proof yuou require as that would make any kind of meaningful discussion and argument impossible. =
AS USUAL WE GET CAUGHT IN INTELLECTUAL MASTERBATION AND VARIATIONS OF PATRIACHY WHICH HAS LITTLE OR NO SIGNIFICANCE TO WOMEN ON THE GROUND.
DOMESTIC WORKERS SUFFER AT THE HANDS OF OTHER WOMEN AND THAT NEVER MAKES IT TO THE AGENDA INSTEAD WOMEN’S ISSUES ARE REDUCED TO JOBS FOR GIRLS & LOUIS VITTON ISSUES.
AS WE SPEAK WOMEN ARE FAILING TO SET UP AND RUN A WOMEN’S MINISTRY AFTER PARALYZING THE GENDER COMMISSION.
I APPLAUD ALL THE WOMEN(REAL ROLE MODELS) WHO HAVE SUCCEDDED IN THEIR VARIOUS ENDEAVOURS ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT A POLITICIAN.
“Cosmetic changes have been made but in terms of making a difference in the lives of the women who are genuinely shackled and not empowered to negotiate their income, safe sex, access to healthcare and justice in the event of the endemic gender-based violence, there is absolutely nothing to celebrate. In my view patriarchy and sexist men are only part of the problem.
The biggest obstacle to gender equality is empowered women themselves.”
The best response to any kind of social ill is to give people options.
@Khosi
“On ‘my father’s kraal’ translation, you are obviously dwelling on something you (or the person translating) have no understand of, so until you ask me to explain to you, I will consider any explanation a lost cause.”
For goodness sake, just explain it! How in the world are we (non-Zulus/whites/whatevers) expected to understand nuances in phrases when those using them don’t want to explain them. Then we are castigated for being racist or something worse when we misuse them!
I feel the same about all those who jumped on ” Sheldon Smith Roosevelt High” on Who is digging a big hole for itself? for using the term non-whites. PLEASE tell us what terms we may use. On Cape Talk 567 Eusebius Mckaiser took flak from a listener for describing HIMSELF as a Cape Coloured and not a black. When it is necessary, for context, to describe someone who is “differently-coloured ” to me, what phrase may I use?
PC gone mad!
@ Eagleowl
Try to bear in mind at all times that race is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. If you want to refer to a person that is other than a so-called “white”, you should deploy syntax and grammatical devices to distance yourself from the offensive usage.
So, instead of saying a non-white say : “A so-called non-white person.”
That way, people will know you are not serious.
Et Al,
I am not redefining the word ‘patriarchy’
I am offering no opinion, whatsoever, on whether, or not, Jacob Zuma has ‘patriarchal tendencies’. Lest I be accused of being alone against 5 million South Africans, when there are actually 50 million which means the other 45 million may or, may not, see things the way I do.
What I am saying is that, Pierre choice of an example is both flawed in context (at best), and is rogue. Pierre correctly reminds us that our president has many wives. Our president chooses to be a polygamist and that is his prerogative. That is a simple and adequate example of patriarchy. He could have argued around that point and I was going to keep quite.
But unnecessarily, Pierre chose to bring in the words ‘rape’ and ‘sex’ into his argument. He then plants Zulu tradition and metaphors into that context. He does this because he wants to paint Zulu tradition as both the enforcer and enabler of what is seedy, diabolical and monstrous.
I say, that is completely incorrect and highlights the dangerous tendencies of the so called liberals, of Pierre’s kin and kith.
@ Khosi
” … highlights the dangerous tendencies of the so called liberals”
Khosi, you have set a good example for all of us, by prefixing the highly offensive term “liberals” with the “so-called” prefix.
Thank you.
In my book Kangaman was acting in a sexist way when he assumed that a woman’s way of dressing is an invitation to have sex. Probably male sexism can be subsumed under “Patriarchy”.
@ Gwebecimile……mastErbation…….very apt given the context…..I always enjoy a clever play on words.
And by the way, according to the CIA, world-wide, the ration of boys to girls born is 107 to 100. Demographically we need 53 and a half male for every 50 female parlementarians. So a 50:50 split would be unfair. Phew! For a moment there I thought patriarchy was in danger…
Khosi, I am going to try and answer as honestly and carefully as I can in the hope of demonstrating that I take you concerns seriously (which you might or might not accept – it is not up to me) because your allegations are obviously deeply hurtful and upsetting for me. I will try not to be sarcastic or defensive in the spirit of respectful dialogue.
Given the definition of patriarchy which the ANC document itself adopts, one would be hard pressed not to argue that saying that a women invited sex by her dress demonstrates patriarchal attitudes. It gestures to an attitude than women belong to men (there is a wealth of academic writing on this, which I can refer you to). The same goes for the metaphor used by Zuma which I mentioned. I happen to think it is pretty difficult to argue that traditional Zulu culture is not patriarchal (just as it would be difficult to argue that traditional Afrikaner culture and many other traditional cultures are not patriarchal). You are, of course, free to challenge my definition of patriarchy or my assertion that it is one of the root causes of the oppression of women. But what you are suggesting (or so it seems to me – correct me if I am wrong) is that I am not allowed to mention the words and make this deduction because I am referring to someone else’s culture and because these statements were made by the President. This is an important point: can one ever be critical of someone else’s culture – especially when that culture was denigrated in the past and individuals who belonged to it were oppressed by members of the very group that the critic belongs to? As an academic who wishes to understand the society I live in and make a small contribution in addressing the problems as I see them, I would argue that one can do so, and that sometimes one has an ethical duty to do so (although I am all too aware of the pitfalls of “othering” groups who are not like me and do not share my views).
I suspect what upset you most in my post is that I dared to mention something (which cannot be disputed) which is rather embarrassing and which implies criticism of a culture I (as a white Afrikaans speaking man) do not belong to. (Aware of these sensitivities, I added the paragraph about this being an awkward point to make.) But given the deep roots of patriarchy in our society in the various cultures here in our country, it is always going to be awkward to raise this point – especially given our apartheid past. Should I then not make it for fear of being labelled as a bigot who wishes to denigrate other people’s culture? I would say not, because silence connotes a kind of patronising attitude which I try and avoid. Saying nothing can easily be the option of someone who has no respect for people of different backgrounds and cultures who believes so smugly in his or her own superiority that he or she does not feel the need to engage at all with the cultural beliefs and practices of others because these are viewed as irrelevant or beneath the critic. Also, for me some cultural practices and attitudes are just plain wrong. I grew up Afrikaans in a deeply racist, sexist and patriarchal culture in which support for apartheid was a requirement for belonging fully to the group. At some point I made a choice (well, it was a slow process) to confront those aspects of the culture I grew up in and to reject it because it is wrong, dangerous and deeply demeaning and oppressive to others. (This led to rather serious stresses with my parents and family, but I was young and very sure of what I believed in, so did not think twice about it.) Many other Afrikaners did not challenge the evil and oppressive bits of their culture at all and when those of us criticised the traditional culture, these individuals made more or less the same point that you made above (but in relation to Afrikaner culture). We were banished from the fold, which suited me fine at the time because I never liked the NG Kerk and the aggressive and violent attitudes of the people I grew up with.) As an ethical choice, I would rather not remain silent – even when I know that such attacks can hurt me and diminish my standing in the eyes of some. I make this choice not because I think I am special, but because I would not be able to live with myself and respect myself otherwise. It is more out of self-interest than altruism or anything more noble that I make this choice. I write what I like, as a famous South African said.
Those who wish to defend traditional culture (whether these are practices and beliefs that are embodied by Zulu patriarchs or Afrikaner racists and patriarchs or whoever else) will always fight back by complaining that the critic is trying to denigrate the culture and is hence a kind of close-minded bigot (or, god forbid, a liberal!). But if one has certain deeply held ethical positions that clashes with the cultures and traditions of powerful and dominant formations in society and one dares to speak truth to power, one is always going to be accused of this. In many ways this can be liberating. I have a choice: I must either shut up and not make my argument and accept that the traditions and cultural practices and attitudes which I think are deeply oppressive to women is so dominant and so deeply embedded in our society that it is untouchable. (This, so it feels to me at least, is what you are trying to intimidate me into doing.) Or I can make my case – hopefully as an ethical gesture and with some care and sensitivity – knowing full well that people will attack me personally because the criticism is experienced as a personal attack on them and the culture which is dear to their hearts and is part of their identity and sense of self-worth and knowing full-well (and this really is the difficult part) knowing full-well that the criticism will cause offense. When one cannot deny the facts, one can always launch an ad hominem attack against the person who advanced the facts and made a unsettling argument. This one can do in order to try and discredit the person who dared to remind readers of certain facts and, even worse, dared to provide an analysis about what those facts might mean. In making THIS choice – knowingly – I am, of course, not alone (but of course, not part of the majority, as the vast majority of South Africans have not rejected patriarchy): the various writings on President Zuma’s rape trial by women of all races which make more or less the point I make above is testimony to this. (But for present purposes it would be too easy for me to hide behind the fact that the most trenchant argument along these lines was made by an African women who now live in a small rural village outside Tzaneen, as this would allow me to hide behind her “blackness” and would deny the fact that there is a difference between a member of the erstwhile oppressor and a member of the oppressed making the same point.)
I have set out my ideological commitments clearly in the post: I am against patriarchy in any form and against sexism and I am for true equality for women which cannot be achieved if patriarchal attitudes as exemplified by Zuma’s statements – but are widely shared by men of all races in all cultures in South Africa – are not addressed and if the power imbalances between men and women in relationships are not acknowledged and addressed. In my analysis, the things that our President said at his rape trial flies in the face of all of these ethical commitments. By situating his utterances within a specific cultural tradition (which happens to be a Zulu tradition but could just as well have been an Afrikaner tradition – as the judge in the trial, an Afrikaner, illustrated rather well with some of his statements), I am making the point that it would be wrong to dismiss President Zuma as an exceptional case (which would have allowed me to paint him as a kind of aberration, or a very bad man). Rather, I wish to argue that he is the product of a specific time and place (like all of us are a product of our time and place) where what he said is not frowned upon. By doing so, I make the point that this does not make him unique at all and hence also that it would be too easy to denigrate him personally and absolve the tradition from which he comes. I was hoping to bring some nuance into my post and to move away from the vilification of individuals as I think that is not helpful for the purposes of my argument and also does not address the real issue – which is pervasive patriarchy. As the ANC document makes clear, this problem – as exemplified by Zuma’s statements during his rape trial – is deeply embedded in our society and we will not address the oppression of women if we do not address this. Merely pointing fingers at one man will not really be helpful to address the far bigger problem (although this one man can be viewed as a high profile symbol of that problem).
But what I hope is that we can go beyond this interaction and disagreement and focus on the larger issue: which is the problem of patriarchy that is deeply embedded in our society – as much in traditional Zulu culture as the Afrikaner culture I come from. I would be interested to hear your views on the interrelationship between traditional culture and patriarchy. Also relevant would be to discuss the possible effects of attitudes that many South African men have towards women, which expect women to do most of the child rearing and home making functions while they also often have to keep their families together in other ways. This private kind of patriarchy seems to me at the heart of women’s oppression in any society – also our own. The role of traditional culture in maintaining this state of affairs also seem important. Maybe we can have a serious discussion about that if we get past this present disagreement?
John-Michael says:
September 23, 2010 at 17:15 pm
“And by the way, according to the CIA, world-wide, the ration of boys to girls born is 107 to 100.”
For a moment I though you had reliable source of stats.
@ John-Michael
“And by the way, according to the CIA, world-wide, the ration of boys to girls born is 107 to 100.”
Like Maggs, I am a little sceptical of these figures, given their source.
Cde Malema has warned us about imperialist foreign “agents,” some of whom are, in fact, “bloody bastards.”
Burma: the land of broken dreams
Posted by Iris Gonzales | 0
In the dead of night, military troops attacked a village, terrorizing every man, woman and child. In one of the thatched houses, men with guns raped a woman many times over in front of her helpless husband.
Just last May a 13 year-old girl suffered the same fate. Men twice her age and size took turns raping her, leaving scars that will, without doubt, take decades if not a whole lifetime to heal.
Activists are under attack. There are many displaced persons. Women are still on the run and are struggling to survive as rape is being used as a weapon of war. In this land, the men have licence to rape.
I am listening in disbelief to these horrific tales of ordeal in Burma, officially known as Myanmar, but dubbed the Land of Broken Dreams.
http://www.newint.org/blog/2010/09/21/burma-land-of-broken-dreams/
@Pierre,
I think then, that the problem may be that when you write you use too many words. When you use to many words, many are bound to be wasted. Wasted words tend, at times, to behave like bastards and stray dogs.
The problem I have with you, and the so called liberals, is that you seem to consistently waste words. This then suggests to me that your dogs are stray, not by nature, but by design.
Please take time and read this:- http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/speeches/2002/mbek0809.htm
I ask because I would like you to be careful, if that is possible, of the setting you use when you debate for, or against, African culture.
HAPPY HERITAGE DAY.
I think that the bottom line is: do we want to be a Democracy? Do we want to promote and live true Democracy. My impression in South Africa is that ts mostly thought of as a non African Western myth. Whereas actually it first drew breath in Greece, and if western, then on the edge then, and during violent times.
Democracy has certain rules, certain ethics and even a morality. Its concern is service and opportunity for the people, all the people within its boundaries. Capitalism is the double edge sword which supports it, ameliorated by deep rooted consciousness for compassion. Perhaps Bill Gates and Warren Buffet illustrate the peak of compassionate capitalism. For without money, dollars, rands, euros, one can’t do very much for the people to improve life.
I would ask the ANC this, straight out. Do you believe in Democracy, actually believe in it. Because if you say you do, then we will hold you to it’s timeless rules.
Lifestyle is everything, and without Democracy, the majority lifestyle is in the pits.
@Pierre De Vos says:
September 23, 2010 at 17:53 pm
Khosi, I am going……
Khosi we are awaiting your intelligent reply soon. If you can
@ Khosi
Wow, what an amazingly insulting post, and do I sense a hint of threat therein?
Why Khosi, do you and your mates all feel so threatened when in power for all these years? Is it guilt which you hide and deny at all costs? Is it disappointment in your exhibited weakness?
What I don’t understand is why that sense or feeling of threat you experience and which is expressed so often by ANC sycophants, full of disinformation spewing propaganda (now referred to as spin and mostly perpetuated by trolls,) is how you miss the real threat.
Do you, does the ANC… care about the people. Is this the guilt, that you know in your hearts you do not?
khosi says:
September 23, 2010 at 21:17 pm
Interesting read. Here’s another one.
Their deaths, his doubts, my fears
The Washington Post, June 4 2000
Author: Charlene Smith
On June 2 last year, after voting for Thabo Mbeki to be president, Busisiwe Shope was walking home when three young men stepped from the shadows created by the pink street lights in Alexandra, and pressed a gun to her cheek. They dragged the 29-year-old mother away, firing shots in the air, and then raped her repeatedly.
Six months after the attack, Busisiwe learned she had contracted HIV. Now she is suffering from respiratory ailments and crushing headaches — early signs of Aids. She is unlikely to see her 33rd birthday.
Busisiwe’s story could have been mine. Two months earlier, I was raped at knife point in my home. But because I write about Aids, I knew the power of antiviral drugs (such as AZT) to protect against the onset of HIV infection if used immediately. While I had no idea whether my attacker was HIV-positive, I was taking no chances. So, for almost six hours after I was raped, in three different hospitals, I argued with doctors who refused to give me AZT. Dressed only in a flimsy gown, with blood on my hand, with masking tape still around my head, neck, wrists, knees and ankles, and with a disgusting feeling of wetness between my legs, I remember shouting at one doctor: “I’ve been raped. I’ve been stabbed. I have two children. I don’t want to die. Give me the drugs!”
He did. And more than a year later I am confident that, unlike Busisiwe, I will remain HIV-negative.
Those two incidents resonate in my mind whenever I think about the recent news coverage of Mbeki’s skepticism over whether HIV causes Aids. His attitudes aren’t new: For years Mbeki has argued — erroneously and dangerously — that AZT itself is toxic. Recently, he refused to accept the offer from major pharmaceutical companies of heavily discounted antivirals to curb HIV transmission from mother- to-child and through rape. What’s more, he has spent millions investigating what Western scientists proved a decade and a half ago — that HIV causes Aids. And now comes the release of the letter in which Mbeki casts renewed doubt on that causal link and argues that an African answer should be found to deal with this “uniquely African catastrophe.” I had trouble getting AZT before; I can only imagine it will become harder if Mbeki’s views become the norm in South Africa. I can only imagine that there will be more people who will face Busisiwe’s fate.
Give the man his due. Mbeki is right, of course, in saying that African solutions must be found. In the United States, Aids is primarily a gay men’s and intravenous drug users’ problem. Here, it is spread primarily by heterosexual sex — spurred by men’s attitudes toward women. We won’t end this epidemic until we understand the role of tradition and religion — and of a culture in which rape is endemic and has become a prime means of transmitting the disease, to young women as well as children.
There’s no doubt in my mind: Attitude is the father of rape, and the incubator of Aids. A change in attitude can save lives. The government in Uganda, a country far poorer than South Africa, began encouraging open discussion about Aids a few years ago and giving drugs to stop mother-to-child transmission. Infection rates among pregnant women have since dropped from 30 percent to 16 percent. Why don’t we see the same sort of public health measures in South Africa?
Here, 36 percent of pregnant women are HIV positive; one in three babies born is infected; 75 percent of pediatric deaths at one of Johannesburg’s largest hospitals are Aids-related. And the epidemic has not yet peaked — that won’t happen for four years, when the average life expectancy here is expected to be 35.
Walk into the pediatric ward of a government hospital today, and you’ll see children lying in oxygen tents, or stumbling around, their hands and lips blue from lack of air, as the virus ravages their respiratory systems. In orphanages, wards overflow with screaming, skeletal babies abandoned by their HIV-positive mothers.
The strain on government hospitals is acute. Patients have to bring their own sheets; there are not enough IV poles, so IV lines are draped over light fixtures or anything high; there are not enough beds, so patients sleep on the floor or in chairs. A young woman I met last month believes she contracted the virus when she was sick in the hospital. “They were re-using needles,” she told me. “It was filthy . . . . They had no beds, so I slept in a wheelchair.” Pregnant with twins, she doesn’t have the money for the drugs that would help ensure that her babies won’t be HIV positive. “How do we forgive this government?” she asked.
I didn’t have an answer for her.
Aids in Africa will not end because of the availability of condoms; and we can’t wait for a vaccine. Across the continent a woman who asks her partner to use a condom is asking for a beating. The highest incidence of HIV here is among girls and women ages 15 to 25, according to South Africa’s health authorities, with a fifth of all girls ages 13 to 19 now infected. According to World Bank statistics, six times more girls have HIV than boys. Don’t those numbers say something about culture and sexual attitudes? In Zimbabwe, there are “pot-wives” — single women who have sex with a group of men in return for food and a roof over their heads. Throughout the continent, the incidence of child rape is accelerating, spurred by the myth that a man who rapes a virgin will rid himself of HIV. Not a single government on this continent has acted to dispel that myth. In many parts of southern Africa, a rapist can pay compensation of as little as $3 to the family whose child he has raped, and the matter ends there. In South Africa, one in two women will get raped at least once in her lifetime.
The results of this kind of behavior are deadly. South Africa now has the world’s fastest-accelerating rate of HIV, with 1 800 new infections each day. We have the world’s most lethal strain of HIV — subtype C, which is easier to contract and kills the fastest.
We should be putting all our efforts into halting the virus now. With sound education and medical practice backing our scientific knowledge, we can start to do just that. The evidence is there: In three recent major drug trials in South Africa, antivirals proved startlingly effective in rape victims if given within 72 hours of being raped and for 28 days thereafter. Not one of the hundreds of victims became HIV positive.
Yet while Africans are dying of Aids in unprecedented numbers, our president is setting us back two decades by entertaining the theories of a group of dissident American scientists, who argue that Aids is caused not by HIV but by a lack of hygiene and poor nutrition.
The fallacy of that theory should be clear to anyone seriously worried about Aids. There are members of Mbeki’s privileged inner circle who have HIV. The South African National Defence Force, which has a 70 percent rate of infection, has fine accommodations, good food and exemplary hygiene. The workers in the Carletonville gold mines, whose infection rates are at around 77 percent, live in clean housing and have plentiful food.
But tell that to chief undertaker Mbeki. Aids is our president’s Achilles’ heel. The man who would lead South Africa from the misery of economic poverty, will, if his policies continue, preside over graves.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/charlenesmith/2007/11/23/mark-gevissers-careless-writing-defames/
And here, Khosi, is how that was interpreted by then President Mbeki (my emphasis).
In addition to this, reflecting a view among these about rape in our country, Charlene Smith was sufficiently brave, or blinded by racist rage, publicly to make the deeply offensive statement that rape is an endemic feature of African society.
This is what she wrote recently in the US Washington Post:
“Here, (in South Africa), HIV is spread primarily by heterosexual sex – spurred by men’s attitude towards women. We won’t end this epidemic until we understand the role of tradition and religion – and of a culture in which rape is endemic and has become a prime means of transmitting the disease, to young women as well as children.”
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/letmbeki.htm
@ Khosi – you have not explained the “her fathers kraal” idiom yet. Do we need to beg? Or am I displaying my white tendencies too much?
This is so frustrating; I would really like to understand what was really meant in the situation but no one will tell, so I must remain an ignorant racist! Or is it that I’m female so may not be privy to this masculine knowledge?
Maybe I am also a F…ing Apartheid Relic as someone in my neighbourhood suggested when I asked her to please call her vicious-looking dog off the street where it was threatening me? (BTW I also own large dogs).
:0
Contradictions in the ANC’s policy on gender? You don’t say. All of the ANC’s policies are a morass of contradictions, either by design or because the factions within the party/tripartite alliance turn even the best-laid plans into a balancing act. I suppose we can at least be “grateful” that the ANC has made up its mind about health care, as per the NHI proposals this week. Who knows? By the end of the NGC we may even learn that the mines will be nationalised.
Meanwhile, as a “revolutionary” party, the ANC is obliged to spout the usual PC line about patriarchy (Prof de Vos will provide the script), but the reality is that it won’t dare upset its constituency, many of whom prefer traditional African values.
Needless to say, in an attempt (not very successful, it seems) to avoid being called a racist (yawn), Prof de Vos tries to work in some kind of equivalence between what goes down deep in the countryside and what you will find in the average white (oops, I used a naughty word) middle-class home. Pathetic. In the latter context, patriarchy in any meaningful sense of the term is dead. It was killed by women becoming financially independent, which meant that men could no longer call the tune.
Marco Polo, I agree with you that the end of patriarchy lies in financial freedom which gives women options. But, I think you are somewhat lacking in generosity towards Pierre. He would have been intellectually dishonest if he had not raised this issue as he did in the way that he did. This is a topic about which I have huge mixed feelings. I enjoy travelling in rural areas and hearing the people there’s experiences and experiencing the way they live. One big round hut and sattelite huts for every wife. One of the best days of my life was seeing the reaction of little shangaan children who’ve never seen a white man before and the two wells they’d dug – one for the elephant wandering out of the Kruger and one for their own use – covered with thorns to prevent the elephants stuffing that one up too. Of course the elephant in the room where this issue comes up is the ANC leader’s anachronistic views. The ANC only have themselves to blame – our predicament- as usual – is the sum of the bad choices the completely irresponsible ANC makes including the type of people they choose to lead them. The bottom line though is a great many ANC supporters feel exactly as he does. What distinguishes us from the scum-sucking collectivists is we believe in freedom of choice. Do you want to be guilty of cultural imperialism? If you came to me with that judgemental attitude over my life choices I’d tell you to f.o. What do you expect those people to do? IMHO, Pierre got the balance right in showing respect towards views he strongly disagrees with.
These are – to us – clearly the views of people who refuse to modernise, views it is hard to see being sustainable in the 21st century. Nonetheless, they are those people’s heartfelt convictions. Are they wrong? Is Sheldon’s view about the antithesis to Christian National Education right? Are many of Pierre’s symptoms of patriarchy not just unfortunate but human behaviour – just plain, old-fashioned bullying, dependence and patronage, which you see amongst homosexual couples as well? These are value judgements – not exactly an exact science.
Hell, I do not have all the answers to life’s big questions. No-one asked anyway. I believe the answer is to make sure rural women have better options. Let them choose for themselves. And the only way to accomplish that is to let them lift themselves out of the grinding poverty which is their everyday existence.
Prof takes the time and care and effort to clarify his point to Khosi in a way that’s both sincere and personal. Not many people would’ve bothered with Khosi, so this say something about Prof’s integrity.
As to Khosi, I don’t want to wish you any ill and you seem to burdened as it is, but be careful you don’t suffocate in your own flatulence comrade.
Whilst we are on the subject of a society where patriarchal malevolence is rife…..
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/mikebaillie/2010/09/22/rapists-are-not-monsters-they-are-men/#comment-141023
eagleowl says:
September 23, 2010 at 23:10 pm
Hey EO,
You seem desperate for answers – so here’s some help.
- “Do we need to beg?” – Yes. Send pictures.
- “am I displaying my white tendencies too much?” – Not nearly enough – send more pictures.
- “This is so frustrating” – Gwebe may have the solution.
- “so I must remain an ignorant racist!” – only if you have too. Otherwise you can choose between being ignorant or racist.
- “Or is it that I’m female so may not be privy to this masculine knowledge?” – You must be female to think that there exists such a thing as “masculine knowledge”.
- “Maybe I am also a F…ing Apartheid Relic” – now why didn’t I think of that!
Actually Maggs, I treasure that last one. Its hard to continue arguing with someone when you are cracking up with laughter!
I am a bit ambivalent with respect to the whole “culture-defense” by which I mean the argument that because something is part of somebody’s culture, it is beyond criticism.
Some years back I was discussing the issue of parents using physical means (spanking or similar) as part of disciplining their kids with an Australian police woman (who, like me at the time, lived in Rwanda) and a Rwandan friend (a male in his early twenties). The Australian woman and I were both very much against this practice. On the other hand, our Rwandan friend was very much in favour of it as it was part of the Rwandan culture (at least according to him). He then mentioned that he had been wetting his bed regularly until his father who had used physical means of disciplining had died when he was twelve. I found it very surprising that – in spite of the clear evidence that spanking had been bad for him – he still argued in favour of this, simply due to the culture argument.
Undoubtedly, all cultures have negative aspects. It used to be part of Viking culture to rape and pillage but I doubt anyone would say that it is still permissable for persons of Scandinavian extraction to rape and pillage. It used to be part of European culture to torture persons to get confessions – but this is not really a good argument for the CIA to keep sending accused to be tortured in secret prisons. It is part of the culture of various African groups to cut the clitoris of girls – but is it culturally insensitive to denounce this practice? Or the practice in India to distinguish rigidly between persons of different casts?
Frankly, I am not really very impressed when persons argue for something simply by using the “culture-defence”. I will argue that each and every single culture on earth has elements that cannot be defended in 2010 – and that it is therefore not a sufficient argument for doing something that “it is part of my culture”. We all have to develop, whether we are Zulu, Afrikaans, Pedi, English or something else – and we have to accept that we must leave part of our culture behind if we want to act decently and according to the principles on which the “rainbow nation” is built.
PEOPLE who buy sex from sex workers should be arrested and not the sex workers themselves. That is one of the recommendations of the ANC’s gender committee. That call for action, discussed at this week’s national general council in Durban, could place criminality of prostitution in an entirely different perspective.
“A study revealed that most women sell sex as a second option. So instead of arresting a sex worker, clients should be arrested because buying sex is by choice, whereas selling it is not necessarily so,” ANC Women’s League president Angie Motshekga said.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2010/09/23/arrest-sex-clients-not-sex-workers
The thrust of your blog is “Zuma the patriarch. Can there be any doubt about this? Its almost redundant to then continue: versus ANC gender equality.
I think it takes much education, much access or experience to modern western political correctness, to really question oneself and ask: do I accept and treat women as equals? Do I treat them as equal to my mates.
The ANC approach to gender equality has nothing to do with true equality between the sexes. Their behavior illustrates this. Its a political ploy, spin, nothing less.
Until we as males learn that we have much to learn from women, much to respect them for all their challenges which we as males deal with, and which are many for the males, then we do not have true Democracy. Its not about professed equality, its about mutual respect in action.
The most frustrating thing about this debate is the lack of good data. How much higher would the living standard be of Sipho of Nongoma’s family if he was not saving for lobola for wife no 4? How much of a financial albatross is lobola for the average family? For how many average families is lobola the only hard cash they see? Has anyone done the homework?
I want to ask you all this question though: How many of you had similar thoughts to Sirjay’s yesterday while driving through Bellevue and Yeoville when you saw all the little baby Hasidim walking behind mama who was walking behind Papa?
Brett Nortje says:
September 26, 2010 at 17:57 pm
Hey Brett,
“How many of you had similar thoughts to Sirjay’s yesterday while driving through Bellevue and Yeoville when you saw all the little baby Hasidim walking behind mama who was walking behind Papa?”
hahahahahahaha.
You must have thought long and hard to make up something this doofy!
Really Maggs, you ought to stay out of the sun. It was 28deg C today!
Tell me what you do not grasp about the double-standard I was raising and I’ll try to get you on the page (no guarantees, mind! We are dealing with Maggs…)
Brett Nortje says:
September 26, 2010 at 21:06 pm
Hey Brett,
You’re hilarious!
Hhhmmm! Looks like my gut feel that moral outrage is something fiberals reserve for people of a darker hue was spot on.
OK, then we are back to the great burka debate in the discussion about the subjugation of women…
Et Al,
Between 1999 and 2001 (not too sure when, exactly), there was a billboard on the N1 in Johannesburg. It was a Talk 702 billboard, and I can never forget what it said. It said:- “TRUTH Hz”
Good morning, hope we all got to connect with our heritage.
anton kleinschmidt says:
September 23, 2010 at 17:13 pm
@ Gwebecimile……mastErbation…….very apt given the context…..I always enjoy a clever play on words.
I see you are more familiar with this word than I am.
A Cope provincial leader, who asked to remain anonymous, said Maarman had slept with an MEC in the provincial government and was then given a government job.
Maarman said the affair with the MEC happened long before she became a provincial minister.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2010/09/28/cope-members-defect-to-da