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

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

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