Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
07 August 2020 | Story Nombulelo Shange and Kali Nena

When capitalism is in crisis, it turns on women, people of colour, LGBTI++ groups and other minority groups. We have seen this throughout history. When World War I and II ended globally, economies were in tatters and capitalism had to repress women to regain its edge. Men returned home to find women doing ‘men’s work’, and the realisation that they were no longer able to provide for their families in the way that society expected them to. 

This created what Bell Hooks refers to as a crisis of patriarchal masculinity. Men were suddenly confused about their role as men in the family and society, because the meaning they attached to being men as ‘provider’, ‘strong’, ‘head of the home’, etc., no longer applied to them. This confusion and frustration are taken out on women, both at home and in the workplace. Men were able to re-enter the workplace, despite women being paid less; many employers still preferred to hire men over women, and women lost their jobs to make room for men. As countries started to rebuild after both wars, women were convinced that their main role was in the home raising the kids, while the men grew the economy. The same is true for South Africa; at the end of apartheid, the SA economy was in ruins because of sanctions and because apartheid criminals emptied state funds before fleeing the country. Apartheid was ruthless to black men – many leaders were either dead, exiled, or in jail. A lot of the late apartheid liberation work was carried out by women and the youth. In a similar way as women in Europe and America were pushed aside after the wars, women in SA had to take a back seat to allow men to take the lead in growing a struggling economy. 

Women are the most vulnerable

The current global lockdown caused by the Coronavirus outbreak is arguably the biggest threat to capitalism in our lifetime. The system is struggling during this time, because its core tenets have always been around profit and enriching white, patriarchal monopoly capital, not social well-being. Many jobs have been lost and the rates of Corona infections are staggering, while we are playing a juggling act between human lives and the economy. Women are the most vulnerable in this time, as they occupy the most unskilled jobs and face the greatest risk when it comes to job or income loss. Cases of gender-based violence are also spiking, with Eyewitness News reporting an increase in cases of domestic violence on the national hotline in the first three weeks of lockdown. More than 120 000 people called the hotline, which is double the usual volume. 

What are we celebrating 

With Women’s Day nearing, we need to ask ourselves what we are celebrating when this failing economic system has shown time and time again that women are not ‘valuable’. On the surface, celebrating Women’s Day/Month is important, because it is symbolic. Women such as Winnie Mandela, Lillian Ngoyi, Helen Suzman, Albertina Sisulu and many others have worked hard to ensure that women have better representation, and this should be celebrated.  However, a deeper look into Women’s Day elicits reflection that should be part of the celebration.  In simple terms, what is worth celebrating? The obvious answer would be that women are free from the political bondage that was apartheid, that women in general – and black women in particular – have fewer structural impediments to entering and progressing in business and at work, and that to some extent, women no longer have to enter the institution of marriage and bear children in order to be significant – at least in theory. But on the flip side, men are at war with women; even when women are able to overcome the historical and structural oppression and make it into workplaces, they still have to deal with sexual harassment and being undervalued. They face similar oppression in their communities and homes. 

Capitalism needs to be challenged

The deaths of Tshegofatso Pule, Naledi Phangindawo, and many other women during the lockdown have led to renewed calls for greater protection for women and harsher punishments for men who abuse women. These calls are important and have created more awareness around the oppression of women. However, the discussion needs to include the markets and not just individuals and state or legal structures. The #BlackLivesMatter dialogue has recently taken a similar shift. The #BLM movement criticised corporate Americans for engaging in brand activism while failing to show support in hiring practices, highlighting that less than 1% of Fortune 500 CEOs are black. 

The oppression and violence that people of colour and women face, were created by the capitalist system through slavery, colonialism, apartheid, etc. Capitalism never intended for women to ever benefit from the system; so, when we address the violence that women are suffering from partners who are experiencing a crisis of patriarchal masculinity, repressive workplaces, communities, church, etc., we have to challenge capitalism too, because this system affects every aspect of our lives, even in ways we do not realise. Employers still prefer to hire men over women, women are paid less, and there are fewer female executives; women still occupy most of the lowest paid, unskilled jobs. A study done by Jacqueline Mosomi found that women in the middle of the earning spectrum earn up to 35% less than men in SA. We know that women are less likely to stay in abusive or transactional relationships if they are financially independent; equal access to opportunities would see a lot more women empowered enough to protect themselves against violence. We still celebrate and get excited when big corporations in SA announce first black female top executives, and of course we should celebrate women’s achievements. But a certain level of outrage should be directed towards these companies for not being more inclusive sooner.

Producers and Reproducers

One of the oldest perspectives in sociology is the conflict perspective. It points out that part of the explanation for the plight of women is the division of males and females into producers and reproducers, respectively.  Producers must work for their families to have access to food, clothes, and shelter, while reproducers have to bear children and care for those children.  Societies by and large seem to believe that the success of the family, business, politics, and communities rests upon both males and females respecting this division.  This arbitrary and often impractical demarcation has been debunked by feminist theorists such as Judith Butler. Judith Butler reminds us that these divisions of labour are socially constructed, they are not based on any absolute facts and they can be changed, dismantled, and reconstructed in different ways. However, the view of women as reproducers and nurturers has persisted even in the workplace, where male CEOs and managers far outnumber their female counterparts.  With this in mind, as well as the heartless killing of women by men in different contexts, one would be forced to ask once again – are women really free? Can women ‘fit’ into a failing capitalist system that has never intended for them to be active members? What are we really celebrating this Women’s Day? 

 

Opinion article by Nombulelo Shange and Kali Nena, Lecturers in the Department of Sociology

News Archive

Shack study holds research and social upliftment opportunities
2015-02-10

Photo: Stephen Collett

When Prof Basie Verster, retired head of the Department of Quantity Surveying at the University of the Free State (UFS), initiated an alternative form of housing for Johannes - one of his employees - a decision was made to base research on this initiative. This research project in Grasslands, Heidedal focused on the cost and energy efficiency of green and/or sustainable shacks.

Esti Jacobs from the Department of Quantity Surveying, together with an honours student in Quantity Surveying, a master’s student in Architecture, and young professionals at Verster Berry, helped with the project.

The physical goals of the project were to create a structure that is environmentally friendly, and maintains a comfortable interior climate in winter and summer, as well as being cost-effective to erect. The structure also had to be socially acceptable to the family and the community.

“The intention was to make a positive contribution to the community and to initiate social upliftment through this project. Structures such as the ‘green shack’ may serve as an intermediate step to future housing possibilities, since these structures are relatively primitive, but have economic value and could be marketable,” she said.

Esti explains the structure of the building, which consists of gum poles and South African pine bearers, with a timber roof and internal cement block flooring. The building is clad with corrugated iron and has a corrugated iron roof finish. Additional green elements added to the structure were internal Nutec cladding, glasswool insulation in walls, internal gypsum ceiling boards with ‘Think Pink’ insulation, internal dividing wall and door, polystyrene in the floors, and tint on the windows. A small solar panel for limited electricity use (one or two lights and electricity to charge a cellphone) and a Jojo water tank for household consumption by the inhabitants were also installed.

Esti said: “Phase one of the research has been completed. This phase consisted of an investigation into the cost of an alternative form of housing structure (comparing traditional shacks with the planned structure) as well as the construction process of the physical housing structure.

“Phase two of the research, commencing in February 2015, will last for two to three years. This phase will include the installation of temperature and relative humidity logging devices inside the existing traditional shack and the new green shack. The logs will be regularly monitored by the UFS Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management.

These data will enable the researchers to measure the differences in comfort levels inside the two different structures. The data, together with other information such as building materials and methods, are then processed by software programs. Through the simulation of different environments, building materials, and alternate forms of energy, software models can be used to come up with conclusions regarding more energy-friendly building materials and methods. This knowledge can be used to improve comfort levels within smaller, low-cost housing units.

The UFS will be working with Prof Jeff Ramsdell of the Appalachian State University in the USA and his team on the second phase of the project.

“This research project is ongoing and will be completed only in a few years’ time,” said Esti.

The results of the research will be published in accredited journals or at international conferences.

 

For more information or enquiries contact news@ufs.ac.za.

 

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