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

Artikel in Die Burger: Steeds is daar die kans vir heling deur Dr Franklin Sonn
2008-04-07

Steeds is daar die kans vir heling

Dr Franklin Sonn - Kanselier van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat en ’n oud-ambassadeur.


TOE gene-navorsers uiteindelik die menslike genoom georden het, is bevind dat menslike wesens inderdaad slegs in minder as 2 % onderling verskil en andersins ooreenstem.

Dít is die goeie nuus.

In die loop van die mens se ontwikkelingsgang en in die proses van ons sosiale organisering is godsdiens-, taal- en kultuurpatrone ontwikkel wat gelei het tot territorium-afbakening en volksvorming waaruit ’n hele geskiedenis van haat, nyd en bloedvergieting ontstaan het het wat ondanks die hoë peil van die beskawing wat die postmoderne mens bereik het, steeds voortwoed.

Dít is die slegte nuus.

Gebeure op die kampus van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) het ons op onnoemlik tragiese wyse herinner aan ons menslike mislukking dat ons – ondanks die oorheersende ooreenkomste tussen ons – ons liewer op grond van die bykans een persent onderlinge verskil vergrype pleeg wat selfs by diere ondenkbaar is. Dat dit boonop op die kampus van ’n universiteit gebeur, is des te ontstellender.

Dit strek ons universiteit egter tot eer dat die verwagte strafstappe onmiddellik gedoen is en dat geen poging aangewend is om selfverskonend verduidelikings te gee of die kombers oor die kop te trek nie.

IN ’n breër konteks wys prof. Hermann Giliomee tereg daarop dat die tydskrif The Economist ’n opname van Markinor gepubliseer het wat aantoon dat meerderhede in al die gemeenskappe te kenne gee dat rasseverhoudings sedert die koms van die demokrasie verbeter het.

Die afleiding daarvan is dat Suid-Afrika in al sy dimensies op die regte pad is en dat ons in die hoop op ’n beter toekoms vir ons almal voortleef. Die nasionale projek om godsdiens, taal en verskille te eerbiedig maar terselfdertyd ’n heterogene tapisserie van eenheid as nasie te bou is die meeste van ons se erns. Ondanks die terugslag is die universiteit verbind tot hierdie toekomsvisie van transformasie wat herhaaldelik leidinggewend deur die rektor, prof. Frederick Fourie, sowel as sy voorganger, prof. Stef Coetzee, uitgespel is.

Vir die UV gaan dit daarom om die pad van insluiting en eenheid diepgaande te bestuur sodat wit en swart die universiteit as tuiste vir almal sien en ervaar en om die idee van verdringing van een groep deur die ander te vermy of selfs te voorkom dat die toestand geskep word dat een groep in die proses op die vlug slaan. Ons is verbind tot die skepping van ’n nierassige universiteit en nie die toestand dat wittes buite woon en swartes binne of andersom nie.


Ons koester die begrip van medemenslikheid en agting vir ons almal se gelyke menswaardigheid op grond van ons oorheersende menslike ooreenkomste en gedeelde waardes. Ons staan rassisme teen, of dit nou van wit of van swart kom. Ons wil nie aan die eenkant versoening predik maar in waansinnige onderlinge verdeeldheid en agterdog voortleef nie. Almal moet die wonder beleef van die moontlikheid dat ons een kan wees.

Ons waardeer dit opreg dat daar van die kant van ons minister Naledi Pandor paslike veroordeling van die rassevoorval uitgespreek is, maar dat sy onmiddellik die fokus geplaas het op die geleenthede wat die geval vir al ons kampusse maar ook vir ons land bied.

Eweneens ervaar ons die reaksie van die rektore van nasionale universiteite as aandoenlik positief waar die vanselfsprekende veroordeling gepaardgegaan het met die oorheersende geneigdheid om as leiers van meer rassige kampusse intellektuele leiding te probeer gee in die bepaling van waar ons land staan in die hantering van rassisme, ons erfsonde.

Ons is maar alte bewus daarvan dat ons ongelukkige geskiedenis van kolonialisme en apartheid nog vars in die geheue is. In ons euforie oor die koms van die demokrasie, wat gegrond is op ons grondwetlike verklaring van ons eenheid, was ons nietemin miskien naïef om te dink dat ons in werklikheid nou een is. Dit was bloot die aanhef. Jody Kollapen van die Suid-Afrikaanse Menseregtekommissie het iets beet wanneer hy aanvoer dat ons wel versoening omhels het, maar naïef gedink het dat solank ons die konsep op ons lippe neem, dit alles sal regmaak. Ons stem saam dat daar inderdaad steeds baie werk te doen is.

Ons wil te maklik die omvang van die taak om ’n nierassige nasie te bou geringskat. Ons misken heel dikwels die inherente gebrek aan kapasiteit by mense om op hul Godgegewe ooreenkomste te fokus. Dit lyk asof mense veel meer geneig is om verskille, gewaand of eg, te beklemtoon. Dit is ’n deel van ons menslikheid. Daar is ’n ontstentenis van leiding van byvoorbeeld ons kerk. Die kerk verkondig met heilige preweling ons eenheid in Christus, maar verdedig onmiddellik daarna dawerend verdeeldheid in die kerk. Ons pas regstelling in die werkplek toe sonder om werklik aandag te gee aan en bronne beskikbaar te stel vir die hantering van geregverdigde swart woede en sonder om begryplike aanmatiging en meerderwaardigheid te versoen met ewe begryplike wit verydeling en vervreemding.

Ons ag diversiteit as ’n gegewe sonder om genoegsame werk daarvan te maak om die rykheid van ons heterogeniteit in te bou in die nierassige eenheidstaat wat ons voorsien. Ons begaan ook die fout om die erfsonde van rassisme as net ’n Suid-Afrikaanse fenomeen te eien en is geskok as ons opmerk hoe diep die kloof tussen groepe in Amerika steeds lê.

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA se toespraak in Philadelphia spreek tot die hart van die kwessie oor hoe moeilik dit is om medemenslik te wees en hoe ons sukkel om ons in ander skoene te plaas en so eenheid te bou.

Ons vergeet so maklik dat ons versugting na vrede nêrens sal kom as ons nie die aandrang verstaan dat niemand gevra word om af te skuif nie, maar dat mense bloot gevra word om op te skuif sodat almal sitplek kan kry sodat ons sodoende mekaar se menswaardigheid kan voel en verstaan. Ons almal het gelyke aanspraak op Suid-Afrikanerskap. Niemand het die reg om meerderwaardig te voel nie. Ons mag ook nie ruimte skenk aan die geboorte of oplewing van ’n nuwe veronderstelling dat gemeensaamheid gebou kan word deur rassevernedering aan die een kant en rassevergelding aan die ander kant nie. Ons in Suid-Afrika het ’n hoë prys betaal vir die beoefening asook die verdraagsaamheid. Ons moet enige vorm van rassehegemonie teenstaan.

Hoe erg die provokasie ook al by swart mense kan wees wanneer ons rassevergelding soek, ons mag dit nooit weer verdra nie. Aan die ander kant is dit ewe gevaarlik dat ons nasionale geesdrif vir vergifnis en versoening deur wit mense geag word as ’n geleentheid om terug te val in gemaksones van meerderwaardigheid en toe-eiening Ons is dit aan ons toekoms verskuldig om hierdie tendense onmiddellik raak te sien en te besweer. Dit verg dapper leierskap. Ons universiteit het rede om trots te wees op ons prestasies om groter oopheid en toeganklikheid te skep. Die afgelope 5 jaar het ons 61 studente uit lande soos die Soedan, Ethiopië, Kameroen, Botswana en Lesotho gedoktoreer. Boonop het 6 studente uit lande soos Korea en Indië by ons doktorsgrade verwerf en 11 uit lande soos Amerika en Duitsland. Dit is ons trots.

Ons aan die UV is dit aan ons land maar ook aan onsself verskuldig om nederig te bly en, waar nodig, ons hand diep in eie boesem te steek, maar terselfdertyd te beklemtoon dat ons nie gedefinieer wil word deur insidentele vergrype van ’n klein groep misleide studente nie – hoe erg hul optrede ook al is. Ons reken daarmee af, maar ons wil graag onsself erken as deelgenote aan die erfenis van die nasionale sonde van rassisme, maar ’n universiteit wat transformasie aktief nastreef. Ons is trots op ons oopheid en wat daaruit voortspruit. Op die oomblik is ons onsosiale tradisie van herkoms Afrikaans en Sotho en is ons daarop ingestel om, waar doenlik en waar dit vereis word, Engels as internasionale taal in te bou in ons pogings om mekaar te vind eerder om ons trotse kultuur tradisies te vergeet.

DIE raad, die senaat, die rektor, die personeel van die universiteit wil saam met studente en werkers opnuut geleenthede soek om in gesprek met mekaar te bly. Ons wil saam opgewonde bly oor die moontlikheid van heling, groei en transformasie wat die onlangse insident vir ons geskep het.

Artikel in Die Burger, Saterdag 22 Maart 2008

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