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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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