The reason women fight over men is simple – lack.

To many women, a single man can represent a roof over their head, food in their belly, clothes on their back and most importantly – a pride in their bearing.

And quite frankly, I don’t know of many people who wouldn’t fight to protect an “investment” that guarantees them most of life’s basic necessities.

I know that I would fight anyone who tried to take my shelter away, grab my food from me and snatch the sweet out of my mouth.

I would fight anyone who made the mistake of trying to leave me nude by pulling the clothes off my back or even worse, expose me to public ridicule by making me an object of pity.

I would fight any one.

The problem though is not that we want to fight for these things or indeed that we desire to have and keep them.

The problem is that not many of us (women) exert ourselves to pursuing these things for our benefit because we have been raised in a society where having a man equates to having all of the above – shelter, food, clothing and “respectability”.

So women fight other women because they fear to remain homeless, hungry, naked and ‘ashamed’.

I know many women who fight to have shelter, to have food, to have clothing by working damn hard to earn those things and whose sense of purpose gives them all the dignity they require – these are the empowered women; clawing their way to the top; understanding that they can succeed on their own.

I know many women; and I am one of them, who don’t summarize other human beings (read men) into shelter, food, clothes and status.

I find it irksome when women who have the potential to accomplish whatever they want in life opt to take a “short cut” by just getting a man to provide all the things they need and because they have chosen this dependency they make themselves vulnerable to abuse from their benefactor (read man).

Not only that, they find themselves obsessed with chasing off other women who will have had the same idea as they did, which is, “Let me find a man to take care of me.”

It seems clever, especially to the young 24 year old involved with a married older man; because she gets what she wants faster and easier than her age-mates who may make the sensible choice of just working hard and slowly attaining the things they wish to have.

Sweat or tears.

Many women prefer to pay through tears; they prefer life’s billing system to charge them through tears of pain, suffering, abuse, rejection and misery as long as they get to drive around in flashy cars they don’t own, live in houses on whose title deeds their names don’t appear; eat food their money didn’t pay for and wear clothes they didn’t lose a cent to buy.

But men are raised differently; they are raised to expect life’s billing system to charge them in the currency called sweat; they sweat to work, to achieve because they have been told that they have to expect to “keep” someone else, to provide a shelter, food, clothing and ‘protection’ to a woman – they can even marry her so that in return she’ll wash, cook, clean and have babies.

Seems like a reasonable arrangement, right?

Well I don’t think so, I think it is unfair to expect another adult who happens to be male to carry the weight of responsibility for another adult who happens to be female by giving him the sole obligation to sweat all life-long while the role of the woman could just be to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

It seems to be such a parasitic arrangement to me.

One way or the other, we’re gonna pay – women need to start deciding whether they want to keep settling life’s bills through tears because as long as the culture of looking for a man to “take care” of you remains, violence against women will remain a vicious cycle.

This level of one-sided dependence is unhealthy, parasitic and creates a fertile environment for women to be abused and to resort to violence when they feel their relationships are being threatened by other women.

So women fight over men because it is matter of survival for them; it is a matter of lack, of defending a relationship that guarantees the basics they desperately need – shelter, food, clothing (and because of society’s skewed patriarchal thinking) some semblance of human dignity – but this “dignity” aspect is fodder for another article.

I know of some men who abuse women and tell them “you’re nothing without me” – the sad reality is; many women truly HAVE nothing unless a man grants it to them.

Parting shot: Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds (Marcus Garvey)

This article is part of series written ahead of and in cognizance of the 16 Days of Activism against gender-based violence

The campaign by the HIV/AIDS community promoting abstinence and correct and consistent condom use has seen some success, in encouraging condom usage at least, but not so much with abstinence.

In a report published by the Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine, Alan Whiteside of the Health Economics and HIV/AIDS Research Division of the University of Kwazulu Natal is trying to get HIV/AIDS advocacy groups to start talking about this and other innovative strategies. Whiteside argues

that a national “safe sex/no sex month” could help reduce the spread of HIV by skipping the period immediately after an individual acquires the virus when they are most infectious.

But given the successes and failures of present campaigns, how effective would this be? We already know that negotiating condom usage is already difficult for women in heterosexual relationships. And with the acknowledged phenomenon of multiple concurrent sexual partnerships, it may be that if one partner is not sexually available there will be another who is. It is difficult to imagine a man with a mistress, a wife and a girlfriend abstaining from sex. But what about the practicalities for sex workers whose incomes depend on how often they have sex?

In the report Whiteside referred to religious communities such as Muslims and the Marange Apostolic Sect who were found to refrain from sex during Ramadan and Passover respectively. He acknowledges that converting to a religion is not a reasonable public health strategy, but argues that these insights raise the possibility of a campaign.

The problem with any campaign and particularly this one is community buy-in. For Southern Africans, avoiding the risk of HIV infection, as evidenced by some of the highest incidence and prevalence rates in the world, is not inducement enough. With advances in medicine, and increased availability of cheap generic drugs, HIV is no longer a death sentence. More than that, the issue of HIV incidence is compounded by social issues, which won’t go away for a month.

Given all these issues, is it even practical to spend time and money campaigning for a safe sex/no sex month?

The question of the treatment of pregnant schoolgirls, and expectant young fathers, in schools in Zimbabwe raised a great deal of discussion earlier this year.

In South Africa, it seems, this is also an issue, as the Mail & Guardian pointed out in Pregnancy unWelkom. There, the Human Rights Commission stepped in, protesting that Welkom High School’s treatment of a grade nine pupil, suspended because she was pregnant, was a violation of her rights to dignity, privacy and education, among others.

Corruption has been a major setback to development in Zimbabwe. Corruption can be done either by men or by women and corruption is now everywhere in our country whether in high offices or on the streets. People now take corruption as a short cut to get a service, product or even an opportunity to earn a living. Corruption cuts across race, class, religion and sex.

The Sunday Mail of 31 of October 2010 featured a story titled  “Rushwaya: Wrong place at the right time” by Hellen Venganai, a gender development analyst. The author of the story suggested that the former Zimbabwe Football Association CEO was recently relieved of her duties because of her gender in a male dominated environment.

Before she was appointed ZIFA CEO, Henrietta Rushwaya was the co-ordinator for the national soccer team fundraising committee, and during that period she did a splendid job mobilising funds at a time when the men’s senior soccer team was having financial problems. Her break through came when she was appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer at ZIFA. With a success record in fundraising at hand many people were happy to have Henrietta take up the position not because she is woman but because of her credentials. When the corruption scandal exploded at ZIFA I believe we have read about influential people who are in the ZIFA board also being implicated in the scandal.

The only problem I have over Mrs Rushwaya’s sacking is that instead of firing just one person and making a headline story out of it, the whole ZIFA body should just do the nation a favour and leave, so that sanity can prevail in our lovely game of soccer in this country. It takes more than one person for corruption to take place, so all those who took part in the corruption scandal should face the full wrath of the law. Currently the ZIFA executive is lined up with faces that also took part in the corruption scandal but they still have their jobs.

I am not the one to judge whether Rushwaya is guilty or not.  In Zimbabwe we are campaigning for equal representation so that the field of play can be the same for both women and men. So in order to set a good example lets not condone corrupt activities even if women do them. Some theories argue that women are less corrupt than men because they care about their image more than men do. Women pay attention to what others think about them, but men think about how powerful others perceive them to be. These theories may be true or not true. No literature supports the idea that women are less corrupt than men. Let’s learn to call a spade a spade and deal with corruption accordingly.  Otherwise we will end up with plenty of cases involving women giving the same reason Hellen Venganai is trying to come up with of saying that  “Rushwaya was implicated because she was working in a male dominated environment”.

The Southern African Young Women’s Festival ran between 25 and 28 October. Young women were brought together to share experiences, energise each other and celebrate their youth and the potential they have to advocate for social justice in their respective communities. The Festival was a platform to equip young women with the practical skills they need for effective advocacy for women’s rights and included many exciting activities including the launching of the 16 Days national campaigns of activism. The Festival was supported by OSISA.

Probably the most conspicuous element of the sex, sexuality and HIV/AIDS session held on the third-day session of the SAYWF was the energy and enthusiasm of the young-women, aged between 18 and 30 years. The discussions followed a talk-show format, where young women from all over Southern Africa uninhibitedly shared, celebrated and sang their experiences and insight, occasionally punctuating discussions with their pro-sister catchphrase “Sister, sister. …Sister!”

The freedom and openness of expression was exactly the result the organisers of the SAYWF wanted to achieve. The author, activist and moderator of this conversation, Luta Shaba pointed out that the spaces where young women can speak freely on issues of sex, sexuality and HIV/AIDS have become limited. These spaces either no longer exist or have become sanitised and usurped by other agendas. The space that SAYWF created for self-expression was fully appreciated by the sisters gathered together.

In general the discussions demonstrated that situations and challenges surrounding sex, sexuality and HIV/AIDS are more alike than dissimilar for young women in the region.

Societies still widely disapprove of premarital sex and the subject of sex itself is even considered taboo. Openly discussing sex in public is frowned upon whilst young women who engage in such talk are judged as badly behaved or promiscuous.

In addition, societies expect that young women’s knowledge of sex be about using the information to please the man in their life (or more precisely, their husbands). For young women who talk about sex in their work, it is difficult to find the appropriate language or terminology in the vernacular. It is tough to convey their messages without coming across as lewd. The discussion on why young women have sex showed that economic exchange is a common reason, whether as prostitution or simple survival. Anny Modi from the Democratic Republic of Congo explained that young women in the DRC are even willing to have unprotected sex with an HIV positive man, in order to earn more money, knowing full-well the man’s status.

Read more and listen to audio from the festival here

The Women in Politics Support Unit (WiPSU) also sent us this open letter to the editor of The Standard, objecting to their recent article DPM Khupe dispels pregnancy rumours.

I agree entirely that The Standard needs to be challenged on their journalistic priorities on this article. Who decdied that an article that leads like this was newsworthy:

Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe is reported to be expecting her fourth child, though she denied the reports saying she was not in a position to have a baby. Khupe has been spotted with a hugely visible bulge, prompting speculation that she is pregnant.

But is some of this critique also stemming from a loyalty to or softness for Khupe in particular? Where are the similar critiques of the sensationalistic journalism and misogynistic stereotyping that has characterised, for example, recent rumours of an affair between Grace Mugabe and Gideon Gono?

Read the letter to the editor below:

Dear Editor in Chief

Zimbabwe is a signatory to the AU and Un instruments that speak gender equality and more recently the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development. This protocol urges member states to take measures to discourage the media from reinforcing gender oppression and stereotypes as well as degrading or exploiting women especially in areas of entertainment and advertising and undermining their role and position in society. It is our belief that media houses, especially those that claim to be independent and progressive, like the Standard, reflect these values and principles in their publications and conduct.

We at Women in Politics Support Unit are angered at the blatant undermining and sexualization of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Zimbabwe Honorable Thokozani Khupe that was exhibited by the Standard newspaper. The article that was given front page prominence in the Standard newspaper of 24 to 30 October 2010 was sexist and demeaning to the public stature of a whole Deputy Prime Minister.

It is with great concern that we question the role of media in reinforcing stereotypes that continue to be used to oppress women. The reproductive role of a man no matter his political prominence has never been front page news. Yet we see the pregnancy or lack thereof of the Deputy Prime Minister being topical at a time when she is doing great work for and on behalf of the women of Zimbabwe in her portfolio as Deputy Prime Minister of this country, UN Ambassador on the Global Aids Network and as a member of her political party. She has a recently entered into dialogue with urban councils to reduce the maternity fee that women were being charged. Is that not newsworthy?

This also concerns us as it is a reflection of the mindset of the reporters and editors of the Standard who view a prominent politician as a sexual being instead of according her the respect she deserves as a national representative.

This is contrary to the principles of the SADC Protocol and shows that the only “leading” the Standard is doing is in perpetrating the gender stereotypes that are used to discriminate against women, and in this case, women in public office specifically.  This was further demonstrated by your failure to meet with our staff to discuss our concerns about this article, even after an appointment had been set and confirmed. It is this lack of respect for the opinions, time and work of women that manifested itself and continues to do so in gender biased reporting and coverage.

It is our sincere hope that an apology to the Deputy prime Minister will be given the same prominence that your demeaning article was given. Failure to do so will encourage us to begin to mobilize the women of Zimbabwe and in the region against your publication.