The account by Beatrice Tonhodzayi of the experiences of an HIV positive man raises a lot of issues which l feel should be discussed more than is done in the diary. I will start by saying upfront that in this critique l am taking a woman centred approach to the issues raised. In particular, I have always been concerned that in a lot of the discourse around infection within a marital relationship, there seems to be an inordinate amount of emphasis on people not seeking to blame their sexual partners, rather being exhorted to “just accept the result and move on”.

I am worried that Tamuka does seem to have grasped the full significance of his actions and certainly does not seem prepared to take full responsibility for his actions while he was married. He seems puzzled that his wife will not talk to him as she believes he is responsible for infecting her with HIV. One does not get the sense that he understands what the HIV positive diagnosis means for her. There is no indication that he has any empathy for his wife. He has not put himself in her shoes and sought to understand from her perspective what it must feel like dealing with this diagnosis. I am sure a lot of women who are similarly infected share the same bewilderment, anger and despair as Tamuka’s wife. This is because for a long time the message was and to an extent still is, abstinence or chastity until marriage and then faithfulness to your one husband. So assuming you have honoured this blue print for avoiding infection, it has to come as a shock when you discover that despite having followed this advice as given by your mother, your aunt, your teacher, your church, your community health worker and even that NGO that is so respected, you still find yourself infected. The icing on the cake is that if this happens to you, you should just accept this diagnosis and move on, because that is the nature of the marital bed.

For me the worst but most important point in Tamuka’s account is his statement that:

“Yes, l may have cheated a few times in this marriage but nothing out of the ordinary. I am definitely not the ‘Mr. Harare’ that my wife, her friends and family are now portraying me to be. I am just a regular, ordinary man who strayed from the marital bed a few times.”

This is where the crux of the matter is, is it not? His statement exposes the sense of entitlement that a lot of men have when it comes to cheating on their spouses and other intimate partners. Tamuka believes his infidelity is acceptable as it is “nothing out of the ordinary”. After all he did it just a “few times”. So to take his argument to its logical conclusion, it is okay to cheat “just a few times”? Is that what the “ordinary man” out there believes? That they are entitled to cheat because that is what “ordinary men” do? This begs the question, just how many times do you have to be unfaithful before you run the risk of getting infected with either an STI or HIV? Does one get a merit award if they cheat a few times as opposed to a lot of times? Is there a measure for cheating, where some acts of infidelity are more acceptable than others? It is interesting that the interviewer never challenged Tamuka’s statement above.

Isn’t this part of the problem sub-Saharan Africa has with HIV infection, when you have an intersection between gender inequality and the HI Virus? The problem is we have a society that views male infidelity as a normal expression of masculinity. This finds expression in some writers regurgitating without critiquing opinions that men allegedly express that they set up “small houses” because they will be dissatisfied with their wives at home. I will argue that a lot of men who cheat, do so because they can. They do it because like Tamuka, they believe that they are just being “men”. It is an expression of the patriarchal power that they have. Unfortunately in an age of HIV and AIDS, these masculinities are toxic masculinities. That single sexual encounter can result in HIV infection. You can get infected whether or not you are a “Mr Harare”. Read more

The Kubatana team was in Johannesburg recently for MobileActive08. As we moved around the city, we spoke with taxi drivers about the ANC split, Xenophobia, Zimbabwe, and other issues.

Here are a few snippets of our conversations:

Troublemakers, they kind of respect the taxi drivers. For other people, they have no respect. But for taxi drivers, they kind of leave us alone. They know we can make our own violence.

—–

People must tell the truth. It will heal other people. Actually, that will teach people to learn, and forgive. Otherwise, when it’s not done, I will see a Shona person, and think you’re a part of Mugabe. You killed our people. You know, things like that. But if there is TRC [a Truth and Reconciliation process], then I think people will be able to see, okay, fine. This is what happened. Let’s forget about it.

—–

You’ll never get a settlement in Zimbabwe. You know why? Because they’re making too much money. They’ve got 25-tonne trucks travelling up and down from Zimbabwe to Jo’burg and Jo’burg to Zimbabwe everyday. With all the food in it you want to eat. All the appliances you want to buy. Those people are my customers like you sit there. I ride them to the trucks. I fetch them from the trucks. It’s completely shocking.

—–

There is no such thing as a Rainbow Nation. You must know where you come from and know where you’re going. If you’re a Zulu you’re a Zulu. If you’re a Xhosa you’re a Xhosa. Now (interim president Kgalema) Motlanthe is more of a rainbow person. He can socialize with anyone. Which is not right. We need someone who is either a Xhosa, or a Zulu.

—–

You know that woman that they say Zuma raped? It’s untrue. She was involved with Zuma for a very long time. Zuma was actually planning to marry her as one of his wives. So, they blame the Intelligence Minister. That might be true, that he tried to convince that lady, to pay her money so that she can threaten Zuma. That’s what she did! Those questions were asked in court – and she couldn’t manage to answer them. There were police outside, she had a phone, and there was a house phone. And you wake up in the morning, take a bath, make food, fry eggs, you eat, make phone calls. You know? The door’s unlocked. And you come up later and say you’ve been raped. Why didn’t she go out and report at the same time, when police were outside Zuma’s house. Besides that, she should have called. Or wake up in the morning and go and make a statement at the police station.

Tonight Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu will be spending their 12th night in jail since leading a 16 October WOZA protest to demand that government address Zimbabwe’s nation wide food shortages.

The two were denied bail by Magistrate Charity Maphosa at the Bulawayo Magistrate’s Court. I phoned the Court this afternoon, and spoke with Magistrate Maphosa. I was hoping to hear some quiver in her voice that revealed even a pinprick of remorse for the fact that, thanks to her decision, these two women are still in cells. But she was unflappable. She refused to explain her judgement — and referred me to the Clerk of the Court to read her decision in full. When I pressed her further, she suggested that I speak with “the people behind these things,” as she was “just doing her job. She hung up on me before I could ask who, or what, exactly, she meant.

Phone Magistrate Charity Maphosa on +263 9 71051 and see if you have any better success getting her to explain herself. If you do, let us know!

I met a woman recently who described the situation in Zimbabwe as “a long silent scream”. Zimbabwe is dying, and it’s dying silently. We need to derive confidence and courage from the WOZA women and their direct action in confronting the Mugabe regime on the crisis in Zimbabwe. More NGOs, more pressure groups, more people, more politicians need to get out of the queues, the boardrooms, offices and hotels: we need to take our outrage to the streets. Enough is enough.

An excerpt from The New York Poem by Sam Hamill reminds us that we can’t give up:

. . . a mute sadness settles in,
like dust, for the long, long haul. But if
I do not get up and sing,
if I do not get up and dance again,
the savages will win . . .

The latest news update from WOZA about Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu’s continued detention:

Magistrate Charity Maphosa, who was due to rule on the bail application of WOZA leaders, Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu, today at 11.15am, was ‘forced’ to attend a workshop instead, delaying her judgement until Monday 27th October.

Williams and Mahlangu remain in Mlondolozi Female Prison where conditions are terrible. Cells are overcrowded and full of lice, food is extremely limited. Prisoners receive only a small amount of sadza (maize) with green vegetable cooked in water – no salt or any other form of nutrition. The lack of salt is particularly worrying given the extreme heat being experienced at the moment. Prison guards also routinely insult inmates.

As expected they were not in court as prison authorities had no transport to bring them to court. As on Tuesday however, the courtroom was full of state agents and WOZA members who had walked to town (some for up to 15km) to provide solidarity to Williams and Mahlangu.

On arriving at court, the defence lawyer, Kossam Ncube, was informed that Magistrate Maphosa was not available and that another magistrate would deliver her verdict. Instead Magistrate Sophie Matimba delayed the ruling until Monday at 11.15am.

Williams and Mahlangu were arrested over a week ago. Bail applications are usually heard on an urgent basis.

It is clear that the state aims to continue its harassment of these women human rights defenders; the actions of a regime so terrified of its own people that it has to imprison them.

SADC is meeting in Harare on Monday to discuss Zimbabwe’s future whilst human rights defenders languish in prison for calling for food aid. WOZA continues to urge its friends in the region and internationally to condemn this persecution of women who are simply determined to provide a better future for themselves and their children. Justice delayed is justice denied.

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.