Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
19 November 2021 | Story Nontombi Velelo | Photo Supplied
Nontombi Velelo is a PhD candidate and Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of the Free State (UFS).

Current reports related to gender reflect and emphasise the negative impact of gender on society — especially the negative impact of men and masculinity in society. Studies are conducted to understand the root(s) and triggers of men’s social conduct/misconduct. Without a doubt, men are often guilty of causing some of the social ills. However, we often do not acknowledge and recognise the pressures and challenges that society presents to men. In most instances, the focus in reporting is on their conduct/misconduct. Less attention is given to interrogating and reflecting on how masculine notions are formed and subsequently practised, and the influence of social settings on these processes. 

It is worth pointing out that masculinity is not a static entity – it is flexible, evolving, and adapts to different contexts. However, there is a struggle between upholding the traditional practices of masculinity and the desire for modern and liberal practices of masculinity. The concept of ‘traditional’ masculinity is frequently used when investigating the construction and practices of masculinity. This concept is often understood as the opposite of the modern representation of masculinity. Yet, it refers to what is considered to make a man a ‘real’ man – attributes such as independence, self-sufficiency, heterosexuality, physical toughness, and emotional restrictedness. These attributes highlight the ideas of masculinity embedded in traditional ideology, rules, and norms. We often expect men to possess these attributes, particularly independence, self-sufficiency, and emotional restrictedness. Without a doubt, these expectations present challenges for men. Men are less likely to express their feelings – they are also not expected to express their emotions. Besides, men are not as expressive as women and the signs of mental illness are not the same as those in women. Though we expect men to man-up and demonstrate strength when confronted with challenges, we are not aware of the damage this may cause to their mental and emotional well-being. According to the World Health Organisation (2021), South African men are more than four times more likely to commit suicide than women. Of more than 6 000 cases of suicide, 5 138 were men, which translates to 21,8 per 100 000. This indicates the need to unlearn the damaging expectations of gender. 

Men’s socio-economic and socio-political positions influence how they view and practise their masculinity. Though Statistics South Africa (2021) reported that 32,4% of men are unemployed (compared to 36,8% of unemployed women), South African men living in poverty find themselves in a stressful climate, as they are unable to live up to their and others’ ideas of ‘successful masculinity’. To a large extent, men are still expected to assume the role of financial provider. Failure to adhere to these expectations may result in one’s masculine traits not being recognised or acknowledged. In some cases, men are considered ‘less of a man’ since they cannot fulfil the expectation of financial provision. This, subsequently, affects their interaction and relationships with other men, women, and children. 

Apart from the societal expectations, we need to pay attention to the socialisation process within the family. A family is a training ground where members are trained and taught about desirable and undesirable behaviour and expectations of others. Within the family structure, men and women are socialised to internalise and accept toxic gender roles – one being the use of violence. Violent behaviour is often associated with normal ‘boyish’ behaviour; therefore, it is perceived to be expected of a boy child to resort to violence. It is expected of a boy child to retaliate/fight back when facing conflict. Consequently, violence is viewed as a measure to correct behaviour associated with disobedience or challenging masculine authority. The Mail & Guardian reported in 2020 that one in five women in South Africa experienced violence at a partner’s hands. South Africa has witnessed an increase in gang rapes, most of the first-time rape offenders being teenage boys (SafeSpace, 2021). Teenage boys are not only members of society but also members of the family. This does not imply that parents are responsible for the acts of their children. However, it demonstrates the need to interrogate and challenge the socialisation process as far as gender roles and expectations are concerned. Regardless of the mentioned challenges associated with masculinity, there are individual men in society who have invested efforts to transform the masculine scripts and to cultivate positive male attributes. These are men who strive to be good citizens, husbands, fathers, brothers, and uncles. Unfortunately, the efforts invested by these individual men tend to be disregarded in society, since the focus is always on unpacking and reflecting the toxic actions and attributes of men. 

Commemoration of International Men’s Day

International Men’s Day commemorates the positive contribution of men to their world, families, and communities. The day aims to create awareness around the well-being of men. As we celebrate this day, it is important to recognise and acknowledge male pain. Society often disregards male pain and focuses on male privilege.

Furthermore, recognising ways in which men are hurt by rigid gender roles and expectations and social settings where these roles and expectations are practised, does not imply disregard for the struggle and oppression of women. With the 2021 slogan being ‘Better relations between men and women’, I am reminded of the third wave of feminist scholars who pointed out that society is experiencing a crisis embedded in patriarchal masculinity rather than masculinity itself. There is a need to sensitise men and women to the dangers of patriarchy, particularly for men. It is also important to encourage men to construct their own identities that are different from those prescribed by patriarchy. Although most men might not be oppressed by sexism in ways similar to women, we need to pay much closer attention to how men suffer the consequences of sexism. It is worth recognising that men do not derive the common benefits from sexist oppression, since they do not hold a common social position. It is important to acknowledge the role of individual men in changing the masculine narrative. May we recognise such individuals in our homes, workplaces, and communities. There is a need to unlearn the damaging patriarchal expectations of gender.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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