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

Position statement: Recent reporting in newspapers
2014-10-03

 

You may have read reports in two Afrikaans newspapers, regarding recent events at the University of the Free State (UFS). Sadly, those reports are inaccurate, one-sided, exaggerated and based not on facts, but on rumour, gossip and unusually personal attacks on members of the university management.

Anyone who spends 10 minutes on our Bloemfontein Campus would wonder what the so-called ‘crisis’ is about.

We are left with no choice other than to consider legal action, as well as the intervention of the South African Press Ombudsman, among other steps, to protect the good name of the institution and the reputation of its staff. No journalist has the right to launch personal and damaging attacks on a university and its personnel, whatever his or her motives, without being fair and factual. In this respect, the newspapers have a case to answer.

But here are the facts in relation to the reports:

  1. No staff member, whether junior or senior, is ever suspended without hard evidence in hand. Such actions are rare, and when done, are preceded by careful reviews of our Human Resource Policies, labour legislation and both internal and external legal advice. Then, and only then, is a suspension affected. A suspension, moreover, does not mean you are guilty and is a precautionary action to allow for the disciplinary investigation and process to be conducted, especially where there is a serious case to answer.
  2. At no stage was the Registrar instructed to leave the university; this is patently false and yet reported as fact. We specifically responded to the media that the Registrar does outstanding work for the university and that it is our intention for him to remain as our Registrar through the end of his contract in 2016.
  3. The Rector does not make decisions by himself. Senior persons, from the position of Dean, upwards, are appointed by statutory and other senior committees of the university and finally approved by Council. No rector can override the decision of a senior committee, and this has not happened at the UFS even in cases where the Rector serves as Chair of that committee. The impression of heavy-handed management at the top insults all our committee structures, including the Institutional Forum – the widest and most inclusive of stakeholder bodies at a university – which reports directly to Council on fairness and compliance of selection processes.
  4. In the case of senior appointments, Council makes the final decision. Council fully supports the actions taken on senior appointments, including a recent senior suspension. The fact that one Council member resigns just before the end of his term, whatever the real reason for this action, does not deter from the fact that the full Council in its last sitting approved the major staffing decisions brought before it. The image therefore that the two newspapers try to create of great turmoil and distress at the university, is completely unfounded.

Even if we wanted to, the university obviously cannot provide details about staffing decisions, especially disciplinary actions in process, since the rights of individuals should be protected in terms of the Human Resource Policies and procedures of the UFS. But that does not give any newspaper the right to speculate or state as fact that which is based on rumour or gossip, or to slander senior personnel of the university. For these reasons, we have been forced to seek legal remedy and correction as a matter of urgency.

Make no mistake, underlying much of the criticism of the university has been a distress about transformation at the UFS; in particular, the perception is created that white colleagues are losing their jobs. The evidence points in the opposite direction. Our progress with equity has been slow and we lag far behind most of the former white universities; that is a fact. More than 90% of our professors are white; most of our senior appointments at professorial level and as heads of department are still overwhelmingly white. Reasonable South Africans would agree that our transformation still has a long way to go and only the mean-spirited would contend otherwise. But based on the two Afrikaans newspaper reports, an impression is left of the aggressive rooting out of white colleagues.

In the past few years the academic standard of the university has significantly improved. We now have the highest academic pass rates in years, in part because we raised the academic standards for admission four years ago. We now have the highest rate of research publications, and among the highest national publication rate of scholarly books, in the history of the UFS. We have one of the most stable financial situations of any university in South Africa, with a strong balance sheet and growing financial reserves way beyond what we had before. We now attract top professors from around the country and other parts of the world, and we have the highest number of rated researchers, through the National Research Foundation, than ever before. And after the constant turmoil of a number of years ago, we now have one of the most stable campuses in South Africa. Those are the facts.

The UFS is also regarded around the world as a university that has become a model of transformation and reconciliation in the student body. The elections of our Student Representative Council are only the most visible example of how far we have come in our leadership diversity. Not a week goes by in which other universities, nationally and abroad, do not come to Kovsies to consult with us on how they can learn from us and deepen their own transformations, especially among students.

Rather than focus on what more than one senior journalist, in reference to the article in Rapport of 21 September 2014, rightly called ‘a hatchet job’ on persons and the university, here are the objective findings of a recent survey of UFS stakeholders: 92% endorse our values; 77% agree with our transformation; 78% believe we are inclusive; and 78% applaud our overall reputation index.  Those are very different numbers from a few years ago when the institution was in crisis.

This is our commitment to all our stakeholders: we will continue our model of inclusive transformation which provides opportunities for study and for employment for all South Africans, including international students and colleagues. We remain committed to our parallel-medium instruction in which Afrikaans remains a language of instruction; we are in fact the only medical school in the country that offers dual education and training in both Afrikaans and English for our students - not only English. We provide bursaries and overseas study opportunities to all our students, irrespective of race. And our ‘future professors’ programme is richly diverse as we seek the academic stars of the future.

We are not perfect as a university management or community. Where we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and try to do better the next time round. But we remain steadfast in our goal of making the UFS a top world university in its academic ambitions and its human commitments.

END

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