Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 August 2020 | Story Dr Nadine Lake | Photo Supplied
Dr Nadine Lake is a lecturer and Programme Director of the Gender Studies programme in the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies

The transition to democracy in South Africa has been characterised by an uphill battle towards equality. Inequalities shaped by race, gender, and class politics have been amplified since the outbreak of COVID-19. While South Africans initially thought they might be spared the devastation wrought by the virus, it is now certain that nobody is immune, regardless of race, class, age, gender, or social location. In an unprecedented manner, South Africans have become accustomed to hearing from government through President Cyril Ramaphosa’s state addresses on COVID-19 and its spread throughout the country. Although the initial national addresses were regarded as a panacea for some in a time of uncertainty, they are increasingly considered ignorant of broader human rights and the future of the populace. The South African situation is different from those struggling with the pandemic in the Global North, because of structural inequalities that have exacerbated an already precarious outlook on the economic and social stability of the country.

Gender-based violence needs immediate attention

In addition to recently emphasising a zero-tolerance attitude towards corruption in South Africa, President Ramaphosa surprised the nation when he emphasised that our country is dealing with two pandemics. First, COVID-19 has laid bare the slow pace of economic transformation and a crumbling health infrastructure. Second, gender-based violence has emerged as something that needs immediate attention. While it is true that gender-based violence has been and remains a burning issue in the country, it is important to identify the paradox that exists between the liberal agenda couched in the language of women’s rights on the one hand, and the blind eye turned towards slow economic transformation and high unemployment on the other. This emphasis on a liberal political agenda during a time of crisis is not new and has formed part of what we have come to know as political pinkwashing in Western democracies. Pinkwashing has been defined as a practice whereby states seek to create a more positive image of their nation, government, and human rights record, among other things, by speaking about and promoting LGBT rights (Lind, 2014, p. 602). While the African National Congress (ANC) may not be ready to fly the rainbow flag, it is worth noting the tensions between human rights and women’s rights, which have become part of political discourse, or more accurately, politicking. 

GBV and rape culture part of the social fabric

South Africa is reported as the country with the highest rape statistics in the world. In 2018/2019, the South African Police Services reported 52 420 cases of sexual offences. Non-profit organisations such as the One in Nine Campaign, however, highlight that only one in nine women report a sexual offence, and therefore a realistic estimate is likely much higher than the recorded statistics. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by the South African Medical Research Council, one in four South African men have admitted to committing rape. These statistics demonstrate that gender-based violence and rape culture form part of the social fabric and that women are disproportionately affected by violence. In the first week of the South African lockdown, more than 87 000 cases of gender-based violence complaints were reported. One of the rape cases that received prominent media attention during the first phase of the lockdown, was that of a police officer who raped his wife. The Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, quickly gained the reputation of a rape apologist when he stated that the man who raped his wife was her husband and not the police, because he was not in a police uniform, and the rape did not happen at the police station. This absurd response reinforces common rape myths and reduces the seriousness of sexual offences. Although opposition political parties such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) have called for the removal of Minister Cele, who was deemed unfit for office, these calls have fallen on deaf ears. The message conveyed is that men in positions of authority are exempt from punishment and speak and act with impunity when it comes to sexual violence. 

#MeToo

Gender-based violence and rape is not specific to South Africa. The normative position of violence against women is widespread and deeply entrenched in institutions, cultures, and traditions worldwide. Movements such as #MeToo, which emerged in 2017 as an outcry against sexual violence and abuse, gained rapid momentum and started to see the prosecution of sexual predators such as Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein in the United States. The global solidarity against sexual abuse shown by women on social media has shown that relentless pressure on patriarchal systems forces accountability, and refuses men permission to perpetrate violence against women with impunity.

As we reflect on Women’s Month 2020 in South Africa, it is necessary to observe a moment of silence to victims of sexual abuse and femicide. We pay respect to Fezekile Khuzwayo, Uyinene Mrwetyana, Tshegofatso Pule, Naledi Phangindawo, Nompumelelo Tshaka, Nomfazi Gabada, Nwabisa Mgwandela, Altecia Kortjie, and Lindelwa Peni, and the many other women who have suffered misogynistic violence. Women’s Month provides us with the opportunity to take hands and speak out against the micro-aggressions and brutal acts of gender-based violence that should not form part of what we define as a truly democratic South Africa. 

Opinion article by Dr Nadine Lake, lecturer and Programme Director of the Gender Studies programme in the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies, University of the Free State


News Archive

Lessons of The Spear
2012-08-16

Discussing weighty issues at the UFS were from left: Prof. Jonathan Jansen; Vice-Chancellor and Rector; Nic Dawes, Editor-in-Chief, Mail & Guardian; Max du Preez: Investigative journalist and political columnist; Ferial Haffajee: Editor, City Press; and Justice Malala: Political commentator and newspaper columnist.
Photo: Johan Roux
14 August 2012

What were South Africans left with after The Spear? More importantly, what did we learn from The Spear?

These were the issues discussed at a seminar, Beyond the Spear, on the controversial Brett Murray painting at the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS) on Monday 13 August 2012.

The university hosted this seminar, Beyond the Spear, in conjunction with acclaimed journalists, to look deeper into the lessons that South Africans learnt from this painting and the reaction from the public and politicians following soon after it went on display at the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg.

The four panellists, Mr Justice Malala (political analyst, journalist and host of the news show, The Justice Factor), Mr Nic Dawes (editor in chief of Mail & Guardian), Mr Max du Preez (investigative journalist and political columnist) and Ms Ferial Haffajee (editor of City Press), all presented their views and experiences on the public’s perceptions of this artwork.

In his opening remarks, Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector, said the purpose of the seminar was to help us make sense of what happened. Prof. Jansen also chaired this seminar.

“This being South Africa, there will be more ‘Spears’. More public crises will unfold that divide the nation and that will stir the emotions. We need to understand what happened so that we are better prepared to deal with the coming ‘Spears’.”

Issues on leadership, South Africa’s hurtful past and the freedom of expression were some of the topics raised by the panellists.

“This has taught us that South Africans – especially the older generation – still need to vent their anger… White South Africa must be patient and allow black citizens to shout at them,” said Mr Du Preez. He warned that this anger should serve a constructive purpose. In reaction to a question if Brett Murray did not disrespect Pres. Jacob Zuma’s dignity with his controversial painting, he said that this painting was “…rude and disrespectful.”

“It was meant to be. It was not honouring him.” He said that politicians will do anything, including messing with the country’s stability, to further their own interests. “From now on we need to be far more alert, far more cynical about our politicians.”

Mr Dawes shared his experience and said that the debates around The Spear were very painful considering where the nation has come from. He said the painting opened up painful pasts and difficult spaces. “It is up to the media to open up these difficult spaces.” He said the painting also brought up questions of how South Africans deal and live with pain. “South Africa must live with its past. The debate should now be how to preserve space for the country’s ghosts and how its citizens could get the resilience to deal with it.”

Ms Haffajee, who was caught in the crossfire between freedom of expression and human dignity and who refused to remove a picture of the painting from the City Press website, said that the media was viciously played by politicians.

“This had shown that achieving freedom took many lives, but it took very little to kill it.” She said The Spear is art that it is part of a rich cultural heritage of protest art.

Mr Malala said with the debates around The Spear painting, something died in South Africa. “The debate was taken away from us. We let politicians get to us.”

After the panellists delivered their presentations, Prof. Jansen led a discussion session between the audience and the panellists.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept