I took a bus into Cape Town last week, which ordinarily is a fairly peaceful experience, but which this week was disrupted by accusations of racism. A passenger asked the driver to stop at an atypical spot, and the driver refused. The passenger retorted that he was a racist, because he always used to stop at her requested stop for another passenger, who was of the same race as the driver. The driver reacted in anger, saying that this was untrue, and that this had never happened. The angry passenger through a couple more insults at the driver, before getting off at the next planned stop, where insults continued to fly at the driver as the doors were closing.
The remaining 20 or so passengers, including myself, remained quiet during the entire episode. We remained quiet as the driver loudly tried to verbally villify himself all the way to the bus terminal. Nobody came to the driver, or the passenger's defence. Nobody smiled sympathetically at either one. Everyone took the opportunity to gaze out of their dirty windows and examine the street that had never before seemed so interesting.
This issue has niggled at my mind for a week now and I'm sure it is because of my own experience of being labelled a racist. During a lecture at University, a discussion arose about giving back to the community after ones degree. A presenter from Cuba had told us all about how community service was compulsory there, and many people literally went out into the fields to share knowledge upon receiving their degree. I raised the point that this sounded great, but that in a country with as many official languages as South Africa, that this may not be the best way to share knowledge , as most people with tertiary degrees were educated in English. So perhaps alternate avenues could be pursued by people only speaking one language, and other people who spoke in a different official language could work on the on the ground training. The result of my statement was a branding my a fellow classmate as an unhelpful racist. I was left in a stuttering and stammering mess, imploding and wondering how my comment on practicality had been translated into a racist remark. Like the situation on the bus, nobody said a word. Classmates faced forward, eyes directed for the first time at the board, awaiting the lecturer's response. Nobody looked at me, or my classmate. Nobody defended either of us. The lecture was adjourned early, but the issue clearly was not one that could be confined to lecture banter.
After the lecture a few people came to me and stated their outrage at what had happened, they expressed disdain for the lecturer's poor handling of the issue and were unhappy that I had not had a chance to compose myself and respond properly. They noted that my classmate had her own issues with race and that this was clearly a misinterpretation. But come the next class, eyes turned forward again and silence prevailed.
So what was my classmates problem then, and my own problem on the bus. What were we all afraid of that forced us to stand down and avoid dealing with the issue of race? In the race to avoid being raced, it seems that rather than confront the issue we look to distance or other ourselves from people involved in a conflict that is seen as racial so that we are seen as apart from or above it? We fear that the eyes of others will turn on us and judge us at face value. We don't want to be involved, because debates like that remove us of any other standpoint than the colour of our skin.
And were these two incidents examples of racism on the part of the bus driver and myself? Do we have a predisposition to be more helpful to those who are 'like us' in race/class/gender terms? Or are these simply easy stereotypes to fall back on when our expectations of humanity in other people are disappointed?
I still wonder what myself or the bus driver could have said to convince those on the attack that we were not attempting to be unjust. Is there anything?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Undressing the issue
Under Article 152 of Sudanese law, anyone 'who commits an indecent act which violates public morality or wears indecent clothing' will be subjected to 40 lashes. Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, a journalist for the UN mission in Sudan has waived her UN immunity and says that she is ready for more than 40 lashes in an attempt to change the law in Sudan. You can read the article here. What was she wearing to cause such consternation? A loose top, green slack pants and an headscarf.
Whilst the regulation in Sudan is because of particular law, this is not the only way that women's bodies are regulated. Last year in Umlazi South Africa a young women was stripped of her clothes and made to walk naked through her home town for wearing pants. Her home was first ransacked and then set alight, because she was in violation of a community-imposed ban on women wearing pants in T-junction (the area of Umlazi where she lived).
Why the aversion to pants?
The clothing techniques of everyday fashion have sought to enhance women's otherness - stiletto heels make it difficult to walk and hence entail a particular way of walking. Wearing a long skirt has similar implications for running and moving quickly. To regulate the wearing of particular clothes is to regulate the way in which women can move and live in their bodies. Feminine (or feminized) styles of dress come to be associated with a coded moral language which allows the clothing to inform the wearer what they can and can't do. Clothing that is heavy and elaborate means that women cannot perform physically arduous tasks because they are unable to move freely.
Clothing then becomes part of the control and restriction of women. If women wear clothes than ensure that they continue to take tiny steps and walk slowly, they will remain 'stereotypically feminine'. This allows men to remain in a position of social superiority because of the value placed on performing the 'heavy lifting' type tasks. So to break free of skirts and to break into the masculine domain of pants is to break free of feminine movement. It is to break into the domain of men.
Another possible reason that these women are being chastised, abused and degraded has to do with the way that women become sexualised bodies through their clothing use clothing reveals or conceals skin. The display of skin has been historically gendered. To reveal some skin is to entice the thought of sex and sexuality, but to reveal too much is to become obscene, grotesque, or in some countries it is seen as violating public morality.
In many countries, disguising their sex appeal in order not to distract, or entice men, is women's responsibility. Particular 'traditional' ways of dressing encourage women to cover up, so that men are not tempted. This allows for arguments in support of women abuse when women are not covered - ie 'she was dressed that way, what did she expect?'. In Soweto, South Africa, in 2008 Nwabisa Ngcukana was abused, beated, and sexually assaulted for wearing a mini-skirt inside a taxi rank in the area. The men who assaulted her cited her clothing as the reason for the attack, and chastised her for insulting tradition.
What this says to women is that they are responsible for men's inability to control their behaviour. It says to women that they must wear particular clothes in order to be free of violence. It says to women that they are responsible for their own rape, or abuse againt them, or their arrest, or their imprisonment.
In Sudan, the law acts against women to prevent them from moving and dressing freely. In South Africa, the law exists for women to wear what they want. Yet, in both instances women are subject to the same scrutiny and violence. I am worried that if women in a country with legal protections for them cannot dress how they would like to, that the battle is far from over for women in Sudan and elsewhere.
I wish this journalist and all the women who are fighting against similar restrictions luck and support.
Whilst the regulation in Sudan is because of particular law, this is not the only way that women's bodies are regulated. Last year in Umlazi South Africa a young women was stripped of her clothes and made to walk naked through her home town for wearing pants. Her home was first ransacked and then set alight, because she was in violation of a community-imposed ban on women wearing pants in T-junction (the area of Umlazi where she lived).
Why the aversion to pants?
The clothing techniques of everyday fashion have sought to enhance women's otherness - stiletto heels make it difficult to walk and hence entail a particular way of walking. Wearing a long skirt has similar implications for running and moving quickly. To regulate the wearing of particular clothes is to regulate the way in which women can move and live in their bodies. Feminine (or feminized) styles of dress come to be associated with a coded moral language which allows the clothing to inform the wearer what they can and can't do. Clothing that is heavy and elaborate means that women cannot perform physically arduous tasks because they are unable to move freely.
Clothing then becomes part of the control and restriction of women. If women wear clothes than ensure that they continue to take tiny steps and walk slowly, they will remain 'stereotypically feminine'. This allows men to remain in a position of social superiority because of the value placed on performing the 'heavy lifting' type tasks. So to break free of skirts and to break into the masculine domain of pants is to break free of feminine movement. It is to break into the domain of men.
Another possible reason that these women are being chastised, abused and degraded has to do with the way that women become sexualised bodies through their clothing use clothing reveals or conceals skin. The display of skin has been historically gendered. To reveal some skin is to entice the thought of sex and sexuality, but to reveal too much is to become obscene, grotesque, or in some countries it is seen as violating public morality.
In many countries, disguising their sex appeal in order not to distract, or entice men, is women's responsibility. Particular 'traditional' ways of dressing encourage women to cover up, so that men are not tempted. This allows for arguments in support of women abuse when women are not covered - ie 'she was dressed that way, what did she expect?'. In Soweto, South Africa, in 2008 Nwabisa Ngcukana was abused, beated, and sexually assaulted for wearing a mini-skirt inside a taxi rank in the area. The men who assaulted her cited her clothing as the reason for the attack, and chastised her for insulting tradition.
What this says to women is that they are responsible for men's inability to control their behaviour. It says to women that they must wear particular clothes in order to be free of violence. It says to women that they are responsible for their own rape, or abuse againt them, or their arrest, or their imprisonment.
In Sudan, the law acts against women to prevent them from moving and dressing freely. In South Africa, the law exists for women to wear what they want. Yet, in both instances women are subject to the same scrutiny and violence. I am worried that if women in a country with legal protections for them cannot dress how they would like to, that the battle is far from over for women in Sudan and elsewhere.
I wish this journalist and all the women who are fighting against similar restrictions luck and support.
Monday, August 3, 2009
It won't happen to me myth: alive and well.
The 2009 Female Nation Survey undertaken by women24 shows some really alarming statistics. You can look at the results of this survey here.
Most worrying is 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 around 23 and 39% for women, and between 12 and 23% for men.
The majority of respondents to this survey live in cities, and have access to the internet (that is how the survey was completed), and have a tertiary degree.
1 in 3 respondents to the survey had cheated on their partners, and almost 1 in 4 of them knew about their partner having an affair. It suggests a worrying trend of sexual behaviour that is not taking sexual health into consideration. his survey shows that the 'it won't happen to me' myth is alive and well.
I hope that women who responded to this survey read the results and become worried. We are responsible for our own sexual health and must continue to practice safe sex, whether with one partner, or multiple partners to ensure that HIV prevalence does not increase.
Most worrying is 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 around 23 and 39% for women, and between 12 and 23% for men.
The majority of respondents to this survey live in cities, and have access to the internet (that is how the survey was completed), and have a tertiary degree.
1 in 3 respondents to the survey had cheated on their partners, and almost 1 in 4 of them knew about their partner having an affair. It suggests a worrying trend of sexual behaviour that is not taking sexual health into consideration. his survey shows that the 'it won't happen to me' myth is alive and well.
I hope that women who responded to this survey read the results and become worried. We are responsible for our own sexual health and must continue to practice safe sex, whether with one partner, or multiple partners to ensure that HIV prevalence does not increase.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Maternal Deaths Soar in SA
Maternal deaths in SA have risen 20% in the 2005 to 2007 period.*
You can read the article i'm referring to here
4077 pregnant women died in this period: 3 women every day (and this is recognised as a reflection of only some of the deaths, because many are not reported, or the women 'choose'** not to attend a public or private health facility). The South African health department published these stats and the report citing 'poor assessment of health problems' and 'failure to follow health protocol' as the major reasons for these deaths, at least 38% of which where completely avoidable according to the report.
What on earth is happening here? And what recourse can women have when they have no option but to have their baby?
The report lists HIV as the cause of death in 43.7% of cases. 79% of maternal deaths tested were HIV positive (though their HIV may not have been the primary cause of their death). This are scary statistics that make clear the undeniable existence of a generalised HIV epidemic in South Africa. The South African National Strategic Plan for HIV and STIs 2007 - 2011 recognises the links between HIV and maternal deaths and pledges to expand postnatal cover to HIV positive women including nutritional support, formula for breastfeeding and the inclusion of community based strategies for support of pregnant women before and after their pregnancy. It is important for all of us involved in women's rights to ask NOW - where are these promised safety nets? And if they have not yet begun to be stitched who can be held accountable, and how can we begin stitching them ourselves?
It makes clear another problem and that is that many women are pregnant and HIV positive, indicating that there needs to be a reduction in the vulnerability of girls and women to HIV (another promise made in the NSP). Part of this involves education about rights, improved legal services for women, better training of people responding to women's needs (particularly the SAPS), and ensuring that law (whether South African national law or South African cultural law) protects women rather than obstructs their rights.
This is not an isolated issue. Poverty, poor transport, poor education, poor nutrition, poor salaries in the health care sector, poor screening of pregnant women for other diseases, poor management on the part of the Department of Health and a lack of political will on the part of government to consider the lives of these 4077 women as important lives lost indicate an extremely large, extremely broad problem that requires immediate attention.
These women would have been mothers. They would have been carers. They would have helped other women and other men and many children to lead productive lives and develop South Africa. They would have cared for other women, men and children who were ill to get better. I watched sky news the other day and they showed the depth of the grief of citizens about the deaths of British soldiers, and allowed these soldiers to be identified as people who can given their lives for a particular cause.
I wonder now where our grief is for our women, our soldiers and casualties in the war against HIV and state inefficiency?
* Maternal deaths are defined as "deaths of women while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes."
** Choose is a very powerful word, and I recognise that the choice not to go to a health centre may not be a choice at all, but may be a result of societal, familial, religious or cultural pressures. Thus when I describe it here I mean a choice within a very limited context in most cases.
You can read the article i'm referring to here
4077 pregnant women died in this period: 3 women every day (and this is recognised as a reflection of only some of the deaths, because many are not reported, or the women 'choose'** not to attend a public or private health facility). The South African health department published these stats and the report citing 'poor assessment of health problems' and 'failure to follow health protocol' as the major reasons for these deaths, at least 38% of which where completely avoidable according to the report.
What on earth is happening here? And what recourse can women have when they have no option but to have their baby?
The report lists HIV as the cause of death in 43.7% of cases. 79% of maternal deaths tested were HIV positive (though their HIV may not have been the primary cause of their death). This are scary statistics that make clear the undeniable existence of a generalised HIV epidemic in South Africa. The South African National Strategic Plan for HIV and STIs 2007 - 2011 recognises the links between HIV and maternal deaths and pledges to expand postnatal cover to HIV positive women including nutritional support, formula for breastfeeding and the inclusion of community based strategies for support of pregnant women before and after their pregnancy. It is important for all of us involved in women's rights to ask NOW - where are these promised safety nets? And if they have not yet begun to be stitched who can be held accountable, and how can we begin stitching them ourselves?
It makes clear another problem and that is that many women are pregnant and HIV positive, indicating that there needs to be a reduction in the vulnerability of girls and women to HIV (another promise made in the NSP). Part of this involves education about rights, improved legal services for women, better training of people responding to women's needs (particularly the SAPS), and ensuring that law (whether South African national law or South African cultural law) protects women rather than obstructs their rights.
This is not an isolated issue. Poverty, poor transport, poor education, poor nutrition, poor salaries in the health care sector, poor screening of pregnant women for other diseases, poor management on the part of the Department of Health and a lack of political will on the part of government to consider the lives of these 4077 women as important lives lost indicate an extremely large, extremely broad problem that requires immediate attention.
These women would have been mothers. They would have been carers. They would have helped other women and other men and many children to lead productive lives and develop South Africa. They would have cared for other women, men and children who were ill to get better. I watched sky news the other day and they showed the depth of the grief of citizens about the deaths of British soldiers, and allowed these soldiers to be identified as people who can given their lives for a particular cause.
I wonder now where our grief is for our women, our soldiers and casualties in the war against HIV and state inefficiency?
* Maternal deaths are defined as "deaths of women while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes."
** Choose is a very powerful word, and I recognise that the choice not to go to a health centre may not be a choice at all, but may be a result of societal, familial, religious or cultural pressures. Thus when I describe it here I mean a choice within a very limited context in most cases.
UN chief pushes for the recognition of rape as a form of genocide
Finally a high-level recognition that this has got to stop. The stats in the article (you can read this article here) are only part of the story in this horrific epidemic of sexual violence.
Sexual violence has become endemic. It forms part of the structure of national identity - either as something ignored (as seems to be the case in the DRC) as part of societal functioning (keeping women in their place or having men's needs satisfied), or as something that is feared and constantly at the forefront of people's mind as it is quite literally lurking behind every corner. In the former case, rape has often not even been tackled for the problem that it is. However, all the thinking around the topic in the latter case has left us with very little in the way of actually tackling this problem.
Rapists walk free, are let off or are given light sentences because of 'evidence problems' or questions about the credibility of the rape survivor. Judges are ill-equipped or lack the will to make the decision to take a stand against this deplorable performance of sick masculinities.
Ban Ki Moon has called for greater penalties for rapists. This is important for high level thought patterns around the topic. Without these thoughts, our action to support rape survivors is denied legitimacy. But we have a bigger job than just thinking.
Our job then is to begin to tackle thought patterns on the ground, in our offices and in our workplaces. It is to support women in our offices, education centres and friendship circles who are surviving domestic rape, are subject to sexual harassment because they are beautiful, are subject to hostility because of their sexuality or are simply considered lesser than because they are women.
It is our job to destroy the silences after a sexist joke, and ensure the uncomfortability of the jester.
It is our job to question the friend who is accused of rape, and not accept that he is falsely accused just because 'he is such a nice person'. Be blunt - ask him, and assess for yourself the truth of his answer based not on his personality but on the facts.
Our job is to challenge men to come to the table and discuss these issues, and to allow us all to discuss issues that they may feel are only part of 'masculinity' together, and with constructive criticism.
Our job is to challenge our political leaders to lead; to lead the struggle against sexual violence without acquiescing to its inevitability. To hold them accountable to statements and not allow the echoes of the empty promises to protect women to ring in our ears any longer.
To quote a popular song - "It's time to make a choice...raise your voice, raise it now".
Sexual violence has become endemic. It forms part of the structure of national identity - either as something ignored (as seems to be the case in the DRC) as part of societal functioning (keeping women in their place or having men's needs satisfied), or as something that is feared and constantly at the forefront of people's mind as it is quite literally lurking behind every corner. In the former case, rape has often not even been tackled for the problem that it is. However, all the thinking around the topic in the latter case has left us with very little in the way of actually tackling this problem.
Rapists walk free, are let off or are given light sentences because of 'evidence problems' or questions about the credibility of the rape survivor. Judges are ill-equipped or lack the will to make the decision to take a stand against this deplorable performance of sick masculinities.
Ban Ki Moon has called for greater penalties for rapists. This is important for high level thought patterns around the topic. Without these thoughts, our action to support rape survivors is denied legitimacy. But we have a bigger job than just thinking.
Our job then is to begin to tackle thought patterns on the ground, in our offices and in our workplaces. It is to support women in our offices, education centres and friendship circles who are surviving domestic rape, are subject to sexual harassment because they are beautiful, are subject to hostility because of their sexuality or are simply considered lesser than because they are women.
It is our job to destroy the silences after a sexist joke, and ensure the uncomfortability of the jester.
It is our job to question the friend who is accused of rape, and not accept that he is falsely accused just because 'he is such a nice person'. Be blunt - ask him, and assess for yourself the truth of his answer based not on his personality but on the facts.
Our job is to challenge men to come to the table and discuss these issues, and to allow us all to discuss issues that they may feel are only part of 'masculinity' together, and with constructive criticism.
Our job is to challenge our political leaders to lead; to lead the struggle against sexual violence without acquiescing to its inevitability. To hold them accountable to statements and not allow the echoes of the empty promises to protect women to ring in our ears any longer.
To quote a popular song - "It's time to make a choice...raise your voice, raise it now".
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
response to Thought leader: Sumo: Why isn't it prostitution
It is not called prostitution, by most sensible men, because most sensible men (dear god help us all if this is not true) are not just in a relationship to deck someone out in milan's finest so that they can have their fat (in varying degrees) way with her. some humans actually engage in 'dating' as you so derisively describe it, because they enjoy intellectual links with people or find the company of others enriching. Perhaps, in your hypothetical scenario, the male is a bit sociopathical and does not make these human to human connections.
Despite my revulsion with your hypothetical male's opinion of 'dating', I am very happy that you have considered prostitution as a transactive business deal rather as something immoral or offensive. Transactional sex, either in a relationship or in a Hillbrow brothel, is a reality in South Africa, and most definitely a worthy topic to consider.
This is a big step, and an important one for the defense of the rights of sex workers in South Africa. Perhaps you can apply your mind to the question of why we are so adverse to the legalisation of prostitution in a society that largely advocates for 'dating' as you describe it?
original post available at :http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/thesumo/2009/07/29/why-is-it-not-prostitution/
Despite my revulsion with your hypothetical male's opinion of 'dating', I am very happy that you have considered prostitution as a transactive business deal rather as something immoral or offensive. Transactional sex, either in a relationship or in a Hillbrow brothel, is a reality in South Africa, and most definitely a worthy topic to consider.
This is a big step, and an important one for the defense of the rights of sex workers in South Africa. Perhaps you can apply your mind to the question of why we are so adverse to the legalisation of prostitution in a society that largely advocates for 'dating' as you describe it?
original post available at :http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/thesumo/2009/07/29/why-is-it-not-prostitution/
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Male circumcision - women's rights getting the chop?
You can read this article and public commentary of it here.
Background: Male circumcision has been linked to decreased transmission and contraction of HIV for men. It is being celebrated by scientists as an almost too obvious answer in the struggle to decrease HIV transmission. In South Africa, a country steeped in cultural and traditional ties to circumcision whilst at the same time suffering from increasing HIV prevalence (in some groups, particularly young women) this link is somewhat a double-edged sword for women.
Firstly, when MC (and I am speaking about medical circumcision performed by a 'western'* style doctor rather than traditional circumcision performed by a cultural healer/traditional healer) is touted as a preventative measure to HIV transmission, many women will be faced with increased resistance from men with regards to condom usage. It has become clear that behavioural changes are as necessary in the struggle against HIV as medical changes and developments are. South African men have been startlingly slow on the uptake and the struggle against HIV has been met with a struggle against condom usage by many men. It is perhaps obvious, that when these men who would have struggled condom usage before being circumcised are told about the links between circumcision and reduced HIV transmission they may be even less inclined to put a glove on their love.
Second, if these men are convinced in circumcision such that it becomes seen as an almost 100% prevention method (in reality the numbers are closer to around 60%) they may be more inclined to have multiple partners, endangering the sexual health of their partners (however many) through exposure to other STIs, and reducing their feelings of responsibility in transmitting these diseases.
Third, if
- men have (even further) reduced feelings of responsibility for transmitting STIs and HIV and/or believe that being circumcised makes them unable to contract HIV,
-are in a relationship with a female partner (or a number of female partners) and,
-they become infected with HIV, or learn of their HIV positive status, then
it is likely that women will be blamed for 'giving' HIV to them.
In a global culture where women are frequently labelled as carriers of disease and are held responsible for its spread it is important to consider the ramifications for women in this case.
Stigma is a powerful driver in HIV transmission. It decreases the chances that people will get tested. It serves as a barrier to treatment and community support for people living with HIV/AIDS (plwha). PLWHA are often seen as dirty, sexually unclean, morally loose and are associated with a number of negative character traits regardless of their own character. To advocate for a prevention strategy that will increase stigma associated with women is to advocate for worsening the situation of some of the most socially and economically vulnerable members of society.
This strategy is still being researched and must be recognised as an attempt by the scientific society to find some sort of solution in a climate of pressure to find a cure for HIV.
It must be taken as a step forward, but not neccessarily a step that can be taken at the moment. And if the step is taken it must be taken lightly and the interests of all South African's must be considered, not least those of plwha - particularly women.
*western is a problematic term for me, as is african, european etc, but the use of it here is to illustrate the distinction as it has been created in the media and in public discussion.
Background: Male circumcision has been linked to decreased transmission and contraction of HIV for men. It is being celebrated by scientists as an almost too obvious answer in the struggle to decrease HIV transmission. In South Africa, a country steeped in cultural and traditional ties to circumcision whilst at the same time suffering from increasing HIV prevalence (in some groups, particularly young women) this link is somewhat a double-edged sword for women.
Firstly, when MC (and I am speaking about medical circumcision performed by a 'western'* style doctor rather than traditional circumcision performed by a cultural healer/traditional healer) is touted as a preventative measure to HIV transmission, many women will be faced with increased resistance from men with regards to condom usage. It has become clear that behavioural changes are as necessary in the struggle against HIV as medical changes and developments are. South African men have been startlingly slow on the uptake and the struggle against HIV has been met with a struggle against condom usage by many men. It is perhaps obvious, that when these men who would have struggled condom usage before being circumcised are told about the links between circumcision and reduced HIV transmission they may be even less inclined to put a glove on their love.
Second, if these men are convinced in circumcision such that it becomes seen as an almost 100% prevention method (in reality the numbers are closer to around 60%) they may be more inclined to have multiple partners, endangering the sexual health of their partners (however many) through exposure to other STIs, and reducing their feelings of responsibility in transmitting these diseases.
Third, if
- men have (even further) reduced feelings of responsibility for transmitting STIs and HIV and/or believe that being circumcised makes them unable to contract HIV,
-are in a relationship with a female partner (or a number of female partners) and,
-they become infected with HIV, or learn of their HIV positive status, then
it is likely that women will be blamed for 'giving' HIV to them.
In a global culture where women are frequently labelled as carriers of disease and are held responsible for its spread it is important to consider the ramifications for women in this case.
Stigma is a powerful driver in HIV transmission. It decreases the chances that people will get tested. It serves as a barrier to treatment and community support for people living with HIV/AIDS (plwha). PLWHA are often seen as dirty, sexually unclean, morally loose and are associated with a number of negative character traits regardless of their own character. To advocate for a prevention strategy that will increase stigma associated with women is to advocate for worsening the situation of some of the most socially and economically vulnerable members of society.
This strategy is still being researched and must be recognised as an attempt by the scientific society to find some sort of solution in a climate of pressure to find a cure for HIV.
It must be taken as a step forward, but not neccessarily a step that can be taken at the moment. And if the step is taken it must be taken lightly and the interests of all South African's must be considered, not least those of plwha - particularly women.
*western is a problematic term for me, as is african, european etc, but the use of it here is to illustrate the distinction as it has been created in the media and in public discussion.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Pride
Pride is an explosive feeling.
We are encouraged daily to be proud, to take pride in our work, to be proud of our country, to have pride our appearance, our actions, our behaviour. Nationalism plays on our pride. It encourages us to invest in our country or sports team, or war effort. It says to be somewhere, or a citizen of some country is something to be defended and protected. Something unique, and that nobody can take from us (see various movies for references to dirty rotten scoundrels being able to take someone's money etc etc, but not their pride). We explode with pride when national teams win a sports game, when our loved ones are successful, when we complete a task that has been arduous or demanding, when we achieve that perfect look. Pride is an explosive feeling.
But that explosion is not always positive. It can be dangerous. We are also critical of others for being 'proud', or for letting their pride get in the way. It can be something that stunts our growth, stunts our ability to interact with others, and on a state level it can limit the potential for change and real action. When our pride is challenged it results in anger, aggression and the potential for a fight. The scale of this retributive feeling depends on the scale of the challenge to our pride, and the scale of our power to take action. Pride is an explosive feeling.
Pride is an explosive feeling. And explosions are always beautiful and sad to watch at the same time.
We are encouraged daily to be proud, to take pride in our work, to be proud of our country, to have pride our appearance, our actions, our behaviour. Nationalism plays on our pride. It encourages us to invest in our country or sports team, or war effort. It says to be somewhere, or a citizen of some country is something to be defended and protected. Something unique, and that nobody can take from us (see various movies for references to dirty rotten scoundrels being able to take someone's money etc etc, but not their pride). We explode with pride when national teams win a sports game, when our loved ones are successful, when we complete a task that has been arduous or demanding, when we achieve that perfect look. Pride is an explosive feeling.
But that explosion is not always positive. It can be dangerous. We are also critical of others for being 'proud', or for letting their pride get in the way. It can be something that stunts our growth, stunts our ability to interact with others, and on a state level it can limit the potential for change and real action. When our pride is challenged it results in anger, aggression and the potential for a fight. The scale of this retributive feeling depends on the scale of the challenge to our pride, and the scale of our power to take action. Pride is an explosive feeling.
Pride is an explosive feeling. And explosions are always beautiful and sad to watch at the same time.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Promises, promises...
I just thought I'd take the time this morning to make clear some of the promises that our President made to us in this year's State of the Nation Address. I think that these promises (focussed on Women, Children and HIV/AIDS) are important for all of us to take note of, and it is our duty to ensure that we hold government accountable and make sure that they meet their goals.
Promise 1:
Promise 1:
“For as long as there are women who are subjected to discrimination, exploitation and abuse; for as long as there are children who do not have the means, nor the opportunity to receive a decent education; we shall not rest, and we dare not falter, in our drive to eradicate poverty."
Promise 2:
“We will improve higher education of children from poor families and ensure a sustainable funding structure for universities."
Promise 3: "We are very concerned about reports of teachers who sexually harass and abuse children, particularly girls. We will ensure that the Guidelines on Sexual Harassment and Violence in Public Schools are widely disseminated and that learners and teachers are familiar with, and observe them. We will take very serious, and very decisive, action against teachers who abuse their authority and power by entering into sexual relationships with children."
Promise 4: "The most serious attention will also be given to combating organised crime, as well as crime against women and children."
Promise 5: "We want to reach 80% of those in need of ARV treatment also by 2011".
Promise 6: "We must work together to improve the implementation of the comprehensive plan for the Treatment, Management and Care of HIV and AIDS so as to reduce the rate of new HIV infections by 50% by the year 2011."
Many more promises were made, as they are so easy to do. What we must make sure is that these promises are translated into achievable, affordable and efficient action on the part of goverment.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Response to Lili Radloff of Women24 on her article "All rapes aren't equal".
This truly antifeminist retrogressive article can be found at http://www.women24.com/Women24/PregnancyParenting/TalkingPoint/Article/0,,1-9-34_22789,00.html if anyone would like to waste five minutes of their time.
This is my response:
The way you are thinking is entirely retrogressive.
Defining the act as rape, whether it was the headachy wife, person who went home for foreplay, or someone who is a victim/survivor of gang rape is not something that diminishes the experience of the survivor of gang rape. It is rather something that allows that woman to come together in solidarity with other women and acknowledge that this is a crime that IS NEVER acceptable. It is to acknowledge that in each of these instances, the women or men who have been forced to have unconsensual sex, have endured something that nobody should endure and have the right to fight back legally.
Suggesting things like, 'when a woman goes home with a man willingly' is playing into all the rape myths that the men raping are using. Other myths include, 'she was dressed a particular way', 'she secretly wanted it', 'she shouldn't have got drunk', 'it was a crime of passion', 'if she didn't scream or hurt it wasn't rape', 'women cry rape when they regret sex', 'rapists are mythical sexual predators', 'prostitutes or sex workers cannot be raped' - IT IS NEVER OK TO FORCE SOMEONE TO HAVE SEX.
In addition, your description of the rapist is part of the problem. You see the sinister man, waiting on the corner to strike out at his target. Yes, this does happen, but the majority of rape in South Africa occurs between two people who know each other. This is the significance of making clear that forced sex within a domestic partnership, whether marriage, or a couple, or whatever instance, is rape.
The word we use is particularly important. It must be called rape to ensure that all women and men receive the same protection from the law, and are treated with dignity and respect. Attitudes that promote the idea that one is a lesser crime than the other will only result in the persecution of rape survivors and these attitudes must be addressed.
If you remain confused there are numerous women's rights organisations, and rape support organisations, who will be happy to provide you with more information on the decisions behind the definition of rape.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Thoughts for two special friends
I received news this morning that two special friends both lost their dad's over the weekend. Both father's took their own lives, without explanation and both families grieve now for someone who cannot be returned to them. Each individual situation of suicide is different, but I just wanted to paste some numbers up here for anyone who feels like they've run out of hope for whatever reason. Or if you are someone who has been left behind, these numbers are here for you too.
Lifeline: www.lifeline.org.za
Durban:Crisis: (031) 312 2323
Office: (031) 303 1344
East London:Crisis: (043) 722 2000
Johannesburg:Crisis: (011) 728-1347, Office: (011) 728-1331
Cape Town: Crisis: (021) 461-1111, Office: (021) 461-1113
I hope that if any of you who read this know of any other numbers, you post them here so that someone might catch a glimpse, on a day when they need to.
Lifeline: www.lifeline.org.za
Durban:Crisis: (031) 312 2323
Office: (031) 303 1344
East London:Crisis: (043) 722 2000
Johannesburg:Crisis: (011) 728-1347, Office: (011) 728-1331
Cape Town: Crisis: (021) 461-1111, Office: (021) 461-1113
I hope that if any of you who read this know of any other numbers, you post them here so that someone might catch a glimpse, on a day when they need to.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Obama calls for a month of celebration of LGBTI people
I am just totally enamoured with Obama right now. After a worrying curve ball at the beginning of his term, when several right wing extremists proposed proposition 8, it is so pleasing to note that Obama has come through on his promises to end discrimination in the USA.
The mere acknowledgement that LGBTI groups and individuals often go unacknowledged is a huge conceptual step for the American leadership, and it is going to force some of the more conservative Americans to take stock of what they believe in. This has been a long time coming and is worthy of admiration and praise from other nations.
Back home however, there is no indication that the same group of people are met with anything but hostility, social exclusion and violence. Corrective rape (where someone rapes you to try and 'turn' you back straight) is on the increase, gay-bashing is still a reality and the social awareness of diversity is limited. Our president made clear his opinion about homosexuality, and the evidence suggests that this is an opinion shared by a large group of people.
I wonder if Obama would be proud to say his roots were in Africa, if he knew that Africa is currently a place of intolerance and violence? I think our own leaders need to recognise that their conservative and regressive perspectives need broadening, and that gender and sexual equality should no longer be a theoretical construct but should be daily practice.
The State of the Nation address was ambitious, but there were glaring abscences that have occurred time and time again. How can the crime of rape, of which South Africa has the highest rate of a country not at war, go unmentioned in the address. This country is seeing both our women and our children abused and violated, stripped of their rights and irrevocably harmed, and for this crime to be unacknowledged is itself a crime. The news this week has had startling headlines such as "10000 child prostitutes in Johannesburg" and "530 child rapes a day". To end these crimes requires leaders of the highest ranks to recognise that something is very wrong here, and that they play a huge role in helping to restore a sense of dignity to vulnerable groups.
These are groups that require us to change our thinking. To open our minds and accept others, and to celebrate them. We are such a diverse country, and I hope that 2009 brings a celebration of this diversity, rather than a hardening of minds and hearts.
The mere acknowledgement that LGBTI groups and individuals often go unacknowledged is a huge conceptual step for the American leadership, and it is going to force some of the more conservative Americans to take stock of what they believe in. This has been a long time coming and is worthy of admiration and praise from other nations.
Back home however, there is no indication that the same group of people are met with anything but hostility, social exclusion and violence. Corrective rape (where someone rapes you to try and 'turn' you back straight) is on the increase, gay-bashing is still a reality and the social awareness of diversity is limited. Our president made clear his opinion about homosexuality, and the evidence suggests that this is an opinion shared by a large group of people.
I wonder if Obama would be proud to say his roots were in Africa, if he knew that Africa is currently a place of intolerance and violence? I think our own leaders need to recognise that their conservative and regressive perspectives need broadening, and that gender and sexual equality should no longer be a theoretical construct but should be daily practice.
The State of the Nation address was ambitious, but there were glaring abscences that have occurred time and time again. How can the crime of rape, of which South Africa has the highest rate of a country not at war, go unmentioned in the address. This country is seeing both our women and our children abused and violated, stripped of their rights and irrevocably harmed, and for this crime to be unacknowledged is itself a crime. The news this week has had startling headlines such as "10000 child prostitutes in Johannesburg" and "530 child rapes a day". To end these crimes requires leaders of the highest ranks to recognise that something is very wrong here, and that they play a huge role in helping to restore a sense of dignity to vulnerable groups.
These are groups that require us to change our thinking. To open our minds and accept others, and to celebrate them. We are such a diverse country, and I hope that 2009 brings a celebration of this diversity, rather than a hardening of minds and hearts.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Helen and the several dwarfs
Once upon a time (not so long ago) in a land (we sometimes wish) was far away, a woman called Helen wandered into a forest (more like a jungle) and discovered seven men who were dwarfed by a number of problems. This was the start of what would be a traumatic four years for poor Helen, who herself was suffering already from democraticellusion, backtrackingquickly and a number of other ailments.
The first man, sir shower-alot, had created much enthusiasm for himself largely by playing on the dreams of the masses that they would one day be able to have an ego like his. He had a number of wives, girlfriends and assorted other womanly 'possessions' with whom he had his way, when he wanted and how he wanted. He also had a superpower which allowed him to remove the traces of disease and illness, simply by showering. His power was so strong that he didn't even mention anything about protex or dettol but was able to use regular showers for these purposes.
The second man, sir foot-in-the mouth, also had created a great deal of energy around him. Sadly for him though, this energy was not always positive, but this did not stop him from enjoying his position as general chatterbox and know-little. He was dwarfed by his lack of knowledge, and desire to use the anger of others to fuel his own energy. He said what he thought, even when what he thought was not at all sensible or useful.
The third man, sir i'm-the-boss-not-you, created many problems for Helen. He refused to share any of the jungle resources with her, until she did exactly what the dwarf colony wanted - even if she had very good reasons not to. He often used his role of jungle king to communicated the messages of the dwarf colony to her, and sadly to the world beyond the jungle. He was dwarfed by his inability to share.
The fourth man, sir inandoutof-jail, also had magical powers. This man, through surrounding himself with other men who had superpowers (like sir shower-alot), was able to move through physical barriers, like jail cells. The combined power of his and other superpowers allowed him to fly above things (even the law). However, sir inandoutof-jail was only holidaying in the jungle, because he actually had a house somewhere else, and was a bit shaky from the jungle noises. He was dwarfed by charges.
Upon meeting these men, Helen was slightly alarmed. She wondered about how the jungle was run, and how she too would become part of the leadership of the jungle. She thought very long and hard about this question. Despite not wanting to act badly, she came to a conclusion.
If its monkey business that runs the jungle, she just had to act like one of the monkeys herself. And if it is male monkeys who run the jungle, best she surround herself with some of her own monkeys from her land.
The first man, sir shower-alot, had created much enthusiasm for himself largely by playing on the dreams of the masses that they would one day be able to have an ego like his. He had a number of wives, girlfriends and assorted other womanly 'possessions' with whom he had his way, when he wanted and how he wanted. He also had a superpower which allowed him to remove the traces of disease and illness, simply by showering. His power was so strong that he didn't even mention anything about protex or dettol but was able to use regular showers for these purposes.
The second man, sir foot-in-the mouth, also had created a great deal of energy around him. Sadly for him though, this energy was not always positive, but this did not stop him from enjoying his position as general chatterbox and know-little. He was dwarfed by his lack of knowledge, and desire to use the anger of others to fuel his own energy. He said what he thought, even when what he thought was not at all sensible or useful.
The third man, sir i'm-the-boss-not-you, created many problems for Helen. He refused to share any of the jungle resources with her, until she did exactly what the dwarf colony wanted - even if she had very good reasons not to. He often used his role of jungle king to communicated the messages of the dwarf colony to her, and sadly to the world beyond the jungle. He was dwarfed by his inability to share.
The fourth man, sir inandoutof-jail, also had magical powers. This man, through surrounding himself with other men who had superpowers (like sir shower-alot), was able to move through physical barriers, like jail cells. The combined power of his and other superpowers allowed him to fly above things (even the law). However, sir inandoutof-jail was only holidaying in the jungle, because he actually had a house somewhere else, and was a bit shaky from the jungle noises. He was dwarfed by charges.
Upon meeting these men, Helen was slightly alarmed. She wondered about how the jungle was run, and how she too would become part of the leadership of the jungle. She thought very long and hard about this question. Despite not wanting to act badly, she came to a conclusion.
If its monkey business that runs the jungle, she just had to act like one of the monkeys herself. And if it is male monkeys who run the jungle, best she surround herself with some of her own monkeys from her land.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Rape and you
Last night I watched a harrowing documentary on rape in the DRC.
In it literally hundreds of women were shown who had been raped by soldiers, by rebels, by boys and by 'men'. They had been raped by bodies, with guns, with anything that these 'men' could find. The women formed groups together to talk about their rapes, and the hospitals were filled with new women each day who had new stories to tell. Their voices grew from whispers to shouts as they told them. They spoke in french, which I understood, and in local dialects, which I didn't. But even when I didn't understand their language their voices cracked with emotions that I could feel.
The producer and a local assistant managed to interview some of the men in both the rebel groups and the army. They had all raped, were proud to list the numbers and explained their rapes in terms of a magic potion that they took, which required rape to work. The laughed at each others reasons. One man, about 25, said that if someone wanted to rape his mother, and he knew it was for the good of the congo.
Where do I start? I am not sure if all the education in the world could help me to begin to formulate a plan to help these women or to change things there. I was frustrated at my own inability to do anything, and all I wanted was to embrace those women and show that there is love for them, and not only hatred. The sheer scale of the problem and the smallness of my reach made me literally shake.
So what can we do? What can each individual person do?
I'm trying to help by talking about it in this space, and through the work that I do. What are you doing?
In it literally hundreds of women were shown who had been raped by soldiers, by rebels, by boys and by 'men'. They had been raped by bodies, with guns, with anything that these 'men' could find. The women formed groups together to talk about their rapes, and the hospitals were filled with new women each day who had new stories to tell. Their voices grew from whispers to shouts as they told them. They spoke in french, which I understood, and in local dialects, which I didn't. But even when I didn't understand their language their voices cracked with emotions that I could feel.
The producer and a local assistant managed to interview some of the men in both the rebel groups and the army. They had all raped, were proud to list the numbers and explained their rapes in terms of a magic potion that they took, which required rape to work. The laughed at each others reasons. One man, about 25, said that if someone wanted to rape his mother, and he knew it was for the good of the congo.
Where do I start? I am not sure if all the education in the world could help me to begin to formulate a plan to help these women or to change things there. I was frustrated at my own inability to do anything, and all I wanted was to embrace those women and show that there is love for them, and not only hatred. The sheer scale of the problem and the smallness of my reach made me literally shake.
So what can we do? What can each individual person do?
I'm trying to help by talking about it in this space, and through the work that I do. What are you doing?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Where are the women Helen?
Helen Zille, leader of the DA and Western Cape premier, has chosen a women-free (herself the exception), pale-male cabinet. Needless to say, I am a bit disappointed.
One of the most difficult thing that I have found working with teams of women, is that their belief that other women are their competition rather than their allies often stunts women's own efforts at achieving success. Whilst I respect that Zille wants the best team, she should be more aware of the detrimental effect that such an unconstitutional cabinet has on aspiring young girls and women.
If she herself wants to remain a credible leader, she should pay respect to the constitutional requirements and laws of South Africa - after all, she is always first to criticise others for ignoring them.
One of the most difficult thing that I have found working with teams of women, is that their belief that other women are their competition rather than their allies often stunts women's own efforts at achieving success. Whilst I respect that Zille wants the best team, she should be more aware of the detrimental effect that such an unconstitutional cabinet has on aspiring young girls and women.
If she herself wants to remain a credible leader, she should pay respect to the constitutional requirements and laws of South Africa - after all, she is always first to criticise others for ignoring them.
(Mis)lead?
A dinner conversation sparked the question 'where are the real leaders' globally at this time? The conversation began with a discussion of Jacob Zuma and revolved around the table's disappointment with his inability to publicly denounce violence against women, and with his weak commitment to rejecting corruption. As conversations about Zuma tend to do, this one turned to allegations of conspiracy against him, Julius Malema's big mouth, and other (the list is too long) flaws in the current system that have left many South Africans quaking in their crocs at the thought of our new president.
The question was asked - but who else is there to lead SA? Would any of the other public figures be fit to do a better job than master machine gun? There was a brief (that's all we needed) discussion, but the results weren't that promising. Of all the public figures we talked about, there wasn't one who stood out as exception. Yes there are those, like Helen Zille, who have impacted much more proactively than current ANC leaders. There are others like Patricia De Lille who have stood up for what they believed in and for democratic rights. But which of these, or any others, are people that you look at and say - 'there is nobody else I'd rather vote for', or 'I have so much confidence in this person', or even just 'I think they can do it'. Thus the conversation ended in despondency.
Obama had American hopes at unprecedented levels. Americans and International spectators really believe that he can make change in their lives. They believe that he is someone who has his head and heart in the right place, and who will deliver on his promises. So far, it looks as if their predictions are right.
Can there really only be one Obama? Where are our African shining stars? Where are the leaders who we feel proud of, and who incite us to feel pride in ourselves and our countries? Perhaps the South African masses felt this about Zuma. He is arguably South Africa's most popular political figure. But many women, and many of the SA middle classes, feel as though their hope for an equal future has been stolen from them.
I went home and thought about my own class at University, and of other students my age who were politically involved on campus. I can identify people in those groups who could be equally dangerous to democratic values, or equally to make the decisions that need to be made. But I can also identify some real potential for fearless, committed leaders who will make change here if they decide to stay.
How sad that I will have to wait more than twice as long as I've already lived for these people to get a chance at president, party leader or MP.
Perhaps South Africa's problem then is that it does not engage with these young minds enough? Rigorous arguments and discussion of political theory and political practice are happening every day in our country, and perhaps we need to extend these discussions to the upper echelons rather than allow them to dictate the demise of our open democracy to us.
In fact, not perhaps, we do.
The question was asked - but who else is there to lead SA? Would any of the other public figures be fit to do a better job than master machine gun? There was a brief (that's all we needed) discussion, but the results weren't that promising. Of all the public figures we talked about, there wasn't one who stood out as exception. Yes there are those, like Helen Zille, who have impacted much more proactively than current ANC leaders. There are others like Patricia De Lille who have stood up for what they believed in and for democratic rights. But which of these, or any others, are people that you look at and say - 'there is nobody else I'd rather vote for', or 'I have so much confidence in this person', or even just 'I think they can do it'. Thus the conversation ended in despondency.
Obama had American hopes at unprecedented levels. Americans and International spectators really believe that he can make change in their lives. They believe that he is someone who has his head and heart in the right place, and who will deliver on his promises. So far, it looks as if their predictions are right.
Can there really only be one Obama? Where are our African shining stars? Where are the leaders who we feel proud of, and who incite us to feel pride in ourselves and our countries? Perhaps the South African masses felt this about Zuma. He is arguably South Africa's most popular political figure. But many women, and many of the SA middle classes, feel as though their hope for an equal future has been stolen from them.
I went home and thought about my own class at University, and of other students my age who were politically involved on campus. I can identify people in those groups who could be equally dangerous to democratic values, or equally to make the decisions that need to be made. But I can also identify some real potential for fearless, committed leaders who will make change here if they decide to stay.
How sad that I will have to wait more than twice as long as I've already lived for these people to get a chance at president, party leader or MP.
Perhaps South Africa's problem then is that it does not engage with these young minds enough? Rigorous arguments and discussion of political theory and political practice are happening every day in our country, and perhaps we need to extend these discussions to the upper echelons rather than allow them to dictate the demise of our open democracy to us.
In fact, not perhaps, we do.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Say What???
Julius Malema, ANC jester, yesterday described Helen Zille, Western Cape premier and head of the D.A., as a 'racist little girl'. Oh my days.
I have had enough of stomaching the ridiculous, aggressive, violence inciting rubbish that Julius Malema has to spit out at any opportunity. Can anyone describe a time when he has said something positive, constructive or dare I say, useful?
I returned from the UK after a 3 month holiday in February. It was interesting being over there because you hear nearly no news about South Africa, save for a blip now and then about Mandela. But since the exit of Mbeki and the hasty rise of Zuma and Malema, SA has been in the news more and more frequently. The sad thing is that the bulletins about SA are usually followed by a deep sigh, head shake and/or a nervous cough. Western news sources have no means to understand how our highest powered figures cannot get a sentence out without being offensive.
So how do they get away with it? Every time? While at the same time feeling it within their right to retaliate when ever someone has 2c to contribute about him. Zuma is even suing British newspaper the guardian because they said he had been convicted of corruption, rather than he was allegedly corrupt. Bollocks to that!
We may have freedom of speech, but when do we as voters and SA citizens have a right to say 'shut the f*** up'. Does anyone remember their mum's saying 'if you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything at all'? I do. There are millions of South Africans who have positive, useful, ubuntu-esque things to say every day. Can we stop giving publicity to comic-figures and give some to the clever people? Please!
I have had enough of stomaching the ridiculous, aggressive, violence inciting rubbish that Julius Malema has to spit out at any opportunity. Can anyone describe a time when he has said something positive, constructive or dare I say, useful?
I returned from the UK after a 3 month holiday in February. It was interesting being over there because you hear nearly no news about South Africa, save for a blip now and then about Mandela. But since the exit of Mbeki and the hasty rise of Zuma and Malema, SA has been in the news more and more frequently. The sad thing is that the bulletins about SA are usually followed by a deep sigh, head shake and/or a nervous cough. Western news sources have no means to understand how our highest powered figures cannot get a sentence out without being offensive.
So how do they get away with it? Every time? While at the same time feeling it within their right to retaliate when ever someone has 2c to contribute about him. Zuma is even suing British newspaper the guardian because they said he had been convicted of corruption, rather than he was allegedly corrupt. Bollocks to that!
We may have freedom of speech, but when do we as voters and SA citizens have a right to say 'shut the f*** up'. Does anyone remember their mum's saying 'if you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything at all'? I do. There are millions of South Africans who have positive, useful, ubuntu-esque things to say every day. Can we stop giving publicity to comic-figures and give some to the clever people? Please!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Gay abandon(ment)...
Burundi, like South Africa, has a constitution that protects human rights. Part of this protection of human rights is the protection of people's right to practise their cultural beliefs. This is often easier said than done. Western-based conceptions of human rights often differ from local-based beliefs about rights and when these two conceptions clash it becomes difficult to judge which one takes precedence.
The Burundian government passed a law this week criminalising homosexuality. Any consensual sexual activity between two people of the same sex is punishable by two to three years in prison. President Nkurunziza described homosexuality as a 'curse'. Despite these deep seated beliefs that the president felt no shame in voicing publicly, the document was signed in secret with many human rights group unaware that it had even been drafted until after the fact. Governmental bodies relied on their 'culture' and 'customs' to legitimate the introduction of this law. It is described by Human Rights Watch as a 'disappointing step backward'.
This legitimation of human rights violations in the name of culture seems like an obvious move to slip out of the realm of criticism on the part of the leadership. Who is legitimately able to criticise culture? It is created as an a-historical, unchallengeable 'thing' that does not allow for negotiation and 'has always been so'. That is exactly the beauty of this move for governments and human rights naysayers. They can rely on something unquestionable to allow them to make statements that are politically incorrect (at the best of times) and violence inciting (at the worst of times), and cannot face any criticism for it because it is itself politically incorrect, at least in South Africa, to criticise or question another person's culture openly. So we are left biting our tongues in the hopes that someone will do something about it.
Here at home we have had no shortage of similar dangerous statements made by various political figures. For example, in the rape trial of Jacob Zuma, misogyny was the word of the day. He suggested that because of his status as a 'Zulu' boy, he was culturally expected to have sex with a woman who sat with her legs uncrossed. It was culturally rude not to have sex with a woman who so 'obviously' was 'ready' for it. Similarly he stated that as a young Zulu boy, if a gay person stood in front of him he would knock him down. He called gay people a 'disgrace'. Another prominent figure Manto Tshabalala-Msimang encouraged people to use 'cultural' remedies rather than anti-retroviral medicine when HIV positive.
Similarly, human rights are presented as inaliable, non-contingent and certain. Another universal worldview that perhaps doesn't fit into the lives of most people. They ensures that everyone is legally the same - a difficult goal to implement in a world where so few people are the same, and so few governments want to treat them that way. Like human rights, 'culture' exists and is perpetuated in the minds and beliefs of ordinary people. It is through their behaviour and actions that it is presented to us - intangible - with very real effects.
But the critical thing is that culture did not arise out of nothing. It has been moulded and sculpted by the powerful until it has met their needs and ends. It has been used as a story backdrop to ensure that people are caught up in the magic and unity of it, often without questioning the dangers it poses. Standardly 'othered' groups often remain othered by 'culture' and by legitimating fictions that seek to present it as unquestionable. When someone says that it is his cultural right to do something to another person it moves the debate about the rightness or wrongness of that action out of the sphere of logic or negotiation. The debate is ended and the winner takes it all.
So what can the ordinary person do when faced with trends of leadership that suggests disrespect and disregard, for the rights of homosexual people? How can each of us negotiate with the powerful and help them choose the right way to reshape culture for a more positive future?
My suggestion - talk. The most frustrating thing about about the Burundian case is the secrecy under which the whole thing has taken place. If your culture is something that you are proud of, then be proud, explain to others how it works and how you feel you are a part of it. More importantly, allow others to do the same.
When the time comes to make a choice between limiting others or freeing them, perhaps we can only hope that our governments will mimic our efforts, take a step back, and listen.
Footnote: For those of you interested in this story, or who want to make your voice heard to reject human rights abuses like this, please visit the human rights watch website - its incredibly proactive and useful.
The Burundian government passed a law this week criminalising homosexuality. Any consensual sexual activity between two people of the same sex is punishable by two to three years in prison. President Nkurunziza described homosexuality as a 'curse'. Despite these deep seated beliefs that the president felt no shame in voicing publicly, the document was signed in secret with many human rights group unaware that it had even been drafted until after the fact. Governmental bodies relied on their 'culture' and 'customs' to legitimate the introduction of this law. It is described by Human Rights Watch as a 'disappointing step backward'.
This legitimation of human rights violations in the name of culture seems like an obvious move to slip out of the realm of criticism on the part of the leadership. Who is legitimately able to criticise culture? It is created as an a-historical, unchallengeable 'thing' that does not allow for negotiation and 'has always been so'. That is exactly the beauty of this move for governments and human rights naysayers. They can rely on something unquestionable to allow them to make statements that are politically incorrect (at the best of times) and violence inciting (at the worst of times), and cannot face any criticism for it because it is itself politically incorrect, at least in South Africa, to criticise or question another person's culture openly. So we are left biting our tongues in the hopes that someone will do something about it.
Here at home we have had no shortage of similar dangerous statements made by various political figures. For example, in the rape trial of Jacob Zuma, misogyny was the word of the day. He suggested that because of his status as a 'Zulu' boy, he was culturally expected to have sex with a woman who sat with her legs uncrossed. It was culturally rude not to have sex with a woman who so 'obviously' was 'ready' for it. Similarly he stated that as a young Zulu boy, if a gay person stood in front of him he would knock him down. He called gay people a 'disgrace'. Another prominent figure Manto Tshabalala-Msimang encouraged people to use 'cultural' remedies rather than anti-retroviral medicine when HIV positive.
Similarly, human rights are presented as inaliable, non-contingent and certain. Another universal worldview that perhaps doesn't fit into the lives of most people. They ensures that everyone is legally the same - a difficult goal to implement in a world where so few people are the same, and so few governments want to treat them that way. Like human rights, 'culture' exists and is perpetuated in the minds and beliefs of ordinary people. It is through their behaviour and actions that it is presented to us - intangible - with very real effects.
But the critical thing is that culture did not arise out of nothing. It has been moulded and sculpted by the powerful until it has met their needs and ends. It has been used as a story backdrop to ensure that people are caught up in the magic and unity of it, often without questioning the dangers it poses. Standardly 'othered' groups often remain othered by 'culture' and by legitimating fictions that seek to present it as unquestionable. When someone says that it is his cultural right to do something to another person it moves the debate about the rightness or wrongness of that action out of the sphere of logic or negotiation. The debate is ended and the winner takes it all.
So what can the ordinary person do when faced with trends of leadership that suggests disrespect and disregard, for the rights of homosexual people? How can each of us negotiate with the powerful and help them choose the right way to reshape culture for a more positive future?
My suggestion - talk. The most frustrating thing about about the Burundian case is the secrecy under which the whole thing has taken place. If your culture is something that you are proud of, then be proud, explain to others how it works and how you feel you are a part of it. More importantly, allow others to do the same.
When the time comes to make a choice between limiting others or freeing them, perhaps we can only hope that our governments will mimic our efforts, take a step back, and listen.
Footnote: For those of you interested in this story, or who want to make your voice heard to reject human rights abuses like this, please visit the human rights watch website - its incredibly proactive and useful.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Pardon?
Today the Pretoria High Court granted an interim interdict preventing our acting president from pardoning over 100 prisoners. The original idea was that, in the spirit of the TRC, people who had been imprisoned for 'political crimes' could apply and be pardoned if the president (and a few others...) considered them worthy. Those who had already been denied amnesty by the TRC could not apply. So from the perpatrators side, it would be those who had not applied to the TRC and yet considered themselves worthy of an application for freedom. Given that many of the apartheid arrests were highly suspect and politically motivated this seemed like a fair idea, or at least one that is worthy of negotiation.
More suspect though is the way this all happens. Perhaps in Mbeki's quick departure from the presidency he managed to take his list of how it should all work out fairly with him in his pocket. Otherwise, I'm not sure if there really was ever a plan. It was supposed to be done in the spirit of the TRC. For those of you not familiar with the process don't expect to learn anything from this one.
The TRC encouraged both victims (survivors) and agents of apartheid violence to come forward, talk through the crime and the effects of it and reach a decision, with various parties, about what the next step would be. But most importantly, it was out in the open, names were heard and faces were seen. The hearings were public, and this publicity was part of the healing process.
It was not a case of blanket freedom for all, some cases of application for amnesty were rejected. In fact, of the over 6000 who applied, only around 850 were successful. The commission emphasized reconciliation and the revalation of 'truths', and 11 years after it handed in its report it is not clear whether the present government's incentives for these particular pardons are similar or discordant.
So what is different this time around?
What seems to be the top of the list for most critics is the unwillingness of the reference group (created by Thabo Mbeki) to reveal the names of those who have applied for pardon. It is not the secrecy of the individuals applying that is resented; rather it is the inability of the victims/survivors of their crimes to have their say or their suffering acknowledged. Current president Motlanthe verbally suggested that each victim/survivor would have the opportunity to have their say. It is not clear how else the import of the convincted criminals crime can be established. How can someone pardon you, when they are not aware (other than the legal documents they have been provided with) what you are asking forgiveness for? More troubling for me is that perhaps these criminals have not asked for forgiveness at all. This process will ensure that they never have to do that.
Who are these new criminals who did not apply for amnesty? What politically based crimes have they committed since the end of apartheid? If a crime is politically motivated, does it make it less criminal? What truths will be revealed by keeping their identities secret? How will this breed reconciliation?
I struggle with the idea of forgiving someone who has not asked for forgiveness. How does one forgive without an apology? Perhaps there is the idea that one can 'see the bigger picture' or 'be the bigger person', but in all this bigness the acknowledgement that something was done that caused harm is lost. So perhaps the idea is to forgive, but not to forget. Are we supposed to remember that something went horribly wrong, to acknowledge social factors in the creation of a criminal and then to focus on reintroducing, relearning, and reintegration?
Or is it still important to look at choices? The choice to commit a crime. The choice to avoid saying 'I'm sorry'.
More suspect though is the way this all happens. Perhaps in Mbeki's quick departure from the presidency he managed to take his list of how it should all work out fairly with him in his pocket. Otherwise, I'm not sure if there really was ever a plan. It was supposed to be done in the spirit of the TRC. For those of you not familiar with the process don't expect to learn anything from this one.
The TRC encouraged both victims (survivors) and agents of apartheid violence to come forward, talk through the crime and the effects of it and reach a decision, with various parties, about what the next step would be. But most importantly, it was out in the open, names were heard and faces were seen. The hearings were public, and this publicity was part of the healing process.
It was not a case of blanket freedom for all, some cases of application for amnesty were rejected. In fact, of the over 6000 who applied, only around 850 were successful. The commission emphasized reconciliation and the revalation of 'truths', and 11 years after it handed in its report it is not clear whether the present government's incentives for these particular pardons are similar or discordant.
So what is different this time around?
What seems to be the top of the list for most critics is the unwillingness of the reference group (created by Thabo Mbeki) to reveal the names of those who have applied for pardon. It is not the secrecy of the individuals applying that is resented; rather it is the inability of the victims/survivors of their crimes to have their say or their suffering acknowledged. Current president Motlanthe verbally suggested that each victim/survivor would have the opportunity to have their say. It is not clear how else the import of the convincted criminals crime can be established. How can someone pardon you, when they are not aware (other than the legal documents they have been provided with) what you are asking forgiveness for? More troubling for me is that perhaps these criminals have not asked for forgiveness at all. This process will ensure that they never have to do that.
Who are these new criminals who did not apply for amnesty? What politically based crimes have they committed since the end of apartheid? If a crime is politically motivated, does it make it less criminal? What truths will be revealed by keeping their identities secret? How will this breed reconciliation?
I struggle with the idea of forgiving someone who has not asked for forgiveness. How does one forgive without an apology? Perhaps there is the idea that one can 'see the bigger picture' or 'be the bigger person', but in all this bigness the acknowledgement that something was done that caused harm is lost. So perhaps the idea is to forgive, but not to forget. Are we supposed to remember that something went horribly wrong, to acknowledge social factors in the creation of a criminal and then to focus on reintroducing, relearning, and reintegration?
Or is it still important to look at choices? The choice to commit a crime. The choice to avoid saying 'I'm sorry'.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Our health system - soon to be revamped
The ANC enticed some voters with the idea of a healthcare system that was efficient, free, well managed and useful. It encouraged them to make their marks next to the beaming grin of JZ in order to ensure their place as health South Africans. The healthcare system will get the much needed funds from its revamp from increased taxes on all South Africans (including those on private medical schemes). Sounds fair.
But, in many cases the problem with current service provision, although undeniably related to lack of funds, is also related to poor management of funds. I have mentioned this before with regards to the education sector, but it is apparent that for the new ANC government to make the health inroads it seeks, it must must must do something about its budgeting skills.
Another thing they need to do is get their own members to use the public health system. When interviewed for newspapers and radio many of the staff said that they didn't use it, had had no need for it in the past and/or used private health care. Its not really convincing when ANC staff are not attending state hospitals, clinics or health centres.
But, I suppose a step in the right direction for a sector that is desperately in need of some TLC. Everyone who has used state hospitals or clinics has their own horror story, and perhaps these will become more like urban legends when the budget is reallocated, and health officials are required to use public health care and endure the long queues themselves. I hope so...
But, in many cases the problem with current service provision, although undeniably related to lack of funds, is also related to poor management of funds. I have mentioned this before with regards to the education sector, but it is apparent that for the new ANC government to make the health inroads it seeks, it must must must do something about its budgeting skills.
Another thing they need to do is get their own members to use the public health system. When interviewed for newspapers and radio many of the staff said that they didn't use it, had had no need for it in the past and/or used private health care. Its not really convincing when ANC staff are not attending state hospitals, clinics or health centres.
But, I suppose a step in the right direction for a sector that is desperately in need of some TLC. Everyone who has used state hospitals or clinics has their own horror story, and perhaps these will become more like urban legends when the budget is reallocated, and health officials are required to use public health care and endure the long queues themselves. I hope so...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
