By Nick Mangwana
 |
| ZANU PF UK Chairperson : Cde Nick Mangwana |
It is
reported that in the last 15 years as many as 21 Zimbabwean women in the UK
have been killed by their husbands, partners or boyfriends. Incidentally by an
overwhelming majority the men happen to be Zimbabweans as well. This is a
tragic datum. The last victim had her life taken whilst the African Union
Summit with the theme, "Women's
Empowerment Year and Africa Development for the Concretisation of Agenda
2063" was in
session. What an inspired and germane theme!
There is argument that a
lot of Zimbabwean men have failed to adjust to the loss of a higher domestic status
they had by relocating to the Diaspora. Coming from a conservative patriarchal
society where men hold a higher social station than women comes with a lot of
privilege and in extreme cases the infantalisation of women. There are cases
where women are whipped in chastisement like children for such mundane mistakes
like getting distracted and leaving the cooking meal to burn. The notion that one
can beat another adult until she conforms with their thinking and views as a
way of winning an argument is an absurdity. The societal safe guards against
this animalistic behaviour frustrate the Neanderthal man and some end up
committing homicide. All in a bid to cling to the slipping away privileges.
The mainstream advocates of women's rights are
not pushing to demote men's rights and promotes the women's. No. What they are
clamouring for is the promotion of women's rights to the same level as that of
the men. The problem for some men is, by accepting that a woman is equal to them,
they have to give up all the frills that come with women's subservience. This
is what marks the borders of the battleground. It is conceited to believe that
it is men's preserve to grant women
their rights piece meal. Some men even have the temerity to declare that it
would not happen in their house! Hang on. Are these not rights? They are an
entitlement and not a fringe reward for "good behaviour".
Women that try to assert their right are
labelled rebellious and other unflattering expletives. The salutation "shewe" (my lord) when
imported into these power games is literally interpreted. The demand for it
appears to be a form of servitude or emotional subjugation. If used as a term of
endearment, then there would probably nothing wrong. But if used to reinforce a
superior position then it is a term of abuse. Bride price (Roora or lobola) is
used as a domestic political leverage for pliancy and not a threading twine to
unite 2 alien families into one. The biggest leverage of all in the domestic
arrangement is earnings or resources. There is anecdotal evidence that many high
achieving women in Zimbabwe can achieve everything else but marital bliss. This
arguably not the women's problem. But the insecure men's feeling of
self-inadequacy. Men want control. A financially independent woman has a level
of autonomy that threaten some men's securities.
When people move to the Diaspora
the domestic social order can get radically inverted. Many mal-adapted men
resist this loss of patrimonial privilege. Whilst the women enjoy a new found autonomy.
The men feels undermined and ka-boom good bye marital bliss. The paradox of it
is that this happens despite the great effort that has been made by the government
to empower women. From 1977 Zanu PF has
had a vibrant Women's League whose raison d'etre is to promote the interests of
women. A lot of strides have been made
in higher political circles. It just needs to cascade down to the grassroots
and break the barriers of cultural, customary and religious resistance.
Britain has 22% women in
parliament. United States has 19.3% Women in the House of Representatives.
Zimbabwe has 35% women in its Bicameral House and a whopping 47.5% in the Senate.
The person at the helm of the Senate is a woman as well. For more about ten
years now, Zimbabwe has criminalised marital/spousal rape. Just a few years
behind a lot Western countries. Practically this is where the challenges of
lobola comes into contention. A lot of men find it difficult to accept that
someone for whom they paid lobola should report them for taking what they claim
to have paid for. A married woman's right to say, no is dismissed. Possibly
another issue that needs an expeditious down rushing. It is still to be
processed by the ordinary Zimbabwean man and the women themselves that a man
that forces himself on his spouse is as
much a sexual deviant as any rapist fiend on the street. Men should realise
that lobola is not about converting a woman into an object one's sexual
gratification. Progress is needed here.
As clichéd, women's rights are human rights.
Education remains a key
tool in bringing women empowerment, equality and social justice. There is now about 50% parity in the country's premier
universities, University of Zimbabwe and NUST. This is now reflected In the
corporate world where there is a good female representation at the highest
level. Whilst eulogising this progress complacency the country cannot afford to
be complacent. It cannot afford to promote ill-qualified women to key positions
just achieve gender parity. That would be sabotaging women's cause.
Some people are saying,
because Zimbabwe no longer has a female vice president that is evidence that
Women Empowerment has taken 2 steps back. Nothing can be further from the
truth. The first point is that by having a female Vice President for those ten years, the
Rubicon was crossed. The nation was desensitised to the idea of having a female
at the helm of government and taken orders from her. Having said that women
should get to top positions on merit and not on gender. If at the time the
President did not feel there was suitable female candidate to bring in as a
vice president he shouldn't have just dumped down by picking an inappropriate
candidate to replace Mrs Mujuru.
The US
does not and has never had a female vice president. Britain does not have a
female deputy prime minister. Can one argue that after Margaret Thatcher female
empowerment in Britain has retrogressed? If it is flawed logic that Britain has
regressed because after Mrs Thatcher's leadership the Conservative Party has
been led by males, then it is also flawed logic in the Zimbabwean discourse. In
America John Mccaine had Sarah Palin for a running mate. In the next election Mitt
Romney opted for Paul Ryan; a man. Why did no one bat an eyelid? Why is no one
calling this retrogressive? Because every woman who is worthy their mettle
would want to get into any top position on merit and not as an affirmative
action window dressing, dumping down. When a suitable female candidate comes along
to lead the party they will lead it. The same applies to Zanu PF. Merit should
trumps patronage.
Women are not fighting for favours from men.
They are fighting to be treated as equals. They are not fighting to be men.
They revel in their femininity. Men and women are biologically different. Their
anatomy is different and the chemicals (hormones) in their bodies are
different. However they are not beneath men. They are not intellectually
inferior to men too. They are equal to men. In a domestic set up there can be a
difference in roles. This is just division in labour according to different
core strengths and specialisation. There is nothing wrong with that. A man
cannot be forced to get pregnant because it is foolish. By the same token a
woman should not be challenged to do the same physically demanding tasks as a
men if that would impinge on her biology and therefore ability to be a mother.
Because some physical tasks do that.
This is where the mantra of different but
equal comes into play. They deserve to be treated as such. Because they are
biologically and physically different, they don't play in the same sport teams
as adults. But because their intellect is the same sit in the same class or job with men and trounce them because gender is
not a determinant of intellect. Only men with a deep seated lack of
self-confidence would use physical punishment to make a woman do what he wants.
Only a man with some very established insecurities and a sense of inadequacy
would use customary or religious reasons as an excuse to subjugate a woman.
This is even more pertinent in the back
drop of impeding total ban on corporal punishment for minors. If it is not
right to discipline a child by beating them how pertinent is it with another
adult? Who said tow adults who compose a family should discipline each other
anyway?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment