Friday, July 16, 2010
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Violence is not freedom either
I just read an article on the reader blog called “Fear is not freedom”. Sipho Mazibuko, who labels himself a recent victim of crime seems to suggest that the solution to South Africa’s shared fear is to take the law into our own hands. He says:
What is our prerogative as citizens when taking the law into your own hands is frowned upon as vigilantism? Is this the end of our world as we know it? … [later on] Do we harbour criminals in the form of our brothers, uncles and fathers? If so then we are not only perpetuating crime but are the criminals themselves.
So Sipho is worried that if we don’t act against violence, we are committing violence of omission. By not doing something we are allowing violence to affect others, and essentially we are making our own uncomfortable bed upon which we must eventually lie.
In some ways I agree with him. If we don’t act against violence it will continue. If we don’t actively promote human rights they will become mere ink in paper. If we aren’t being protected by the state forces, and we are not protecting ourselves, then who are we to hold responsible for our protection?
The law exists only in its applicability and only because the general public accept that it is legitimate and can be applied to others. When the public finds that a law is no longer just, they have the means to change the law by application, by protest and by public outcry. In this way the law is a constant and evolving body of regulations that serve to make society governable, and to secure our rights. So taking the law into our hands should mean that we look at it, consider its application and judge as part of a collective whether we see our interests reflected inside it.
If I have understood his article correctly, what Sipho is suggesting sounds slightly more sinister. It suggest a process of becoming part of the cycle of violence until we recycle its aggression and the forces of good prevail. But taking the law into our own hands is inherently problematic. At what point does the group who has taken it upon themselves to apply the law become governed by the law? Or to put it more simply, how many people do I murder in the name of the law, before I too must be judged as a murderer? If I assault someone because they assaulted someone, the bottom line is that in the name of stopping assault I have become my own enemy and a threat to the cause.
So what then? Many of us feel helpless to do something and the thought of criminals escaping unpunished or with punishments that simply do not seem just in light of their crimes can feel like a heavy burden to bear. But what if there were no laws, and no justice system at all? Imagine then how many crimes would go unnoticed in the scrabble for scarce resources and the barking madness of a dog eat dog world. Is this the sort of system that we would advocate for?
Violence can never be freedom because at its roots is the necessity for retaliation. An eye for an eye will soon become a body for a body. But lives are simply not expendable in this fashion. So whilst fear may feel like a cage and the sieve-like concepts of human rights may make you feel like you are watching your rights trickle past you and around you, a society without the rejection of violence is inherently more dangerous and more prison-like. It is just not the way forward.
Chuene is our scapegoat
South Africans are using Leonard Chuene as their scapegoat in one of the most sordid abuses of power by many officials and ASA. He has admitted to a trail of lies that have landed him outside the favour of the ruling party, and have resulted in the mistreatment of an excellent athlete. He has undoubtedly let South Africans down. He has unfortunately committed actions and been involved with deception that have had effects that cannot be withdrawn. He has committed dastardly deeds. South Africans and international spectators want him to pay for his sins.
I did a really great politics course a few years back. A beautiful theory of social cohesion that was shared with me discussed the ways that order was maintained in society and what happened when there was disruption to that order.
Consider a scenario where a community is living peacefully until some event happens (if we get into a mythological vibe, lets say the event was an earthquake). This event disrupts society, and causes disarray (people fight for scarce resources, people have died, people are without their homes and loved ones). There is violence and unrest and it is obvious that something needs to happen for order to be restored.
But, the people in this society are without recourse. They do not know how to come together again after this disruption. People turn on one another, rather than confronting the issue. Somewhere in this chaos, one person, or a group of people, take it upon themselves to identify the cause of the problem. Because the real problem is too big, or has too many causes to deal with, society cannot tackle it. So the cause is not located in the event, but rather the blame is placed on an individual.
This individual could not have had anything to do with the event that caused disruption. But something in his or her actions must be able to be linked to the disruption in the public consciousness (so for example, he had an extremely good crop that year, or she gave birth to triplets etc). This must make the person half guilty and half innocent. For it is clear to everyone that the person could not be fully responsible for causing the chaos, but nevertheless they have done something that renders them a waiting chess piece in the game of blame.
So they are blamed. They become the perfect scapegoat. Society rallies together to fight this scapegoat and in that act they become reunified. Society regains its bearings and is able to operate as before. The original issue is forgotten with the banishing (or death) of the scapegoat. That banishment becomes the marker for society’s chance to heal and move forward. That half-innocent, half-guilty person has allowed order to be restored.
The order is always fragile however. The issues remain bubbling beneath the surface, and sometimes the festering steaming bubbles pop, and order is briefly lost again.
It’s a beautiful theory and without too much imaginative flair we can see how this has happened over and over again. The xenophobic violence of two years ago showed elements of this theory. Certain groups were marked as responsible for the lack of jobs. These groups were then violently attacked, bringing the society of unemployed people together against the forces of evil. Foreigners were perfect scapegoats. Although they could not be held fully responsible for rising unemployment and food prices, the fact that they weren’t South African nationals and were using scarce resources made them half guilty. With the violence against them a semi-order was restored. South African unemployed people made their point. Their point was acknowledged. The violence stopped. The issue remained bubbling beneath the surface, but for the moment it has not burst.
The Semenya tragedy can be likened to this theory. South Africa constructed itself as a liberal and peaceful democracy with respect for the rights of others. This creation of the national identity has been part of the foundation of order, and the Proudly South African brand has allowed many a bridge to be built in the road to healing. But one of the bricks in that road was cracked.
The national identity was threatened when one of its shining stars of success was targeted from the outside. This caused much consternation as the average South African did not have the tools to access this problem. There was chaos. Millions of articles were written. Much mud was slung in the media arena. Regardless of the number of articles written clarifying differences between gender and sex, supporting and criticising Semenya, and rejecting Australian digs at South Africa’s stars the issue was not resolved. The secrecy surrounding the issue, and the inability of most commentators to see beyond sex binaries meant that we were left in a state of flux. The bigger issue was just too great. It is impossible for us all to challenge the IAAF. It is impossible for us to deal with the international issues of sports regulations, and cases where bodies do not fit neatly into socially accepted categories. This issue was beyond our grasp. We needed a solution to ease our pain and someone to direct our anger at. We needed a perfect scapegoat.
Enter Leonard Chuene, one knight who has very swiftly been knocked off his horse so that South Africans can have their solution. To me he is a little closer to guilty than he is to innocent, but it is fairly obvious that the responsibility for the whole saga cannot be placed only on his shoulders. He has admitted to his wrongdoing, and this makes the theory work even better. Conversation around Semenya and South African and international inability to deal with issues of sex, gender and different bodies has petered out. We are now united in our blame of Chuene, and in our choice of scapegoat. With his punishment, and public apology, order has been restored.
But let us not think now that the issue has been solved. The bubbles continue to simmer. And the waters will not settle until we admit that the blame for the scale of this attack on Semenya lies partly with ourselves, our readiness to discuss scandal and how complicit we are in the promotion of gender binaries. These issues, like the genuine issues of poverty and unemployment, are what needs to be resolved. Chuene should be held responsible for his deception and his actions, but that is all he can be held responsible for. We should bear the rest of the burden.
What the Fritzl is going on?
The past two years have seen an abundance of scary child captivity cases come to light. These cases are really scary and difficult to understand. They bother me not only because they are so completely horrific, but also because I have no way of understanding the actions that these men and women have taken to imprison and abuse children. I feel like I have no tools to access this, or find a solution to stop this from happening again.
The most recent of these was in Victoria, Australia, where a 60-year-old man has been charged with rape after fathering two children with his own daughter. His wife claims not to have known. The abuse started when the girl was eleven years old. The police had known about the abuse since 2005 but could not do anything because the daughter was afraid of her father.
In August 2009, 29-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard walked into a police station with her two kidnappers and the two children she had by a convicted sex offender as a result of rape. She was kidnapped when she was 11 and has spent 18 years in captivity. In this case his wife knew about it.
In Colombia, March 2009, Arcedio Alvarez (59) was arrested for the abuse of his daughter from when she was 9 years old until she was 30 years old. She had 11 children, 3 of whom died.
In Italy, March 2009, Michele Mongelli was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter, and his four nieces. His son was also arrested for having believed to have been involved. The survivors had been kept in captivity, in conditions likened to slavery.
In November 2008 “The Gaffer”, a 54-year-old business man in the United Kingdom, was sentenced to 25 consecutive life sentences for holding his two daughters in captivity for 25 years, raping them and fathering 9 (some reports say 7) children with the two girls (although they had been pregnant 19 times between them). The mother of the two girls had fled her home because she two had been abused by the man.
In April 2008 the world was stunned by the Austrian case of Josef Fritzl, who has been found guilty for imprisoning his daughter for 24 years, as well as the 7 children that she had as a result of the rapes. He was also found guilty of murdering one of their children. His wife claimed not to have known.
These cases all just seem completely crazy, and disempowering to the general public. More scary is that they are not just random once-off events, but seem to be happening all the time while the rest of us just continue our day to day life. What can all of us do to stop things like this? In many of these cases, concerned neighbours had reported suspicious activity to no avail. In some cases the police already knew about the offenders but had chosen not to act or had acted ineffectively.
It is really difficult to understand the lives of these survivors, and the lives of their abusers.
I’m not sure whether the kidnappers were crazy or sane and evil, and I’m not sure which option is worse. If they were crazy do we let them off? Put them in an institution? Medicate them into docility? And if they were sane, what then? Put them in prison? The irony is too much. Is it better to try and understand what makes them tick, or just to certify them as unacceptable abusers who should be silenced, like they have silenced others? Goodness gracious, but it just seems mad.
And what you’d do if you suspected your neighbour was guilty of an offence like this? Should we be peering over the walls policing the behaviour of others? How many times when an alarm goes off next door, or you hear angry shouting, do you just lie down in your bed, roll over and feel grateful that its not your alarm or your life that is unravelling? If we were supposed to do this would we? And if we shouldn’t, why not?
0800-president
The hotline to the presidency was launched recently. The toll-free number is manned by 43 officials (yes, that is about 1 person for a million South Africans) who will then be responsible for seeing that the complaints raised are addressed, or at least that the respondents are held up to date on how their issue is being dealt with. I can almost hear the Disney music as we turn the page to a new chapter in the South African story.
It seems very tempting … doesn’t it? The idea that you could call on up and have your say, and that something will be done about it. Those potholes in the road, the electricity shortages, the high prices, the lack of jobs, the lack of adequate health care … and now you don’ t have to bore your friends with your endless complaints about the lack of water supply to your house, shack or mansion. You can complain to our president, or at least to the presidency.
What would the response be if I called up and asked why we’ve decided not to make a commitment to trying to save our climate? “Thank you for calling, we will see if you problem can be dealt with before the hole in the ozone sucks you up.”
What would the response be if I phoned to complain about the startling levels of sexual violence? “Thank you for calling. We will deal with your issue shortly. But remember, do not wear a short skirt or play with traditional values.”
What would the response be if I phoned and asked why out of the past 6 meetings in Parliament that I’ve been to, have there always been less than 50% of committee MPs present? “Thank you for calling. Unfortunately none of our national MPs can come to the phone right now. Please try again later. Or contact them on their larney car phone if you can get through.”
And poor Brandon Huntley if he ever tries to call. “Thank you for calling. For a one-way ticket to Canada, please visit your nearest SAA office. Don’t forget to take the mandatory kilogram of cocaine, and share it with the flight staff. Please never call back because we are actually unwilling to help you either way.”
Pardon me if I’m a bit cynical but I’m not sure how these 43 people are going to make a difference. People already know what the issues are, they are reported daily on the news and in the media. Everyone knows that service delivery is poor. I feel like there is someone holding up a swinging pendulum and hoping that the masses will be hypnotised at the prospect of getting through to the hotline, rather than attending local and municipal meetings to encourage their leaders to actually enact change. It’s just another sedative to social change led from the ground up, and an attempt by the government to con us into thinking that they are going to make a difference.
Not that I’m complaining …
It's all about the balls
I have many male friends who really enjoy presenting me with suspicious sexist articles to see how I feel. Normally I take the bait and can’t resist seeing what has been cooked up by some male wally with the aim of discrediting women. But I must say that I got a real giggle out of this article. In Kent, England, a company called Eye Candy Caddies took the initiative of opening an all-female, all-model caddy service to … um … spice up the game. These young beautiful women were then trained in golf etiquette, uniformed in the proper clothes and ready for hire, or employment, or something.
It did not go down well.
It was found to be inappropriate for a game that had been selected as an Olympic sport, unprofessional and damaged the appeal of golf for younger players of either sex.
At first I just had a giggle, and then it actually started to bug me. Yes it is not right to make golf appear to a “male bastion” but these young women were trained and skilled. A Leaderboard spokesperson said that for the development of the game, there should be efforts to ensure that it is inclusive, professional and culturally inoffensive.
Golf as an inclusive sport is a bit of a laugh. Maybe it’s just me but when I drive past a golf course I don’t see too many women or too many poor folk roaming the greens. It’s not inclusive and perhaps putting the face of women on TV in the role of caddy might be a first step to their acceptance. Would it have been better if they were ugly women? Women that were less distracting to the male players?
They want the game to be professional. The women were dressed in correct attire, had been trained in golfing etiquette and were doing their job just like any other caddy. It’s not like they were wandering the Kent golf course in bunny suits. There’s a picture on the site and the girls are not flashing any skin or bending over their golf clubs. Is it more professional to fire them or to have a meeting where they are introduced to members and the boundaries are clearly outlined? I’m going with the latter.
Culturally offensive? I’m not even sure they know what they mean here. Golf culture is a very particular culture. What is the offensive element? That they are women or that they are beautiful? Or maybe is it the unequal power balance between caddy and golfer. I don’t think so. Caddies have been available for years and nobody has complained until now.
And the vibe about the Olympic sport … well I say blah blah blah. They have pretty poppies at the end of every Tour de France stage, they pop the champagne at the Grand Prix and cheer the rugby teams on. It is not unusual.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not for the celebration of only particular types of women because of their looks. But jeepers creepers, they are caddies. It is not like they’re standing on the sidelines offering alternative services. That’s all you get. So maybe the issue is really all about the balls.
They don’t have any, and they’re stopping old men from getting theirs into the right holes.
Friday, September 11, 2009
I got a new blog...woop!
So if you want to read some of this stuff and some more hopefully, I've got a nice new blog platform here. I hope all of you go and have a look and have a little gentle debate with some of the readers, who are mildly backwards on a good day. :)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Murdered by sex?
This morning, a popular radio DJ discussed a British HIV Awareness campaign, which he felt was one of the hardest hitting campaigns he had ever seen. In the tv ad the television viewer gets a visual of a sex scene, where the camera is placed so that the viewer should feel that s/he is in this scene. The camera looks up to show the face of Hitler, grimacing and sweaty, as though he's just done the deed with you. The slogan is : AIDS is a mass murderer. The DJ said that there had already been complaints about the add, and that these had been because it showed what was very obviously a sex scene. He remarked that it was part of the problem that they felt uncomfortable viewing sex. And he's right, but there is more of a problem with this ad than he picked up on.
One of the biggest problems in talking about HIV is the stigma around talking about sex. HIV is primarily sexually transmitted, and for the majority of the South African prudish patriarchy, this is a no go zone. What this means then is that people have become fearful of talking about sex with their sexual partners, if we can't talk about sex, we're most certainly not going to talk about HIV or condom use. This goes for men and women. The 2009 Female Nation Survey revealed that 47% of the over 8000 women who responded NEVER use condoms when having sex. The majority of respondents to this survey were in the 25 to 34 years age group. South Africa's current statistics show that the HIV prevalence in that age group is between 23% and 39% for women, and between 12% and 23% for men. But enough of the statistics, we all know there's a problem - right?
What do our campaigns say? Pretty much nothing. If anyone's listened to the Lovelife campaigns on the radio, or heard the slogan 'be around in 2010', they could quite rightfully argue that they are not being informed. One advert asks 'who are you', and in the other a young girl worrries that a boy won't like her if she's not dressed 'right'. WTF! What are these adverts trying to tell young people? The word sex doesn't even appear in the ads. It appears that the majority of people are being misinformed by these campaigns or are choosing not to listen that HIV is affecting all of them, if they are not infected it is likely they know someone who is. If they are not infected, they are affected by the growing number of people without access to treatment, which affects communities, families and business in very different but important ways. So we need a better campaign. So what do we say in it?
Can we say that HIV is a mass murderer? Unlike Obama fans, I say no we can't. Can AIDS result in death? Yes. But the idea of a mass murderer invokes some sinister purpose as though this disease was sent here to kill the infected. It was not. Many of these people, particularly women, are bearing the burden of a disease that can be treated if they had access to healthcare and antiretrovirals. Many of these people are already afraid of their virus, afraid of the way that their bodies will be taken over and consumed by it. A campaign that says that HIV is going to murder them and others does little to quell this stigma anymore than the lovelife campaigns do. Just because you may have HIV does not mean that you are 'dirty' or a sinner, or sexually deviant. Just because you have HIV you have not been murdered, nor are you part of a mass murdering squad out to get the innocent. It can be transmitted to anyone and anyone you have sex with could be infected with HIV. I can't believe that this far down the line we are still in denial about that. Is this ad hard hittting? Yes. Does it hit the right spot. NO.
It has been proven time and time again that scare tactics do not work in the fight against STD and HIV infection. All they do is scare people away from talking about it. They scare people away from clinics, away from medicine, and away from the support that can be provided for them. It steers people away from discussing their status with their partners, and revealing their status to their loved ones. This is not the way.
What we should say in a campaign about AIDS and HIV should be clear and factually based.
1. You can contract HIV through unprotected sex.
2. You and your partner should get tested before having sex, and this should be very early on in your relationship. HIV has a window period and this means it may not show up on the first test.
3. You must talk with your partner about sex, condom usage and STDs.
4. If you are HIV positive there is support for you. Do not feel alone, seek help and medical treatment.
I hope our government gets a clue about the messages they are putting out there, and that the British government recognises that their type of campaign is as dangerous. If not, the millions of people out there having unprotected sex with multiple concurrent partners will never know about the dangers in their behaviour, nor can they be expected to know that there is support for them if something goes wrong.
One of the biggest problems in talking about HIV is the stigma around talking about sex. HIV is primarily sexually transmitted, and for the majority of the South African prudish patriarchy, this is a no go zone. What this means then is that people have become fearful of talking about sex with their sexual partners, if we can't talk about sex, we're most certainly not going to talk about HIV or condom use. This goes for men and women. The 2009 Female Nation Survey revealed that 47% of the over 8000 women who responded NEVER use condoms when having sex. The majority of respondents to this survey were in the 25 to 34 years age group. South Africa's current statistics show that the HIV prevalence in that age group is between 23% and 39% for women, and between 12% and 23% for men. But enough of the statistics, we all know there's a problem - right?
What do our campaigns say? Pretty much nothing. If anyone's listened to the Lovelife campaigns on the radio, or heard the slogan 'be around in 2010', they could quite rightfully argue that they are not being informed. One advert asks 'who are you', and in the other a young girl worrries that a boy won't like her if she's not dressed 'right'. WTF! What are these adverts trying to tell young people? The word sex doesn't even appear in the ads. It appears that the majority of people are being misinformed by these campaigns or are choosing not to listen that HIV is affecting all of them, if they are not infected it is likely they know someone who is. If they are not infected, they are affected by the growing number of people without access to treatment, which affects communities, families and business in very different but important ways. So we need a better campaign. So what do we say in it?
Can we say that HIV is a mass murderer? Unlike Obama fans, I say no we can't. Can AIDS result in death? Yes. But the idea of a mass murderer invokes some sinister purpose as though this disease was sent here to kill the infected. It was not. Many of these people, particularly women, are bearing the burden of a disease that can be treated if they had access to healthcare and antiretrovirals. Many of these people are already afraid of their virus, afraid of the way that their bodies will be taken over and consumed by it. A campaign that says that HIV is going to murder them and others does little to quell this stigma anymore than the lovelife campaigns do. Just because you may have HIV does not mean that you are 'dirty' or a sinner, or sexually deviant. Just because you have HIV you have not been murdered, nor are you part of a mass murdering squad out to get the innocent. It can be transmitted to anyone and anyone you have sex with could be infected with HIV. I can't believe that this far down the line we are still in denial about that. Is this ad hard hittting? Yes. Does it hit the right spot. NO.
It has been proven time and time again that scare tactics do not work in the fight against STD and HIV infection. All they do is scare people away from talking about it. They scare people away from clinics, away from medicine, and away from the support that can be provided for them. It steers people away from discussing their status with their partners, and revealing their status to their loved ones. This is not the way.
What we should say in a campaign about AIDS and HIV should be clear and factually based.
1. You can contract HIV through unprotected sex.
2. You and your partner should get tested before having sex, and this should be very early on in your relationship. HIV has a window period and this means it may not show up on the first test.
3. You must talk with your partner about sex, condom usage and STDs.
4. If you are HIV positive there is support for you. Do not feel alone, seek help and medical treatment.
I hope our government gets a clue about the messages they are putting out there, and that the British government recognises that their type of campaign is as dangerous. If not, the millions of people out there having unprotected sex with multiple concurrent partners will never know about the dangers in their behaviour, nor can they be expected to know that there is support for them if something goes wrong.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
White-washed
Why I wrote this article:
I wrote this article because issues of race play on my mind often. I wrote it because this South African chose to use his race as the reason he needed asylum, and in doing so appeared as a spokesperson for all white south africans who feel afraid, without their permission. I wrote it because I am afraid, and this is not because of the colour of my skin, but because of the ignorance of politicians who prevent critical debate and govern the lives of my fellow south africans recklessly.
I am white and I am afraid.
I am not afraid because I am white. I am not afraid because others are black or indian or coloured. I am afraid because I am the survivor of crime in South Africa. I am afraid because I anticipate that I will have to survive more crime before my life is over. I am afraid because my life has been and is governed by reckless politicians, patriarchy amongst the leadership, racist and unequal apartheid policies, and fear of diversity.
A South African sought asylum in Canada. He was granted refugee status because he provided compelling evidence that his life was in danger, and that he was afraid. He used his race as an element of his explanation for himself as a target, and in doing so ensured that South Africa once again became the target of international scrutiny. He didn't cite his class, or his gender. He didn't cite his sexuality. He didn't cite his religious beliefs or educational qualifications. He chose his race, and placed this at the center of his analysis, claiming that the government had not, and would not be able to, provide security for him. This action has been viewed negatively by the government, and has been viewed with envy by a number of South Africans of all colours who do not have the opportunity to escape a climate of fear.
He is a refugee, but what has he been saved from? He has not saved others from further crime in South Africa. His actions have done little to disemminate respect and love for difference, but have created difference as something to be afraid of. His action will create defensiveness on the part of the accused, and fear on the part of other people who have not had the opportunity to flee. His action has not contributed to the lessening of my own fear, because he is just another person who has refused to participate in his community and make a change where he could. He was a survivor of crime who could have lessened the suffering of others by providing a kind word of support, a shared smile of empathy and an embrace when one was needed.
He has not saved himself from disrespect based on skin-colour. Refugees are the first victims of fear when economic conditions change. Perhaps a moderate place like Canada may be less stratified than other places, but in times of scarce resources it it those whose roots in a country are not immediately evident who are the first to become scapegoats. Xenophobia is alive and well across the world, and his could contribute to continued and deepened Xenophobia against other people who are regarded as un-African, or not quite South African enough.
Do his actions have any positive effects? I will put my neck on the line here, in the hopes that my statements are not seen as representative as an entire race, gender or population group. I think they could. I think that they could return scrutiny to South Africa, which has startling crime statistics, and is a country with such a high incidence of rape it could be likened to sexual genocide. I think that scrutiny needs to be returned, because crime cannot disappear while inequality is present. When most South Africans have little or no access to security, have little or no access to economic empowerment, have little or no access to savings, food and healthcare then the crime that this refugee feared will continue. When South Africans who have access to privelege, profit and property do not share, do not contribute in their community and continue to laugh when racist jokes are told then crime will not disappear. It is time for us all to take responsibility, to give back and to invest in others.
Desperate times breed desperate behaviour, and I hope that his action will stimulate desperate and rapid action on the part of government to do something about crime, rather than to sit over tea and complain about racism whilst looking out at their beautiful gardens through burglar barred windows.
I wrote this article because issues of race play on my mind often. I wrote it because this South African chose to use his race as the reason he needed asylum, and in doing so appeared as a spokesperson for all white south africans who feel afraid, without their permission. I wrote it because I am afraid, and this is not because of the colour of my skin, but because of the ignorance of politicians who prevent critical debate and govern the lives of my fellow south africans recklessly.
I am white and I am afraid.
I am not afraid because I am white. I am not afraid because others are black or indian or coloured. I am afraid because I am the survivor of crime in South Africa. I am afraid because I anticipate that I will have to survive more crime before my life is over. I am afraid because my life has been and is governed by reckless politicians, patriarchy amongst the leadership, racist and unequal apartheid policies, and fear of diversity.
A South African sought asylum in Canada. He was granted refugee status because he provided compelling evidence that his life was in danger, and that he was afraid. He used his race as an element of his explanation for himself as a target, and in doing so ensured that South Africa once again became the target of international scrutiny. He didn't cite his class, or his gender. He didn't cite his sexuality. He didn't cite his religious beliefs or educational qualifications. He chose his race, and placed this at the center of his analysis, claiming that the government had not, and would not be able to, provide security for him. This action has been viewed negatively by the government, and has been viewed with envy by a number of South Africans of all colours who do not have the opportunity to escape a climate of fear.
He is a refugee, but what has he been saved from? He has not saved others from further crime in South Africa. His actions have done little to disemminate respect and love for difference, but have created difference as something to be afraid of. His action will create defensiveness on the part of the accused, and fear on the part of other people who have not had the opportunity to flee. His action has not contributed to the lessening of my own fear, because he is just another person who has refused to participate in his community and make a change where he could. He was a survivor of crime who could have lessened the suffering of others by providing a kind word of support, a shared smile of empathy and an embrace when one was needed.
He has not saved himself from disrespect based on skin-colour. Refugees are the first victims of fear when economic conditions change. Perhaps a moderate place like Canada may be less stratified than other places, but in times of scarce resources it it those whose roots in a country are not immediately evident who are the first to become scapegoats. Xenophobia is alive and well across the world, and his could contribute to continued and deepened Xenophobia against other people who are regarded as un-African, or not quite South African enough.
Do his actions have any positive effects? I will put my neck on the line here, in the hopes that my statements are not seen as representative as an entire race, gender or population group. I think they could. I think that they could return scrutiny to South Africa, which has startling crime statistics, and is a country with such a high incidence of rape it could be likened to sexual genocide. I think that scrutiny needs to be returned, because crime cannot disappear while inequality is present. When most South Africans have little or no access to security, have little or no access to economic empowerment, have little or no access to savings, food and healthcare then the crime that this refugee feared will continue. When South Africans who have access to privelege, profit and property do not share, do not contribute in their community and continue to laugh when racist jokes are told then crime will not disappear. It is time for us all to take responsibility, to give back and to invest in others.
Desperate times breed desperate behaviour, and I hope that his action will stimulate desperate and rapid action on the part of government to do something about crime, rather than to sit over tea and complain about racism whilst looking out at their beautiful gardens through burglar barred windows.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Running away from diversity
This Semenya issue has continued to bug me. For so many reasons. It has raised lots of questions about how we view 'gender' and women and I need to list some of them here to make the issue clearer for me - comments appreciated!
First, on the nature of the testing. Newspaper and internet reports say that testing will include a geneticist, a gynae, and a psychologist. So again, if they are testing her 'sex', what does a psychologist have to say about that? Is a psychologist more able to point out a penis from a vagina?
Or are they genuinely trying to test her gender, in which case what is the geneticist doing there? And the gynae? Do some people have more feminine vagina's than others? Are some penises more masculine? Is there a chromosome that makes you able to cross your legs delicately rather than at a 90degree angle with your foot on your knee? There seems to be a disjuncture here. But maybe the psychologist is just for counselling because I'm sure after this process Semenya will need one.
As interesting as this conundrum is the fact that this testing will take months. So, it will take months to prove whether this incredible athlete is a man or a woman. At least this gives some substance to the idea that gender is something developed over time, a bodily existence, rather than something that is assigned at birth with the cutting of the umbilical cord.
Don't think I'm confused here, I know that when a child is born there are expectations. People buy blue or pink blankets, think of boy or girl names and imagine the future they'll have watching rugby with their son or going shopping with their daughters. But often these expectations are met with conflict. And this is for good reason. There is no checklist for gender. There is no template that we can cookie cut people into. And this is exactly why the whole process is flawed. Gender expresses itself in many ways.
The only possibly interesting thing about this test is that it requires an endochrinologist - a hormone tester. This throws a spanner in the works because of the varying levels of hormones that people have in their body. It also could pose a conflict if Semenya is found to have 'abnormal' levels of testosterone, but still be genetically and biologically female. So then what happens? Are we going to say, lucky her, she's got the man hormones. Or are we going to reconsider what makes a man a man? So if there are men with lower levels of testosterone than her, but with male genitals are they going to be seen as womanly? How will this affect our understanding of what it means to be a woman or a man? What is that understanding? Because the fact that they think that they can determine someone's gender, with a couple of tests, then i'd like to know how that allows for diversity?
The second issue I have is the issue of how she ran. If you read the article on the history of testing that's provided in my previous post, you'll see that there was some issue about the length of the strides that female athletes took to run. So its not only that she could be a man, its that she didn't run like a girl. And because running like a boy is seen as an advantage, they had to test her.
I want to start asking wild questions like, I don't know, if there was a male athlete who ran like a girl and won, what would happen? Would his gender be called into question? Would people lable him effeminate? Question his gender? But I don't think they would, perhaps they'd question his sexuality? But even so, he wouldn't be seen as 'wrong', because everyone, running like a girl is seen as a disadvantage.
If anyone has ever read Iris Marion Young, they'll come to understand that running like a girl is not genetic either. It is a process that is stimulated through repeated social contexts and restrictions on women. Young's example was throwing a ball, but its fairly applicable here. Women are encouraged to be dainty rather than bold, to take small steps rather than strides, to keep their arms close to their body rather than use their arms to pull them forward. These are not things that just happen. They are learned and taught. So shock and horror when one woman decides to ignore those encouragements and run her heart out. She must be a man!
And if it is faster, and better, and stronger to run in a particular way, and someone can develop their running style to gracefully master that type of run, then shouldn't we be praising them for their success and skill rather than de-gendering them, or engendering prejudice?
The fact that women were prevented from participating in sports like this for such a long time could be part of the explanation for their slower race times. But Caster Semenya has shown that practice makes perfect, and she has succeeded. So if her running style is seen as 'manly' its only because 'manly' running is the type of running that's been on our tvs and sports fields for time immemorial. Maybe we should rethink this whole stereotype and just label fast running...well, fast.
Well done Caster, and well done to all the South Africans who have responded with support rather than judgement! I just hope that we can now see this testing process as flawed and take the first few fast steps towards embracing diversity.
First, on the nature of the testing. Newspaper and internet reports say that testing will include a geneticist, a gynae, and a psychologist. So again, if they are testing her 'sex', what does a psychologist have to say about that? Is a psychologist more able to point out a penis from a vagina?
Or are they genuinely trying to test her gender, in which case what is the geneticist doing there? And the gynae? Do some people have more feminine vagina's than others? Are some penises more masculine? Is there a chromosome that makes you able to cross your legs delicately rather than at a 90degree angle with your foot on your knee? There seems to be a disjuncture here. But maybe the psychologist is just for counselling because I'm sure after this process Semenya will need one.
As interesting as this conundrum is the fact that this testing will take months. So, it will take months to prove whether this incredible athlete is a man or a woman. At least this gives some substance to the idea that gender is something developed over time, a bodily existence, rather than something that is assigned at birth with the cutting of the umbilical cord.
Don't think I'm confused here, I know that when a child is born there are expectations. People buy blue or pink blankets, think of boy or girl names and imagine the future they'll have watching rugby with their son or going shopping with their daughters. But often these expectations are met with conflict. And this is for good reason. There is no checklist for gender. There is no template that we can cookie cut people into. And this is exactly why the whole process is flawed. Gender expresses itself in many ways.
The only possibly interesting thing about this test is that it requires an endochrinologist - a hormone tester. This throws a spanner in the works because of the varying levels of hormones that people have in their body. It also could pose a conflict if Semenya is found to have 'abnormal' levels of testosterone, but still be genetically and biologically female. So then what happens? Are we going to say, lucky her, she's got the man hormones. Or are we going to reconsider what makes a man a man? So if there are men with lower levels of testosterone than her, but with male genitals are they going to be seen as womanly? How will this affect our understanding of what it means to be a woman or a man? What is that understanding? Because the fact that they think that they can determine someone's gender, with a couple of tests, then i'd like to know how that allows for diversity?
The second issue I have is the issue of how she ran. If you read the article on the history of testing that's provided in my previous post, you'll see that there was some issue about the length of the strides that female athletes took to run. So its not only that she could be a man, its that she didn't run like a girl. And because running like a boy is seen as an advantage, they had to test her.
I want to start asking wild questions like, I don't know, if there was a male athlete who ran like a girl and won, what would happen? Would his gender be called into question? Would people lable him effeminate? Question his gender? But I don't think they would, perhaps they'd question his sexuality? But even so, he wouldn't be seen as 'wrong', because everyone, running like a girl is seen as a disadvantage.
If anyone has ever read Iris Marion Young, they'll come to understand that running like a girl is not genetic either. It is a process that is stimulated through repeated social contexts and restrictions on women. Young's example was throwing a ball, but its fairly applicable here. Women are encouraged to be dainty rather than bold, to take small steps rather than strides, to keep their arms close to their body rather than use their arms to pull them forward. These are not things that just happen. They are learned and taught. So shock and horror when one woman decides to ignore those encouragements and run her heart out. She must be a man!
And if it is faster, and better, and stronger to run in a particular way, and someone can develop their running style to gracefully master that type of run, then shouldn't we be praising them for their success and skill rather than de-gendering them, or engendering prejudice?
The fact that women were prevented from participating in sports like this for such a long time could be part of the explanation for their slower race times. But Caster Semenya has shown that practice makes perfect, and she has succeeded. So if her running style is seen as 'manly' its only because 'manly' running is the type of running that's been on our tvs and sports fields for time immemorial. Maybe we should rethink this whole stereotype and just label fast running...well, fast.
Well done Caster, and well done to all the South Africans who have responded with support rather than judgement! I just hope that we can now see this testing process as flawed and take the first few fast steps towards embracing diversity.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
What's the agend(er)?
Read this article and comments on the Mail and Guardian website here
Caster Semenya, an 18 year old athlete from South Africa wins a race with such speed and skill that she becomes the target of 'gender probes'. Now for those of you who aren't already uncomfortable at the thought of any sort of probe, this one should make you run for the hills.* For people who are confused, here is a distinction that will serve you well for the rest of your life:
Sex: is what bits you have (biology), male/female
Gender: is the way that you live in your body. This performance is stereotyped into two terms masculine/feminine which are commonly used to describe the action of others.
Sex and Gender are not the same. Clear?
Now we should all be clear that a test for your gender does not and cannot require any sort of examination of anybody's genitalia. If you're looking at someone's bits, they could say one thing and the person's performance could say another. Or they could be the same.
If Caster Semenya's gender is under question, they shouldn't be looking anywhere near her sex organs, but should be observing her behaviour. Which is to run fast for 800m alongside several other women. I'm not sure how they escaped the same scrutiny for being unsuitable representatives of femininity - more importantly I wouldn't think that a sports organisation (which has the potential to create unity and pride in the diversity of representations of femininity) would be so confused that they relegated women to the passive category of small strides, long hair and shapeliness.
Kevin Macullum of IOL.co.za said that the issue was "Semenya's appearance, including obvious facial hair, and muscular build". The IAAF has apparently been alerted to the issue where they are conducting rigorous screening tests to assess the claim. I'd like to know what these test include. Possible (retrogressive, barbaric, just plain boring they're so backwards) examples that spring to mind are:
1. Can she walk in heels?
2. Does she knit a good scarf?
3. Does she feel maternal and caring towards the other participants?
(this list may be expanded to include any other qualities that suit those whose duty it is to assess someone using stereotypes, but I am now exhausted).
Can someone bring the IAAF and whoever else was involved in this heretical reduction of women to their senses?! A woman can succeed, and can remain a woman whilst having facial hair and muscles. She can rule the world, run a race fast, be competitive and be successful and none of these characteristics should result in anyone examining her body for signs that she is not a woman.
Shame on the IAAF. Shame on the media who have taken up this topic with such spectacular fervour and ignorance.
* A history of the testing process can be found here
Thanks to the person who contributed this link
Caster Semenya, an 18 year old athlete from South Africa wins a race with such speed and skill that she becomes the target of 'gender probes'. Now for those of you who aren't already uncomfortable at the thought of any sort of probe, this one should make you run for the hills.* For people who are confused, here is a distinction that will serve you well for the rest of your life:
Sex: is what bits you have (biology), male/female
Gender: is the way that you live in your body. This performance is stereotyped into two terms masculine/feminine which are commonly used to describe the action of others.
Sex and Gender are not the same. Clear?
Now we should all be clear that a test for your gender does not and cannot require any sort of examination of anybody's genitalia. If you're looking at someone's bits, they could say one thing and the person's performance could say another. Or they could be the same.
If Caster Semenya's gender is under question, they shouldn't be looking anywhere near her sex organs, but should be observing her behaviour. Which is to run fast for 800m alongside several other women. I'm not sure how they escaped the same scrutiny for being unsuitable representatives of femininity - more importantly I wouldn't think that a sports organisation (which has the potential to create unity and pride in the diversity of representations of femininity) would be so confused that they relegated women to the passive category of small strides, long hair and shapeliness.
Kevin Macullum of IOL.co.za said that the issue was "Semenya's appearance, including obvious facial hair, and muscular build". The IAAF has apparently been alerted to the issue where they are conducting rigorous screening tests to assess the claim. I'd like to know what these test include. Possible (retrogressive, barbaric, just plain boring they're so backwards) examples that spring to mind are:
1. Can she walk in heels?
2. Does she knit a good scarf?
3. Does she feel maternal and caring towards the other participants?
(this list may be expanded to include any other qualities that suit those whose duty it is to assess someone using stereotypes, but I am now exhausted).
Can someone bring the IAAF and whoever else was involved in this heretical reduction of women to their senses?! A woman can succeed, and can remain a woman whilst having facial hair and muscles. She can rule the world, run a race fast, be competitive and be successful and none of these characteristics should result in anyone examining her body for signs that she is not a woman.
Shame on the IAAF. Shame on the media who have taken up this topic with such spectacular fervour and ignorance.
* A history of the testing process can be found here
Thanks to the person who contributed this link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
