Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 August 2022 | Story Nombulelo Shange | Photo Andre Damons
Nombulelo Shange
Nombulelo Shange is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the UFS and is Chairperson of the UFS Womxn’s Forum.

Opinion article by Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of the Free State and Chairperson of the University of the Free State Womxn’s Forum.
The idea of the ‘strong black woman’ is a source of pride for many of us. It makes us feel empowered, particularly when life is breaking us down. But this stereotype can also be very harmful, because it can paint us as homogeneous, unfeeling, angry and unkind people. And when we can’t take the abuse that comes with this stereotype in our relationships, friendships, workplaces, schools and other social spaces, it is our character that is questioned, not the action, individual or institution that has treated us badly.

The perception becomes that you are ‘weak’ or ‘not woman enough’. We end up being too prescriptive and narrow in our understandings or definitions of what it means to be a black woman. But at its core it should mean inclusion, individual and collective acceptance, and expression of our differences. The ‘strong black woman’ definitions and labels can be isolating and exclusionary even when they aren’t intended to be. When I say “To be a black woman is to be strong”, it should not mean those that are not strong are not women or are inadequate at being women. The truth is even vulnerability is important – even for strong women – and is a strength in itself.  

Tracing the origins of the ‘strong black woman’

Historically, even after slavery was abolished, black women were still viewed as slaves/servants, or as promiscuous. This reduced black women’s personhood, and they were not taken seriously socially. Even as the more inclusive new world order was emerging, black women were being left out. They struggled to find adequate work, it was more challenging for them to occupy positions of leadership, and they were overly sexualised. A lot of this is still true even today. To counter these negative stereotypes, black women came up with the ‘strong black woman’ narrative, which came from black resistance, including by women’s suffragette leader, author and educator Mary Church Terrell. Terrell came up with the slogan “Lifting as we climb” – both to inspire black women to reach for greatness while supporting each other, and to present black women to others as more than just slaves. 

Similarly, in South Africa during apartheid, women organised themselves around social issues, with many community-based organisations springing up, including the Alexandra Women’s Council (AWC) and Bantu Women’s League (BWL). Founded in 1913, the BWL was led by the revolutionary Charlotte Maxeke; she and other BWL members demanded recognition and to be heard during a time when women were not allowed full membership in the African National Congress. In 1947 the AWC successfully resisted forced removals when the Native Affairs Commission was sent to Alexandra Township to move shack dwellers. These women refused to participate in a job market where black women could only be in service of white people. They were self-reliant and made money mainly through traditional beer brewing. Slogans like “Wathinta abafazi, wathint' imbokodo!” (“You strike a woman, you strike a rock”) were popularised in SA and perpetuated the notion that black women are strong and can handle anything.

The danger

While the ‘strong black woman’ stereotype was created by black women, I want to argue that it worked a little too well, and even its creators would not be happy with how it is interpreted today. It is used to justify our oppression and abuse instead of celebrating our strengths as was intended. Our mothers and grandmothers carried the weight of the world while still portraying very strong personas, never showing any weakness. The expectation is that we do the same in the workplace, in relationships, our homes, and our communities. It doesn’t matter if this comes at the expense of our mental health and energy, because we are ‘strong’, and we ‘should be able to take it’. 

The women that came before us almost single-handedly raised strong families, skilfully stretching the little money they had to address all the family’s needs. And they did it with love –  because of the personal sacrifices and lengths our mothers would take to ensure that we were happy, many of us did not realise until much later on in life that we had grown up poor. To make sure we had as many of the things we wanted as possible, they struggled to address their own basic needs. Our mothers and grandmothers did all of this while navigating the worst institutionalised racism and gender oppression, while leading or inspiring revolutions and providing a safe space for black men whose bodies, masculinity and sense of self were constantly under attack.  

Beyond the negative mental health implications, the ‘strong black woman’ narrative also affects other parts of social life. This includes workplaces that overburden black women – while paying them significantly less than men or other races, and overlooking them for promotions. In our communities, black women are the lifeline of our churches, community organisations and structures, but are side-lined from leadership positions and the potential social or economic rewards that should come with their participation. Even healthcare institutions let us down, with racial and gender bias playing a big role in how we are diagnosed and treated when we are sick. 

Rich and powerful black women like Serena Williams, with access to the best healthcare money can buy, are not excluded from this reality: Williams’s childbirth complications briefly raised awareness on the inadequate medical care black women get. Often the perception is that we have lied or exaggerated our symptoms or pain experience. When Williams reported having shortness of breath to medical staff, they ignored her and assumed she was confused from her painkillers. This is a global phenomenon, made worse by lack of resources in poorer countries. SA’s healthcare system, which is built on the backs of mostly black women nurses, simultaneously excludes them. A 2020 Oxfam report titled ‘The right to dignified healthcare work is a right to dignified health care for all’ found that many black female nurses do not have access to the services they provide – they can’t afford healthcare or to take sick leave, because they do not get paid when they do not work.  

When we internalise ‘strong black womanness’

The ‘strong black woman’ narrative is most dangerous when we unquestioningly internalise it. We even go to the extent of normalising it in cultural life, as expressed in sayings like, “Kuyabekezelwa emshadweni”, meaning, “You persevere through everything in a marriage/relationship.” This is what black women often tell themselves and each other when they experience hardship – mostly in relationships, but also in general life. Even if this hardship is abuse or a life-threatening situation, we fight to survive, instead of leaving. This Women’s Month, let us remember that it is OK to be soft, diverse, and multifaceted. It is OK to leave toxic workplaces and relationships and, most importantly, it is OK to be vulnerable and open to healing – because we have been through the most.

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