You get the (j)eneral idea

http://1sttime2010.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/my-first-wishes-for-what-love-should-be-like/

2010-07-16T14:35:00.000+02:00

http://1sttime2010.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/my-first-wishes-for-what-love-should-be-like/

Violence is not freedom either

2009-09-23T11:43:00.002+02:00

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

2009-09-23T08:24:00.001+02:00

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?

2009-09-23T08:22:00.000+02:00

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

2009-09-23T08:21:00.000+02:00

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

2009-09-23T08:19:00.000+02:00

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.

I got a new blog...woop!

2009-09-11T10:49:00.002+02:00

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. :)

Murdered by sex?

2009-09-08T10:27:00.000+02:00

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.

White-washed

2009-09-01T18:02:00.001+02:00

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.

Running away from diversity

2009-08-22T09:34:00.003+02:00

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.

What's the agend(er)?

2009-08-19T14:22:00.008+02:00

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

Race Erasure?

2009-08-13T12:54:00.004+02:00

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?

Undressing the issue

2009-08-05T11:20:00.004+02:00

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.

It won't happen to me myth: alive and well.

2009-08-03T14:31:00.010+02:00

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.

Maternal Deaths Soar in SA

2009-07-30T06:52:00.011+02:00

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.

UN chief pushes for the recognition of rape as a form of genocide

2009-07-30T06:14:00.003+02:00

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".

response to Thought leader: Sumo: Why isn't it prostitution

2009-07-29T15:34:00.002+02:00

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/

Male circumcision - women's rights getting the chop?

2009-07-23T12:01:00.003+02:00

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.

Pride

2009-06-23T08:08:00.002+02:00

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.

Promises, promises...

2009-06-17T09:54:00.000+02:00

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:

“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.

Response to Lili Radloff of Women24 on her article "All rapes aren't equal".

2009-06-10T15:43:00.001+02:00

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.

Thoughts for two special friends

2009-06-08T08:59:00.000+02:00

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.

Obama calls for a month of celebration of LGBTI people

2009-06-05T11:05:00.000+02:00

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.

Helen and the several dwarfs

2009-05-22T16:32:00.000+02:00

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.

Rape and you

2009-05-19T21:12:00.000+02:00

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?

Where are the women Helen?

2009-05-12T19:31:00.000+02:00

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.

(Mis)lead?

2009-05-12T18:09:00.000+02:00

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.

Say What???

2009-05-03T17:23:00.000+02:00

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!

Gay abandon(ment)...

2009-05-02T11:58:00.000+02:00

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.

Pardon?

2009-04-29T16:14:00.000+02:00

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'.

Our health system - soon to be revamped

2009-04-28T20:54:00.000+02:00

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...

'they' only see black and white

2009-04-23T21:15:00.000+02:00

On the day of our national elections I made my mark on the ballot paper and felt like perhaps, this election, it might make a difference. I felt happy and proactive, and took a walk home along the beach with my boyfriend. On the way, as I sometimes do, I began to listen to the conversations of the people around us. What did they feel about the elections? Did they share my excitement?

Sadly, the first group I began listening to were talking about the IPL, so that was a bit of a loss. The second group however was more appropriate for my ponderings. It was a middle aged woman talking with someone who appeared to be her daughter. They were talking about who they voted for, and the various parties on offer. The daughter questioned her mother - "who do you think is going to win? the ANC?". Her mother replied, her facial expression showing concern and deep thought. I sped up to hear her. "Well, maybe not the ANC this time, there is COPE now. Not the DA. No, they definitely won't win. You know, 'they' only see black and white." "Probably the ANC then" responded the daughter. "Probably" reiterated her mother.

I wondered how this woman had managed to extricate herself from the 'they'. It was fairly obvious who she was talking about. But how do other women like her come to believe that it is others, not they, who only see in black and white? Is it a case of never having to question the colour of their own skin that makes them appear 'normal' or the starting point for judgement.

Dyer said that whiteness is a 'flesh-coloured' bandaid. It is taken as 'normal' by so many people, that they do not question whether 'flesh-coloured' is really representative at all. When I read this for the first time I thought of those wax crayons that we used to use during primary school. We always called the pinky cream one 'flesh' coloured. When we learnt colours I'm pretty sure that was one of them. How many people felt alienated by this statement? How many teachers didn't question it at all?

So 15 years on race remains important, if not in the way that individuals vote, then in the way others assume they will. Race has changed from the colour of a wax crayon to the colour of a worldview, a culture, a creed. It is now a sticky tab that alerts others to who you are. Why bother asking when you can just use the outer markers to decide?

After speeding up again, this time to avoid eavesdropping, my sense of enjoyment was somewhat deflated. I began to think about what difference I hoped that my vote would make.

Could I have believed that it would change these perceptions, or was I just hoping for a change in government?

zuma promises smooth transition - anybody scared?

2009-04-21T15:53:00.000+02:00

Jacob Zuma promises a smooth transition between the current ANC government and the one that will follow after the results of the 2009 election.

Is anyone else afraid?

The status quo is less than desirable and with the pre-election opinion polls showing that the ANC will win majority (Julius Malema believes this could even be a 'three-thirds' majority, somebody please help him) I'm not convinced that we want a smooth transition. He claims the ANC has 'done what is necessary' to secure its mandate, but I'm more concerned that they've done too much or too little.

Done too much 'damage': In the past five years it has begun to become embarrassing to be led by the ANC government. A Mail and Guardian article interviewing members of the Constantia Uitsig public stated that one of the ANC posters in the area had been defaced to read 'Together we can do more damage'. I think they have it right. To begin, the leadership of the ANC has been radically overhauled and they have done little or no leading. Their current leader has been charged with both rape and corruption, and both attempts at charging him have been unsuccessful. Whether this is as a result of his innocence (though to me it appeared quite clearly as a case of cold feet on the part of our justice system) or not, Zuma's attitude and comments on both of these matters were deplorable. In the rape case Zuma made several embarrassing comments, which illustrated both his lack of understanding of the HIV/AIDS crisis in South Africa and his lack of commitment to the constitutional values of gender equality. Furthermore, he allowed his supporters to get away with verbal incitements of violence against his accuser. All this without apology and without the acknowledgement that he had a responsibility to promote support of rape survivors and encourage learning about HIV/AIDS. These duties remain unacknowledged and unfulfilled today, despite our growing culture of violence against women and continued stigma surrounding HIV.

Similarly, it appears that his attitude towards corruption is equally nonchalant. Today on e-news he was questioned about the 'cloud of suspicion' that continues to surround him. His response was (apologies if it is not exactly correct) 'what cloud?I have never seen a cloud surrounding me'. I am hoping, that this was a case of dodging the bullet by attempting to make a joke, rather than his lack of understanding of what the journo was asking. But one can never be sure.

Done too little to ensure people's rights: The same Mail and Guardian article (headline: Zuma promises smooth transtion) sees Zuma stating "we reiterate that we will use our majority responsibly and will not ride roughshod over the rights of the people, or bulldoze other parties into submission." I am not sure where Mr Zuma thinks his responsibilities lie, and I would love to find out.

What about the rights of women?, the taxpayer?, young children? Women continue to be the target of violent crime and South Africa has the highest rape rate in the world, with its victims and survivors spanning all ages, races and ethnicities. How will Zuma, himself 'culturally' unable (read unwilling) to vocalise these women's right to security, ensure that power will be used responsibly. The corruption trial against him cost the South African taxpayers millions of Rands. How will these taxes be better used by someone unable to manage his own money? The past few years have seen our education system return to a sad state of affairs with many matric students having to teach themselves due to lack of staff and poor spending on the part of provincial governments. How will Zuma encourage his government to better spend?

I am aware that a party is more than its leader. And I am aware that a government is made up of more than one party. But I am afraid for South Africa on the cusp of elections. I am not encouraged by the clouds surrounding Zuma, and I am more concerned that his vision is so tinted by his own power that he cannot see them himself.

picture: www.news24.com
mail and guardian article accessbile from www.mg.co.za