Recently I heard a polished and thoughtful presentation about concurrent heterosexual sexual partnerships given by a PSI research officer. From what I understood, PSI completed a series of interviews and focus group discussions to delve into findings from a 2006 survey indicating that in Zimbabwe 33% of men and 29% of women have more than one regular sexual partner . A few things during the presentation commanded my attention.

First, the title was precise. Particularly inclusion of heterosexual in the title seemed precision that’s rare in Zimbabwe, yet important. I’m used to this specificity; I expect researchers to state what type of relationships they are referencing – same sex or opposite sex. I expect this more in terms of clarity and less in terms of an advocacy statement. But in Zimbabwe, it’s a bit more of a statement. Inclusion of heterosexual in a title is an important (tacit) acknowledgement that same sex sexual relationships exist in Zimbabwe.

Second, the attention to detail. And on the topic of sex, no less! One problem with the phrase Concurrent Sexual Partnerships (CSPs) is that it’s evasive, allows dancing around the heart of the matter. There exists vagueness, as if additional sexual partners are out there in the ether. Cast as misbehaving others, temptresses and tempters seen as not real. Truth be told, there’s no ether. Men and women have sex outside marriage with real people (33% of the men do it and 29% of the women). PSI’s research explores this ether. Who exactly do husbands and wives have sex with? What do husbands and wives say about these relationships? Such an exploration is not just about withholding moral judgment. It’s about looking at the detail and PSI’s research cleverly does this. The research examines Male-Led CSPs, such as: 1) wife + commercial sex worker; 2) wife + small house; 3) wife + widowed/divorced; and 4) wife + young girl. As well as Female-Led CSPs, such as: 1) husband + garden boy; 2) husband + boyfriend; and 3) husband + sugar daddy.

As the presenter elaborated on Male-Led CSPs, the (female) panelists listened. As did the audience (nearly all women). When the (male) presenter spoke about Female-Led CSPs things changed. There was scepticism and ruffled feathers in the air. As if there was a giant roar from the largely female crowd: No! You must know that it’s only men who have sex outside marriage. But no worries. Mr. Wellington Mushayi was a cool cucumber. Let his data speak. These are the people men have sex with outside marriage (33% of all men do it). These are the people women have sex with outside marriage (29% of all women do it). No moral judgment, only facts and details because this data importantly looks equally at why men and women make the choices they do. Understanding these choices is a crucial element in, among other things, working to reduce sexually-transmitted infections and improving sexual health.

Finally, a comment from a man in the audience caught my attention. Because it was one of the most ridiculous comments I’ve heard. He said: Men’s behavior is never abnormal except in the presence of women. What the H-E-double toothpicks is that about!? As if it’s the fault of women, who/what men choose to pursue and do. Ok maybe I could go with his point in the sense that men face pressure to spread their semen and sex has transactional aspects. But I don’t think a meaningful path to lessen these dynamics is about blame, particularly blame which polarizes. Seems to me it’s a self-reflective path. A path to instill confidence to understand and think responsibly about one sexual relationship. And/or multiple sexual relationships. Nothing wrong with having them, just make sure it’s mutual, that the playing field is level, and it’s what you want.

It was an excellent presentation. The research methodology aptly treats men and women equally. And the resulting data will be an important part of developing honest understandings concerning sexual relationships in Zimbabwe. What dynamics surround sex. What people feel and experience. And what this all means.

Along with roughly 500 others, I attended the SAfAIDS/ZAN meeting at the Harare International Conference Centre (HICC). The regional meeting provided feedback form the International AIDS Conference held in Mexico in August 2008. In addition to 14 plenary speakers and a poster exhibition at HICC, there were six thematic breakaway sessions (children; women and gender; clinical research; PLHIV; youth; faith-based responses; workplace programmes). Across the breakaway sessions, 23 individual presentations were on the agenda, and as I understand it, each was a repeat performance of a presentation given in Mexico. I’m not sure what to make of the notion that at least 23 Zimbabweans were in Mexico – Is that excessive? Is that insufficient? I don’t know.

In any event, I attended the women and gender session and was intrigued by a comment regarding a non-Zimbabwean paper presented in Mexico which compared adult HIV prevalence data with gender gap data. Intrigued by what comparing the data reveals, and perhaps more intrigued by the way the comment seemed to encourage the audience to feel threatened by the comparison. Read more

With the weather heating up and given the amount I walk, my consumption of Mr. Freeze-Its has increased dramatically. There’s nothing like frozen flavored ice chips to combat the sun’s rays. I’ll need to execute taste-testing research, although I’m pretty sure I like the purple ones best. No research is needed to say any brand other than Mr. Freeze-It pales in comparison. Finding the tasty ice-pops for sale is sometimes a challenge. It’s not like vendors sit in the sun for hours with this particular product. I hope the rumor that vendors store them in the morgue is not true. The other day I was in a desperate search for a Mr. Freeze-It. I saw lots of people eating them and without thinking, I found myself asking anyone and everyone with one in their hand if they were selling. In part, it was the heat and my desperation affecting my brain and preventing me from looking for an actual vendor. But also, it made me realize how I’ve become accustomed to thinking that pretty much anyone and everyone in Zimbabwe is selling something. The term actual vendor has come to be expansively defined.

I’ve been wondering if vendors will begin selling imported products in US$ and local products in ZWD. Like the Spar stores now do. I’ll admit I felt relieved when I went in Spar, looked at a tin of tuna for US$2.10, and knew exactly what it costs. I didn’t have to do math. I didn’t have to remember the rate at which I last changed money. I didn’t have to wonder if the price just increased or if by chance, the store had forgotten to increase the price making it a good deal. That said, I find the mix of US$ and ZWD products unsettling. It seems the US$ shopper can most readily do three things: 1) clean their house and wash their clothes; 2) season food with chutney sauce; and 3) eat many flavors of Simba chips and Doritos chips. The first two are not such bad things. It’s that third one that I find depressing.

I do like chips. But I don’t like that it’s availability in US$ which makes me like and buy them more. And apparently I’m not alone in US$-driven love of chips. I was in Spar Saturday morning, one aisle was all chips, and everyone’s basket had chips. I went back to the Spar later that day and the queue was long. Everyone was buying chips. I went back to the Spar the next day and the chip aisle was like most aisles in Zimbabwe – empty. Time will tell if selective US$ sales helps or hurts the economy. I’m no economist, but somehow it seems contradictory to be phasing in US$ and suspending bank transfers through RTGS (unless it’s same-bank RTGSing). Then again, the two fiscal policy moves might work themselves out in similar ways. People will buy whatever is for sale in US$. Even chips they know they don’t really need or want. Chips will boost the economy. Just as people will chip away at the RTGS suspension. Say you need a bill paid, but don’t have an account at the bank where the payment needs to go. Not to worry. Someone who has an account at the bank will be selling the service to RTGS for you. Either that or open an additional bank account.

A recent CNN Opinion Poll indicates US Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin is well supported.  Among American men, 63% have a favorable opinion and among women, the figure is 53%.  Very scary, I think, the level of support for this mooseburger-eating, right wing fanatic, governor of a small, small state who has zero foreign policy experience.  Maybe it’s due to the side of the fence I’m on, but it seems the 47% of women who oppose Palin are a whole lot more vocal.  Gloria Steinem and Eve Ensler have both written thoughtful and detailed analyses of all that’s wrong with Palin.  Opposition is strong in cyberspace.  And I would add that this is happening in interesting and innovative ways. Five different people have forwarded me a letter written by Wasilla, Alaska resident Anne Kilkenny who knows Palin.  Despite her request not to do this, Kilkenny’s letter has made its way onto 100s of blogs. One even looks like an official US government-sponsored blog. I suspect it’s not official since the ad currently running reads:  How To Write A Sex Scene.  A Romance Author Gives A Peak At How She Does It.  Four different people have forwarded me an email from a couple of New Yorkers who encourage readers to send their views to womensaynopalin@gmail.com .  So far, 140,000 women have expressed their views.

One important element central to all of this commentary around Palin is similar to a set of arguments Alex Magaisa made in his article entitled:  Politics and prejudice: plight of Zimbabwean women.  It happens in various ways and to different degrees of unjust, unscrupulous, and sadistic objectification.  But still, world over women in politics tend to be viewed as just that.  Women in politics.  As opposed to non-sexed, non-gendered politicians involved in public service because they believe in their leadership qualities, and believe they have solid ideas.  It’s not a perfect parallel to look at female politicians in the US in comparison to female Zimbabwean politicians.  But, in a way, it’s like looking at two sides of a coin.  And both sides are bunk.

John McCain picked Sara Palin because he believes that any old woman will do.  As long as it’s a she, she is what will win him votes.  The situation in Zimbabwe, as Magaisa articulates, is such that female politicians signal more space for men to cast and further embed into the fabric of society objectifying eyes.  In paraphrasing Magaisa:  More space for men to ridicule women, not for their ideas, but about their private lives.  More space for men to describe in precise detail their wild imaginations or fantasies about a woman’s reproductive organs and how she uses them, etc.  I mean what kind of person would look at pictures of Grace Kwinjeh after she was beaten and come up with comments about “what they could ‘do’ with a woman endowed with her features, if given the chance.”

Anne Kilkenny made the important point that democracies require being able to distinguish between disliking and disagreeing.  She even went so far as to say:  I like Sarah Palin. I disagree with her.  Personally, I can’t go quite that far.  I both disagree with and dislike John McCain and Sarah Palin.  And more so, the politics and prejudices Magaisa describes are beyond just disagreeing.  All one can do is dislike.  And fight for change.

Zimbabwe is a nation of beef.  People produce it and people love to eat it.  Perhaps you could say that beef is part of a Zimbabweans identity.  But the tides changed.  At Spar they sell­ not beef­ but beef fat.  Not a speck of meat included, just the fat.  And for the astronomical price of ZWD240,000 per kg.

Zimbabwe is a nation where liberation war credentials have long been considered essential in legitimizing a politician, part of their identity.  One of the many places this political ethos has been enshrined is through use of comrade in front of politician’s names.  Perhaps a new era is on the horizon. It will be interesting to see if the new government yields Prime Minister Tsvangirai or Comrade Tsvangirai.

Zimbabwe is a nation whose literature has centered on the liberation war.  However, now it’s become harder to see this theme or any singular theme across Zimbabwean literature.  Thus, an identity crisis and the question: What are current works collectively trying to say and do?  It’s not necessarily a bad thing, a literary identity crisis.  In fact, topically wide-ranging literature emerging out of one nation is a sign of vibrancy and rich intellectual engagement.

Zimbabwe is a nation in which, not that long ago, donor funding was shifting.  Decreasing was a dependency identity; things were moving away from handing out of basic goods and services.  Increasing were activities and longer term planning to analyze and address the underlying issues driving need.  Focus was increasingly and effectively the bigger picture questions. These days waned as recent advocacy around lifting the ban on humanitarian aid made painfully apparent how dependent the nation has become on donor programmes just to meet basic needs.  As important as meeting basic needs will continue to be, equally as important is rejuvenating mindsets toward the bigger picture once again.

Zimbabwe is a nation waiting to see what directions the new government will go.  Will it be a peaceful process allowing people to return to their beloved beef?  Or will it be continued peddling of beef fat?  I’m going to present the optimist stance.  The challenges of how to get the beef (not the fat) are many and complex. Many of which revolve around (corruption-free) economic recovery.  At the same time, it seems an identity crisis is in the air.  It’s an awful lot, a real challenge for people to let go of past pains and broken promises, to trust and believe that the queues, shortages, black market, etc. culminating in the identity of resourceful survivor might be on its way out.  But it seems part of ushering in change involves embracing the pending identity shift.  To continue the fight and stand poised for beef­–literally and in the form of partaking in vibrancy and rich intellectual engagements, which, when not suppressed and repressed, are at the core of Zimbabwe as a nation.

I’ve never aspired to be a politician. I’m too sensitive, couldn’t handle large numbers of people voting against me and polls tallying whether or not the people like me. I don’t have the stamina for shady systemic webs of bureaucracy and patronage. I know very little about fighting an unjust war or how to name commissions and operations. Recent efforts to keep up with pressing political on-goings such as, the opening of Parliament in Zimbabwe and Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska/Republican Vice Presidential candidate, have made me rethink what makes one suited for politics. I’m thinking it all has to do with having the appropriate office décor.

It wouldn’t be so bad as Speaker of Zimbabwean Parliament because the big white chair the speaker sits in looks quite comfortable. But, I’d be afraid to put my head back out of fear that the tips of the ivory horns would gouge the back of my skull and the resulting blood would stain the nice white chair. The clear glass podium would stress me out; all of Parliament could see if my socks had a hole or if they were mismatched.

I most certainly couldn’t be Governor of Alaska/Republican Vice Presidential Candidate. I’ve never shot a bear three times the size of me, or any bear for that matter. I’ve never even shot a gun nor would I ever think of shooting a gun, except the kind that squirts water. And I’d prefer to have a blanket draped over the back of my couch not a bear. In my book, king crabs ought to be either a meal or left alone in the sea. I don’t understand a king crab as a paper weight on a coffee table.

What is it with politicians and their grandiose office décor? Isn’t it enough their power hungry mindsets? Do they really need to exude and flaunt that power through their office décor? Just as more politicians who can cry and show compassion are needed world over, I think it would be nice to have politicians who use chairs, blankets, and paper weights more in tune with the realities of everyday people.