Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
03 August 2022 | Story Nontombi Velelo | Photo André Damons
Nontombi Velelo
Nontombi Velelo is a PhD student, Social Science Programme Director, and Sociology Lecturer at the University of the Free State (UFS).

Opinion article by Nontombi Velelo, PhD student; Social Science Programme Director and Sociology Lecturer at the University of the Free State.


History reminds us of the 20 000 women who marched to the Union Buildings on 9 August 1956, calling for the free movement of black women in South African urban areas. This act illustrated the sisterhood bond that the early feminist thinkers aspired to, since women from different backgrounds and races participated in the march. The women who participated in the protest challenged the systematic oppressive and racist rules of the apartheid regime. As one reflects on this phenomenon, one recognises solidarity among the women of 1956, which dispels the perception that women cannot unite for a common cause. It also creates an illusion that South African men and women are comrades in the struggle since they fought against colonialism and apartheid and, to some extent, share similar experiences regarding violation of human rights. Therefore, the most logical action is to have a common understanding of systematic oppression, violation, and exclusion.

Post-apartheid, 28 years into democracy, South African women still find themselves existing within similar conditions from the past. Most people invested efforts in unpacking women's experiences as victims of gender-based violence (GBV), the causes of GBV, and possible remedies for GBV. Undoubtedly, GBV has presented itself as a social ill and demonstrates the coercive power dynamics that exist within society. President Cyril Ramaphosa has declared gender-based violence as the South African pandemic, yet the government has undertaken no active efforts to respond rather than react to the phenomenon. Instead, the state has paid lip service to what needs to be done to ensure the safety of women in the country. Between October and December 2021, more than 900 South African women were murdered; these are reported cases, but there are many unreported cases related to GBV and femicide. Approximately 51% of South African women have experienced some form of violence. The call for the free movement of women in the country is far from being answered.

The issue of GBV has distracted us from recognising other existing problems experienced by women in South Africa – unemployment being one of them. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) reported that 42,1% of South African households are headed by women, 39,6% of urban households are headed by women, and 47,7% of rural households are also headed by women. The issue is that 36,4% of these women are unemployed and living under the harsh realities of extreme poverty – remembering that some are single parents taking care of their dependent family members. We should not forget the problem of absent biological fathers who are neither emotionally nor financially present in their children's lives. They are responsible for ensuring that the basic needs of their children and dependent family members are addressed. We often assume that social grants should help relieve the pressures of unemployment and childcare; however, the reality is that it cannot even reduce half of SASSA beneficiaries' needs due to the escalating prices of commodities. Those fortunate enough to find employment are confronted with the constant battle of pursuing their career ambitions and family lives. Women excelling in their careers are often perceived as having failed in their family responsibilities (being good mothers and wives). The bread-and-butter issues have become a thorny subject for women who are unemployed or pursuing their careers.

The other challenge is the issue of land restitution and distribution and its role in addressing socio-economic inequalities and challenges. Though the land restitution and distribution debates advocate equal land distribution among men and women, few women have land ownership. Approximately 13% of South African women have private ownership of farmland. However, things have not changed for women living in rural areas since the discourse around land reform. Women in rural areas are subjected to the sexist oppression of traditional leaders, who do not recognise the importance of land ownership by women. In some contexts, it is perceived that women do not have any form of rights or privilege to landownership. Social norms do not encourage us to recognise women as landowners – land ownership is often recognised under marriage. If the husband passes on, the land will belong to his family to avoid losing it if a woman remarries. Due to patrilineal inheritance custom, a boy child will often be the one to inherit the land rather than a girl child. Therefore, some traditional norms do not recognise women as entitled to land ownership.

Women are vulnerable to climate change resulting from their poor socio-economic background. Women in rural areas represent a higher percentage of poor communities and depend for their livelihood on the natural resources threatened by climate change. Having a lack of access to natural resources puts women in stressful situations. In most cases, it is the responsibility of women in rural areas to ensure that their dependent family members have access to clean drinking water. When there is no access to water, for example, women would have to find means to get water and, in some cases, even travel long distances to find water. Also, they are the ones expected to gather wood to ensure that their children are fed and have drinking water. In most communities, women are not active participants in decision-making. We have internalised the notion that men are more rational leaders than women; therefore, we tend not to acknowledge women's voices in decision-making.

Commemorating Women's Month

9 August celebrates the monumental achievement of the women of 1956 who fought against sexist and racial segregation. Those women understood their enemy and united in dealing with the enemy. The present-day women are confronted with intersecting challenges. I believe South Africa should not commemorate Women's Month, since women still do not have freedom and still experience the violation of their human rights. We need active solutions, like the 1959 women, to mitigate our challenges. There is nothing to celebrate about being a woman in South Africa, since womanhood is subjected to abuse, violation, and exclusion. Without minimising the efforts and contributions of those who came before us, we should mourn the social injustices directed at, and the traumatic experiences of, South African women. The notion of imbokodo subjected women to systematic dominance, disrespect, violation, and exploitation. The lives of South African women are devalued; they continue to experience trauma imposed by the system of patriarchy.


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