Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

What are we really celebrating this Women’s Day?

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

Questions about racial integration in residences answered

2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply. What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations. You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?)

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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