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

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

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