The Research and Advocacy Unit (RAU) and Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights (ZADHR) have released a report entitled “No Hiding Place: Politically Motivated Rape against Women in Zimbabwe.”  This report is accompanied by a DVD “What about us?” Both the report and the DVD focus on the experiences of women members of a voluntary network set up to provide support for female victims of politically motivated rape.

Read the report here

In her editorial for the first edition of BUWA, editor Alice Kanengoni describes a typical domestic scene: women in the kitchen preparing a meal, men in front of the television or at a table playing games. I was reminded of the funerals; weddings etc that I’ve attended where the men are either around the fire or in the house waiting for a meal, drinks, and the women are doing the work. Women themselves view their rightful places in society as being by the fire or the stove, cooking and serving.

As an adult woman, I wonder at my mother’s strength and energy in my childhood; she worked full time, just like my father did, her job was just as demanding as my fathers, and yet at the end of her work day she came home to cook, clean and help with homework. My father came home to his favourite chair, television, snacks dinner and a drink.

I remember whenever I was untidy or refused to cook, or did some other unwomanly thing she would start her reprimand with “musikana akanaka ano…” (a good girl does..). When I asked her why I had to be a good girl she would reply that it’s part of our traditions, how would I be married if I couldn’t keep house? My mother is a highly educated woman, smarter than anyone I know, and a strong willed, independent thinker.  But for her, who she is at work, and who she is at home are two different and very separate people.

In her article for BUWA, titled Contemporary African Feminism, Professor Patricia McFadden writes:

In very general terms, feminism as a radical thinking/ conceptual tradition has deliberately ruptured the boundaries of conventional, often reactionary knowledge production everywhere it has been practised, and has challenged conventional as an ideological practice, by arguing for a politics of transformation and of daily life.

She goes on to say:

Feminism is the rejection of and struggle against Patriarchy (as a system and set of structures and ideologies that privilege men and allot them various forms of power in all societies) and is also the celebration of freedom for women everywhere. As Stevi Jackson and Jackie Jones (1998) put it: ” Feminist theory seeks to analyse the conditions which shape women’s lives and to explore cultural understandings of what it means to be a woman.”

For many women in Africa, feminism is something that we practise outside our homes and our families. Our cultural understanding of womanhood is sometimes in direct conflict what we say in meetings about gender equity and social justice for women. Patriarchy is something we fight at work or in the streets.  At home not only do women accept it, they also seek to perpetuate it but granting privilege to their sons and insisting that their daughters become domesticated in the traditions of their mothers, grand mothers and great grand mothers. I think many African women, like my mother and even myself have struggled, or are struggling with the notions of being an African woman, a feminist and an African Feminist. We struggle to translate an academic concept into reality in our own lives, and often end up living two lives in compromise.

During the weekend my single girlfriends and I were discussing the perils of dating in Zimbabwe. One girlfriend said that married men propositioned her regularly at work. Others had regular girlfriends on the side. We were shocked. What happened to love and the sanctity of marriage?

Of course some men will argue that this is Africa and monogamy is a European construct, that our culture permits polygamy, that women out number men, and their millions of years old biological imperative, that should have become extinct with the Neanderthals, to populate the earth is difficult to ignore. The religious might even quote God’s “Go forth and multiply”, and who can argue with God?

Surfing the Internet a few days ago I came across a dating forum on classifieds.co.zw. Among the men and women, whose pain and loneliness was palpable in the text of their personal ads, were a few married but available men:

Married but willing to explore: am married but would want to spice my life a bit with someone similar probably share experiences and passion but just a discreet relationship no strings attached (nsa)

Lets have fun NSA period! :… I am a funny dude who loves older open minded NSA ladies, who are funny to hang out and go out with …. email or call me on weekends only

With arrogance and assumed impunity both of these have posted their names, phone numbers and even pictures. They are well educated. One even works in development, where one would assume he should be more enlightened than the average man.

Love is hard, sex is easy. But at a time when HIV/AIDS exists because no one thinks it can happen to them isn’t a no strings attached non-relationship risking too much? It’s not just men who should be held responsible its women too. It is impossible to cheat without a willing partner. The men, who propositioned my friend, knew she knew they were married. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time they had thought to have a little fun with the pretty young thing in the office, and by extension experience has taught them that it doesn’t matter, pretty young things don’t care whether they are married or not.

When I first saw the theme announcement for this year’s commemorations of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence, I had to re-read the statement a few times until my disbelief finally subsided.

In case you have not come across it, the 2010 theme reads Structures of Violence: Defining the Intersections of Militarism and Violence Against Women.

I immediately had problems with this theme for a variety of reasons, some of which include that it is too verbose, too complicated and far too philosophical. My concerns were exacerbated when I had a look through the campaign’s official website for elaboration on the theme.

The following is what it states:

“… our working definition outlines militarism as an ideology that creates a culture of fear and supports the use of violence, aggression, or military interventions for settling disputes and enforcing economic and political interests. It is a psychology that often has grave consequences for the true safety and security of women and of society as a whole. Militarism is a distinctive way of looking at the world; it influences how we see our neighbours [sic], our families, our public life, and other people in the world.”

In academic jargon terms, I have absolutely no issue with this statement. In fact, I find it a very eloquent and mentally stimulating way of theorising a concept that could be defined far more succinctly and clearly.

But sadly, and more importantly, for many women; women for whom domestic violence is not just an academic or intellectual concept; such ‘superior’ eloquence will surely fail to meet them at their point of need.

How do such complex concepts translate into local parlance and meaning? Would it be so ineffective if we stated the simple and obvious, that domestic violence is bad and that it needs to be stopped?

You might argue that the semantics don’t really matter. After all, at country level, these international themes are often adapted to suit the environment and therefore merely serve as a guide.

But I disagree.

Be rest assured that worldwide, organisations have set aside budgets to produce banners, T-shirts, posters, stickers, caps and other memorabilia featuring this theme – all of which illiterate and semi-literate women are going to be photographed in, smiling and parading proudly to show that indeed, they were actively involved in the implementation of this year’s theme and campaign.

And I find that somewhat demeaning, condescending even.

Recently, academics and advocates in the field of gender and development have argued against the prevailing global discourse which reduces gender issues to events-driven, hollow battle cries based on generalisations and stereotypes. While such reductionism has served a purpose, bringing gender issues to the fore in a world still predominantly patriarchal and disinterested, it has also been influential in fragmenting the women’s movement and widening the rifts among women across social, cultural, political and economic divides.

And in so doing, the movement has created hierarchies of influence, whereby those with the resources to set agendas dictate the issues, and their importance, to the rest.  Ironically, the big bad wolf that the women’s movement is collectively trying to overpower is a hierarchy (patriarchy) that it too is perpetuating.

My argument is not against globalisation and regionalisation of gender policy, per se.
Our world is a global community. Every day we communicate, trade and advocate across time zones and continents. In short, we lead globalised lives in which our first thought of our neighbour is not necessarily of the person who lives across the fence or road.

Globalising issues has helped to amplify them, thereby highlighting the direst situations and seeking out social justice for those who suffer most because of them. A critical global mass led to the wave of national and international commitment to address poverty, power, health and wealth – through a gendered lens – as per the specific actions articulated in the 1995 Beijing Conference Declaration and Platform for Action.

More recently, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) have spelt out specific targets in the areas of improving maternal health, achieving gender parity as well as reversing the rampancy of HIV infection globally. And in line with trying to achieve these ambitious targets by 2015, developing nations have been capacitated to improve monitoring, evaluation, reporting and resource tracking on the MDG indicators – something that also assists national actors in contextualising their problems.

Global goals can be good. And in the donor-dependent southern hemisphere of the world, progress towards achieving these plays a significant role in ensuring extended official development assistance (ODA).  As William Easterly, author of The White Man’s Burden succinctly states,” In any human endeavor [sic], the people paying the bills are the ones to keep happy.”

But there are demerits to such approaches, many of which relate to the first scenario that I began this analysis with. Globalising, and even regionalising, issues presupposes uniformity of agency and conditions across regions of the world. For instance, the MDG goal of halving 1990 levels of poverty by 2025 does not take into consideration that in some developing nations (for example the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe), levels of measurable poverty are actually continuing to rise such that channelling efforts towards reaching 50% of 1990 poverty levels might miss the point of stabilising overall poverty levels first.

Also, quantitative measures – like guaranteeing equal proportions of girls and boys in school– still do not address the core issues of qualitative experience of education. A girl who daily arrives to class hours late or falls asleep throughout lessons because she has been up all night completing household chores can still very reasonably be justified as attending school. But her benefits from this experience would certainly be debatable.

Globalised actions forget that cultural, social, economic and geopolitical factors are key to defining and addressing development issues. They disregard the fact that ‘third world’ people do not speak the same language, live in the same environment or appreciate development in the same ways. They forget the faces behind the figures, the underlying issues that impede progress.

Furthermore, national political commitment to these goals varies vastly. Putting ink to paper means nothing when not accompanied by real efforts towards implementation.  Should we, for instance take Zimbabwe’s ratification of the SADC Gender and Development Protocol quite so seriously when the nation has recorded some of the worst human rights violations in the recent past? Should we really believe that by 2015, Zimbabwe’s government shall have provided universal access to post exposure prophylaxis and other rape-related services when there is only one resource-limited adult rape clinic serving the whole of the capital city, Harare, and its neighbouring areas? Where are the plans that spell out how this rhetoric will be converted into reality?

There are many things that we could be doing better. For one, we could stop trying to superimpose ideals onto the world as if it were an undifferentiated mass of human beings.

In-country, multi-sectoral, representative and accountable umbrella bodies or coalitions are always better placed to identify areas for advocacy, funding and resource allocation than external agents. Working with a harmonised national framework, monitoring and evaluation of progress becomes more coordinated, robust and sustainable. The UNAIDS ‘Three Ones’ principle for an effective national response to HIV and AIDS – one national coordinating body working to implement one national action framework to be reviewed through one agreed monitoring and evaluation system – is one that I believe works efficiently when planned and implemented well as it encourages cost-sharing and greater reach and representativeness of local knowledge.

Dependency of the periphery (the developed world) on the core (the developed world) to provide policy guidance does not encourage sustainability. Programmes end and unfulfilled objectives are put aside as new ‘sexier’ interventions are introduced as the best way to do things.

Sustainability can only be guaranteed if the people identify their own needs, understand what needs to be done and work towards achieving it.

But most importantly, we have to realise that when talk gender and development, we are talking about human beings. Not theoretical or hypothetical beings, but real women and men for whom our efforts are often the difference between life and death. Let’s talk to each other, not at one another and bring the discourse out of the clouds and back down to the ground.

“Creating DMZs – Everyone’s Responsibility”

The Book Café, Fife Ave Mall (upstairs)
Thursday 25 November, 2010 – 5.30-7pm

Speakers: Jona Gokova (Crisis Coalition), Netty Musanhu (Musasa Project), 3rd Speaker (TBC) and Chaired by Sally Dura

This year marks the 20th 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign, and with this important landmark, The Book Café Gender Forum takes cognizance of the struggles all around the world to fight all forms of violence.  The 2010 campaign theme is Structures of Violence: Defining the Intersections of Militarism and Violence Against Women.

How is this relevant to present day Zimbabwe?  It is important to note that Zimbabwe is not exempt from militarism, she is emerging from periods of gross human rights violations especially those that occurred in 2008 during the election campaign period as well as during the elections.

“To embrace militarism is to presume that everyone has enemies and that violence is an effective way to solve problems. To leave militaristic ways of thinking unchallenged is to leave certain forms of masculinities privileged, to leave global hierarchies of power firmly in place, to grant impunity to wartime perpetrators of violence against women.”

Recently there were spurts of violence during constitution outreach meetings and soon in 2011 Zimbabwe is expected to go through the electoral process again.  This comes too soon for a nation that is trying to heal from recent wounds.  How can men and women help create safe and tolerant communities let alone be safe whilst at it in a politically volatile situation?

The Book Café Gender Forum invites you to its one-year anniversary as well as engage in the discussion under the topic “Creating DMZs (demilitarised zones) – Everyone’s Responsibility.” Started in November, 2009 by Pamberi Trust an arts development organization based at The Book Café in Harare the forum is aimed at contributing to initiatives of advancing gender equality and promoting women’s rights in Zimbabwe.

The Gender Forum has successfully managed to attract attendance from a varied cross section of the Harare’s population.  This is a monthly discussion, targeting human rights activists, members of civic society, women artists and members of the general public.

The discussion is FREE and all are welcome.

Having so bollocked the Zimbabwe International Film Festival for their delays in releasing their 2010 festival programme earlier this year, I figured I’d better jump to when I saw the Women Filmmakers of Zimbabwe send through the catalogue for this year’s International Images Film Festival for Women.

The theme for this year is Women of Decision, and films are on in Harare from 19-27 November, and Bulawayo on 1&2 December.

Have a look at the programme here and make a plan to get inspired.