I was driving past Oriel Girls School in Harare today. There’s a trench being dug outside the school and along the length of Harare Drive. Girls were arriving at school under the predatory gaze of groups of male trench diggers.

This is a common sight in Harare – the tongue hanging out, insult calling Zimbabwean male that women have to avoid or suffer on a daily basis.

In her blog called Women of the world unite! Sokari Ekine comments on the variety of abuse that women endure on the streets and in their homes. Let’s hope that the men of the world will also unite to put paid to gender based violence.

I am sorry if you will think that is vulgar, but I believe it has to be said, especially for all those young women falling prey to the idea that ‘turning a man on’ means that they love them.

Recently, a young lady, just about 19 years of age, approached me to talk about a messy situation that had befallen her. As she sobbed through the story, she told me about a man, 12 years older than her, who had wooed her for a few months and told her that he was desperately in love with her.

When she finally gave in to his sexual requests (because apparently, the guy kept telling her that his spontaneous erections meant that he was seriously in love with her), the relationship suddenly came to an abrupt end.

She says this man just stopped calling her and told her he had lost interest.

Sadly enough, this girl claims that this was the first man she had ever slept with.

Now, I can’t be 100% sure that her side of the story is the whole truth as other factors may have led to the ending of the relationship, but I must say that it is not the first time I have heard of women who confuse male sexual arousal and responses with love.

Those in the know say that an erection occurs when the nervous system activates a rapid increase in blood flow to the penis, thereby making it hard and ready for penetrative sex.

But almost any stimulus can cause these, whether a man is in love with a woman, just physically attracted to.

And that’s not to say that all men fall into this general category. Some genuinely combine physical attraction and emotional affection to their responses to their partners. And that would be the best kind of combination in a healthy relationship.

I am no expert but the best advice I gave to the young lady was to be sure next time that the man she was with was with her for genuine love.

If he won’t wait for you to be ready, or respect your decision to abstain, then he is not worth your time, or the tears you will cry in retrospect.

In this world where physical attributes – such as money, good looks, status and yes, erections – are equated to love, it is important to dig deeper beyond those to see what lies within the heart of the one who claims to love you.

In a previous blog of mine entitled Violence and masculine performers a reader raised the following questions:

I want to know if the project on Violence would help to reduce the prevalence of violence in the Zimbabwean communities or not. I just want to know your fair minded judgement based on what the fourteen participants contributed on that topic of violence. Is the film going to help all the people (men and women) or women only or vise versa? If it cannot help, what are the areas that were not clear that will leave the people still wanting more information concerning violence?

The simple answer is yes.  I believe all of the participants walked away from the week having absorbed new knowledge and inspired ideas around what violence entails, why violence is a coward’s solution, and how to better lead life in non-violent ways.  One reason I say yes is because the fourteen participants were willing to speak at length and in detail as well as willing to speak honestly and in relation to their personal experiences.  That’s no small feat.  All too often discussions about violence in Zimbabwe are predictable and merely go the route of referencing “other” people who commit acts of violence.  When individuals look inwardly to unravel their own beliefs and actions then the conversations get real and begin to pave the way for meaningful paths toward change.   Therefore, I stand by a point in the original blog.  Change must come from within.  Within individuals.  Within communities.  Within institutions.  Within societies.  One by one, and it’s a process which takes time.  Tho, all the little things help.

At the same time, the questions which have been posed do not neatly have simple answers.  As I noted, the honesty among the participants was key in building discussions which were true to life and constructive.  But honesty is not always synonymous with hearing what you hope to hear.   Much of the honesty among the male and female participants incorporated belief that there are situations where violence against women is warranted.  Intermingled or likely one reason for that belief is what I saw as unsettling blind faith and one-dimensional this is just the way it is adherence to the notions that women are the weaker sex, that labola is tradition and a form of payment for a wife, that good wives must allow husbands to exercise their conjugal rights, and so on.  I mean come on.  Is that really just the way it is?  Or, is it not the case that all human beings harmoniously deserve respect, love, companionship, admiration, laughter, compassion, and equality from their fellow human beings?

The reader asked for my fair minded judgment.  To be honest, I’m not entirely sure I can be fair.  While I have the utmost respect for how honest the participants were, there were moments during the week where my jaw dropped.  I was in shock.  How can people think violence is ok?  And to try to rationalize justifications for violence, it made my body hurt.   In fact, during the week of filming I had nightmares.  And continue to have nightmares.  They are nightmares where people needlessly resort to violence.  So yeah, it’s tough for me to fair.  Intellectually a lot of what was expressed during the week I did not agree with.  Emotionally the week was taxing for me.  I would like to say I don’t have a violent bone in my body; however, in reality, no person can live up to that assertion.  But what I can do, and I hope the film participants also do, is recognize that every human being has the ability to make choices around whether or not to be violent.

Back to my simple answer.  Yes.  The week of filming was successful.   I remain hopeful.  I believe there are many courageous Zimbabweans, people who are willing to take a hard look at themselves and in turn, to let that self-reflective journey inspire them toward travelling down roads of non-violence and helping others do the same.  And as I said, little things do help.  Like this film project and others which International Video Fair Trust (IVFT) is implementing.  Disseminating films where the filmed participants speak up is surely a recipe for success and an effective way to encourage others to address the difficult issues in life.   And you know, there is a nice synergy with Kubatana’s Inzwa Weekly Audio Magazine.  Just as much as the people who work for the Adult Rape Clinic and the people who access those services are everyday heroes so too is it importantly heroic to make the information available.  To stand up and say, for those of you who might benefit from the services at the Adult Rape Clinic, please make use of them and we support you in the most heartfelt ways.

My culture, and my religion have taught me to act in a certain way. Especially when it comes to “izinto zothando, nyaya dzerudo” (matters of the heart). Don’t you ever show him you like him just play easy? But don’t we also say what he don’t know wont hurt him? I say what he don’t know will leave me the laughing stock of my peers. Others are married and me still waiting for a miracle that someday he is going to say something. Ha! I have taken it upon myself to embark on the mission I call, hunter hunted. Instead of me sitting about waiting for some guy I think is cute and listening to my mum who has her husband, saying my child it is not the woman’s place to initiate courtship, I will just do what a girl has gotta do. It’s not everyday you meet an American guy who is a potential immigration ticket or the 99cent shop. Since he has left for the U.S.A what is the worst that could happen if I hinted that he left a spark in me. Besides what my mother don’t know will save me from a lecture. Like all internet exposed persons I am just going to take advantage of the many, many, many internet services that are going to make it possible for me to put phase one of the plan into motion. So I send a friendship request from Facebook and boom within minutes request confirmed! God bless the Facebook inventors. And what do you know; he still remembers me, and yes, we get talking. The rest is history.

I recently read a Plus News report entitled:  Male circumcision does not protect women.  There has been enough literature, media attention, and so on to see that male circumcision has been a hot topic over the years.  My interest is not to disagree with the argument that male circumcision can, to a degree, reduce the risk of contracting HIV for that man.  In fact, I support the idea of disseminating information and making male circumcision more accessible in Southern Africa.  That is as long as the reduce aspect is thoroughly emphasized as male circumcision does not eliminate risk, the potential side effects are conveyed, and it is not an imposed procedure.

The questions I do wish to raise concern the lengths that are being taken to scientifically prove the relationships between black African male circumcision and HIV risk for black African men and women.  And relatedly, the potential for unintended consequences when the path followed is such a rigorous and relentless insistence on absolute, detailed quantitative scientific proof.  My overall concern is this. The Plus News headline I mentioned could just as easily read: Clinical trial comes to an end, 25 women contracted HIV.  When I think about that alternative headline, my mind goes a couple directions. For all the big money that was spent on the trial, perhaps the money would have been better spent trying to ensure the 25 women (and others) did not contract HIV.  And further, if the majority of men in the US were uncircumcised would the funders of scientific trials have the same comfort-level to round up some HIV-positive men, along with their HIV-negative female partners, and engage them in a trial knowing that some percentage of those HIV-negative American females will end up HIV-positive.  I suspect not.

There are several things I’m getting at here, which relate to my uneasy feelings about trials concerning male circumcision in general and also the particular trial in Rakai District (Southern Uganda) highlighted in Plus News.  Firstly, as part of the effort to scientifically prove that male circumcision reduces HIV risk, a trial immediately offers some men access to the procedure while others must wait until the study is completed.  Secondly, in order to get the scientific proof, along the way, some of the subjects have to become HIV-positive.  Thirdly, the scientific proof for the Rakai District trial is, to a degree, based on 159 Ugandan women honestly reporting that they had sex only with their partner over the trial period. Those three points raise a complicated set of ethical and methodological questions.  Before I go any further, let me outline some of the parameters concerning the Rakai District trial as highlighted in the Plus News article (which draws on two articles in the 17 July 2009 issue of Lancet).

The two-year trial included 922 HIV-positive male subjects.  At the start, 474 were circumcised, and the other 448 were not. Additionally, the trial included 159 HIV-negative female subjects, the partners of a subset of the 922 male subjects.  There were 92 couples representing an HIV-positive circumcised male with an HIV-negative female partner.  And 67 couples representing an HIV-positive uncircumcised male with an HIV-negative female partner.  The couples were basically told to go about their lives, and involvement in the trial importantly provided a range of STI/HIV-awareness services participants might not have otherwise accessed (albeit likely intensely biomedical oriented awareness services).  Follow ups were made at six-month intervals to ascertain if any of the 159 female subjects had acquired HIV from their male partners.   Of the 92 couples involving a circumcised male, 18% (or 17 women) tested HIV-positive.  Of the 67 couples involving an uncircumcised male 12%
(or 8 women) tested HIV-positive.  Thus the conclusion, male circumcision does not reduce HIV risk for women.  I know this is not exactly the case, but still.  In a certain way one result of obtaining that scientifically proven conclusion is that 25 Ugandan women became infected.  The researchers do not state as much directly, but do hint at this possibility.  A number of the circumcised male subjects did not follow the advice to abstain from sex for six weeks following being circumcised (to let the wound properly heal).  When that advice was not followed this was the window in which a greater number of women contracted HIV from their male partners.  Thus an argument can be made that had the men not been circumcised their female partners would not have become HIV-positive.

I know many won’t like what I am writing.  The trial itself did not infect 25 women.  The trial itself was administered by a team of experts and was approved by numerous Ugandan and American ethical review boards.  Additionally, many would tell me the advancement of scientific knowledge has always involved unintended consequences.  And those consequences have to be put in the perspective of the greater good.  But when it comes to clinical trials around male circumcision among black Africans, there are some particular and unique dynamics that don’t sit well with me.  Particularly, when these types of trials are put in the bigger picture, I can’t help but wonder about the notion of engaging black Africans to be subjects for the advancement of scientific research when it is predominantly the Western world wanting to pursue said research.  And ask.  Are there multiple
(conflicting) ideologies at work in making the foreskin of a black African penis a form of difference that warrants scientific study?

To return to my earlier wording, the lengths that are being taken to scientifically prove.  Awhile back, within a listserv discussion, I commented that I am frustrated by the trends PEPFAR, the Global Fund, Bill and Melinda Gates, etc. have ushered in, they are not entirely new, but it seems they are with such greater force than ever before. This incessant demand to prove things, particularly quantitatively. To my mind, and I’ll be blunt.  Enough with the proof around male circumcision.  It’s not a quantitative contest.  I would argue that enough clinical trials around male circumcision have been conducted. It is now time to continue on with integrating the results into long-standing HIV/AIDS information dissemination and service provision efforts.  Specifically along three lines:  1) Male circumcision reduces, but does not eliminate, HIV risk for men; 2) Male circumcision, like nearly all medical procedures, contains risks and requires post-operative care; and 3) Male circumcision is a possible option for informed/consenting adults.

According to Zimbabwe’s 2005 Demographic Health Survey (DHS), 47% of women aged 15 to 49 reported an experience with either physical or sexual violence in their lifetime.

Statistically speaking, it is difficult to make an over-time comparison because the 1999 DHS did not collect data on incidences of violence against women.  I suspect, and literature supports the argument that including incidences of violence in the 2005 DHS is the result of recognition that violence against women in Zimbabwe has been increasing.  Beyond statistics I see the pressing and complex question as follows.  If you ask a Zimbabwean man:  What do you think your wife would do if you hit her?  Or a Zimbabwean woman: What would you do if your husband hit you?   I suspect, more often than not, the answer to either of those questions would not be an immediate, without hesitating…. I would never hit my wife. Or my husband would never hit me.  Instead, a male or female respondent would pause.  And think.  Their pausing and thinking is because that act of violence in the home is a very real possibility.  That real possibility is troublesome, but to me equally as troublesome is resting in a space where it’s ok to pause before answering the questions I posed.  In Zimbabwe, copious are cultural practices, traditions, perspectives around normative spousal roles, forms of peer pressure, extended family dynamics, failures to communicate, economic hardships, and so on which explain away why domestic violence exists.  Yet, these types of explanations only scratch the surface in trying to understand the baseline crux of the matter:  What prompts one human being to inflict physical and emotional harm on another human being?

With an interest in exploring the issue of violence, International Video Fair Trust (IVF)  brought a group of seven men and seven women together for a week of discussions during the first week of July.  These in-depth discussions were filmed and I served as director for the week’s programme and the film project.  The methodology follows that used for the 2008 filming of IVF’s Sex in the City of Harare.   The basic idea is this:  Create a safe space for people to speak and debate openly and honestly.  Encourage the participants to move beyond the predictable conversation.  Capture the discussions, the emotion, and trepidation on film.  Make a documentary film which presents the story that unfolded during the week.  Screen it locally as a way to guide individual communities to engage themselves in similar conversations.  In the end, both the week long discussions which are filmed and in turn, the documentary film itself, serve as an awareness-building, educational, and advocacy tool.  In this case, advocacy which ultimately is about helping people understand that there are options other than violence when it comes to resolving disagreements.

One reason this participatory discussion methodology works well is that nearly all pressing issues have, at their core, simple solutions.  Just that getting to that simple solution is a layered process which requires honest, probing, and direct conversations about what is preventing positive change from taking place. Therefore, with respect to the topic of violence is the line of thought that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the simple equation violence = harm is not sufficient to bring about an immediate shift to non-violence.  Instead, making the shift involves letting an introspective process play out.  This is to say that it is easy to assert that violence is wrong, but much harder to actually make the necessary changes at both personal and societal levels to enable violence-free lives.  The latter step to actually change requires an intellectual thought process to recast ways of thinking and ways of being.  Further it is not merely a matter of women demanding men change. Or men demanding women change.  Change has to come from within.  And it doesn’t happen overnight.  What the week of filming brought forth was a group of people who I observed as intricately conflicted individuals, very much at different points with respect the introspective process that tries to understand and reduce violence.  The discussions provided space to recognize the complexities at work and to reflect on why you yourself and people in general are resistant to change.

Now that the filming is complete, I’ve been trying to conceptualize a story for a film.  And have been thinking a lot about performances of masculinity and their potential relationship to acts of violence.   In this instance, by performance of masculinity I mean the ways people (men and women) put on an act as a way to assert authority and control over another person.  The thing about these kinds of performances is that to an outside observer they often make evident contradictions.  But to the person engaged in that performance of masculinity likely the contradiction is not seen.  The inability to see the contradiction is because what’s at work is a performance to get what you want, what you think you are entitled to.  And what you want, your entitlements, and the ways in which you obtain them do not necessarily bring forth contradictions in your mind.  For example, it’s not unheard of for a man to speak gushingly about loving his wife.  When that husband enters discussion concerning, for example, labola, conjugal rights, and/or household duties, there are ways that conversation becomes about the authority and control the husband feels he has over his wife.  Engaging in a discussion of wanting that power is a performance of masculinity, while pursuing that desire might result in the husband using physical and/or emotional violence to get his way.  The outside observer is likely going to look at that situation and ask:  If you love your wife why would you hit her?  And go on to say:  That’s a contradiction.  But not to the husband, as he feels he is rightfully doing what is necessary to get what he wants.

Another example might be a woman who intelligently and passionately asserts that it is wrong for a man to be violent toward a woman.  This assertion might become so strong in the woman’s mind that she will make maneuvers and strategize how to ensure her husband does not become violent.  Whether it involves being a perfectly obedient and subservient wife or gaining economic independence within the marriage and keeping those earnings for herself, there are ways she is engaged in a performance of masculinity, working to position herself as the person with authority and control of the relationship.  The outside observer is likely going to look at that situation and ask: If you love your husband why do you manipulate him and withhold from him?  And go on to say:  That’s a contradiction.   But not to the wife, as she feels she is rightfully doing what is necessary to get what she wants.

The paragraph above is a tricky one.  Probably not the status quo line of analysis around the topic of violence.  After hearing fourteen Zimbabweans talk about violence for five and half days, it has become crystal clear to me that the status quo analysis is not enough.  All status quo gets to is the far too easy space of relying on broad sweeping statements such as men are socialized to be violent, women must be empowered, culture accepts violence.  But those concepts—socialization, empowered, culture—often are either loaded or vacuous, they don’t go very far in actually telling us much about the nitty gritty detail of the dilemma.  What’s much harder, yet in my view far more important, is to open up.  Be honest.  And dare I say, get in touch with your feelings.  Recognize your own masculine performances that concern desire for power and in turn the ways ensuing actions towards others might be contradictory.   Fourteen Zimbabweans admirably spent a week travelling down this path of honesty.  The door is open for the next fourteen.

Alternatively, if broad sweeping statements must be invoked, my suggestion would be the one that is the broadest of the lot.  This being.  Much of Zimbabwe’s history (and world history for that matter) has involved one big chess match of masculine performers and their quests for power.  To be successful in the quest might require violence, so the wisdom contradictorily goes.  Flows then that individual homes and extended families in the present often end up smaller-scale versions of this chess match.