Women have been playing a critical role in many spheres of life. Women are known to be supportive hence the saying “for every successful man there is woman behind”. Women have been playing an influential role from Eve to Delilah, from Jezebel to Lady Macbeth, from Mary the mother of Jesus to our mothers, wives and sisters who play such a role in their families, churches, work contexts and society at large.
The month of August marks the annual celebration of Women’s month all thanks to The Class of 1956 who gathered their courage and marched to The Union Buildings. Theirs was a march that produced fruits. Their march displayed the power of positive unity. August 2017 exists in a context full of challenges which women confront daily. It would be interesting to observe how Helen Joseph, Helen Suzman Lilian Ngoyi and their fellow activists would deal with the challenges faced by women in 2017.
As I reflect on the victory of the class of 1956, I invariably wonder if it is possible to celebrate women without talking about men. For instance, if we were to argue that women are powerful, caring, loving, and courageous and strong, does this assertion imply that men are not in possession of these attributes? It seems to me that any discourse on women and men is located on the extreme ends of a continuum. Is not possible that men can be caring, loving, and empathetic? Are men and women genetically and psychologically different?
I am cautious about the words I use when I engage in this kind of discourses. I hold that words used in discourses create a social reality. When we argue that men should ‘protect’ women, by inference we imply that women are vulnerable. When we argue that ‘women are vulnerable’ by inference we imply that men are abusive and/or violent.
When we argue that women are fragile by inference we give men power. The location of abuse, victimisation and violence is housed in the society in which we live. What I find comforting is that society does not create itself. It is created by its inhabitants.
Societal ills are complex. There are interventions that create or even compound the already complex situation. For instance, in an attempt to curb divorce, we have assertions such as “lebitla la mosadi ke bohadi” implying that a woman should endure marriage until death.
The deeper meaning of this assertion is that once a woman is married she must never return home even if her marital circumstances so dictate. Of course, the assertion should not be taken literally; the moral of the assertion is to discourage divorce. I think it is assertions such as these that predispose women to marital abuse.
It is plausible to conclude that some husbands take advantage of this philosophy to abuse their wives. I think we have co-created a society that has room for abuse. With the exception of clinical psychopaths, I think there is no man who is born an abuser.
Let us think solutions lest we drown in the sea of problematisation. Human beings are the creators of their own problems and therefore the solution to many societal ills is housed in the society. We should remain hopeful that together we could create a society free from violence against women.
Part of the solution lies in our courage to reflect on our African philosophy towards women. Thus, how and what is our thinking about women in an African context? Does patriarchy create an abusive culture? Can we re-write our patriarchal system? What messages are imparted in the minds of young boys at initiation schools? Can we create a system in our community psychology that sees women and men as equal? Is it acceptable in an African philosophy to consider women as equal to men? These are reflective questions that require of us to identify and dispel systems of thought that create and perpetuate violence against women.
It is commonly believed that “charity begins at home”. Supposing that the assertion holds any substance, we can assert that the solution to many societal ills begins at home. If we are serious about winning the scourge against gender-based violence, parents have a big role to play.
Again, I would like to underscore the power of discourse. Family discourses should create a context in which gender-biased and gender-based topics are handled with the greatest sensitivity and caution.
Family discourses should promote and inculcate gender-free values. Fathers should guard against the use of words that portray girls as weak, fragile, vulnerable and emotional. Thus, words that carry a ‘gender-value’ must be avoided.
Allocation of chores should be carried out in a manner that has no perception of gender preference. Boys should be encouraged to cook, clean and wash dishes. Boys should be encouraged to respect girls for ‘who they are’- as human beings, not as females. Parents should create a safe space in which girls can be vocal about their opinions. Assertiveness should be inculcated at home. The fight against violence against women starts at an early age.
The Class of 1956 were confronted with a practical challenge. Their march to The Union Buildings left an indelible mark. The Class of 2017 is faced with a more multi-layered and complex challenge which cannot be solved by a march to The Union Buildings. Let us face the truth, marching to The Union Buildings will not solve every societal ill.
