Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
12 November 2024 | Story Dr Nombulelo Shange | Photo André Damons
Dr Nombulelo Shange
Dr Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of the Free State

Opinion article by Dr Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of the Free State

Women For Change has created a very important petition, calling for the cancellation of the upcoming Chris Brown concert. Chris Brown has a long history of abusing women, with the 2009 abuse of Rihanna being the most notable example. The Women for Change petitionhas been polarising, with some celebrating the activism and support for women, even when it seems “unpopular” to do so. Others have rushed to social media to defend the American singer, sharing their excitement about attending the concert.

The sad reality is the Women For Change campaign is unlikely to succeed given that the tickets sold out in a matter of hours. South Africa prioritises profit over everything, over social well-being, over protecting vulnerable groups, its own state agenda or other important social factors. But this is an important campaign because it drums up awareness and holds a mirror to our society, reflecting the lengths we will go through to defend patriarchy.

Understanding structures of patriarchy through a radical feminist perspective

The overwhelming support for Chris Brown in a country that has been labelled the rape capital of the world, shows we are unwilling or unable to understand how we gained this jarring reputation. Patriarchy is at the centre of it all, radical feminist scholar, Sylvia Walby offers deeper discussion on patriarchy. Broadly, patriarchy is a social system that prioritises men and sees them as superior to women and is rooted in the oppression and marginalisation of women.

Walby identifies six social structures and practices that create or reinforce patriarchy, namely;

  • Household production, which includes everything from the hierarchy of importance within the family, women’s roles often being seen as inferior and unpaid domestic work.
  • Labour, where women are either excluded, discriminated against and/or paid less.
  • Culture, which entails ideologies and praxis that portray women as inherently inferior, a view often reinforced by religion, media and even language.
  • Sexuality ensures that women’s sexuality or sexual expression is more controlled, while men have more freedoms. Women have less bodily autonomy and agency.
  • Violence, gender-based violence and sexual abuse give men power over women, leaving women subdued and fearful.
  • Finally, the state and related structures like legal systems, policies and so on have a long history of perpetuating systematic and direct violences against women.

Intersectional politics and patriarchy

These six structures of patriarchy seldom ever exist in isolation from each other, in fact, it can be challenging to tell them apart because they are so interwoven. A single event could see one or more of these structures at play, which is why in part it becomes difficult to ensure justice in individual cases or to even dismantle patriarchy as a whole to protect everyone (including men) from the harm patriarchy causes. Intersectional scholars and activists such as Audre Lorde, Kimberlé Crenshaw, bell hooks and Patricia Hill Collins further help us understand the complex cocktail of oppression when patriarchy is met by other social identities perceived as negative, including; race, class, religion and so on.

These two theoretical approaches provide a lens for society to understand gender and different forms of oppression, so that we might be better able to address them. So, if a black woman in South Africa experiences oppression at a predominantly white-male-led highly respected place of work, and the abuse and bullying eventually leads to the black woman being pushed out with some reputational harm – in this singular case it becomes clear that there are different structures of patriarchy involved, and intersectional politics at play. The intersectional politics help us understand the racial and other social nuances like age and others that were used as a basis for marginalising this black woman. Multiple structures of patriarchy are at play in this illustration, labour, because the oppression is taking place in the workplace. Sexuality might also be at play depending on the kind of abuse the black woman is experiencing and because this structure of patriarchy includes bodily autonomy and the risk of being sexualised at work, based on rigid ideas around how one should behave or dress. Culture is also at play and informs the view that the workplace has towards the black women being seen as incompetent, incapable and not belonging in that space. And even the state and related structures are also interlocked into this oppression because stronger legal and policy protections that should prevent this kind of workplace abuse are missing. Many of these listed patriarchal violences are usually not viewed as illegal and are at worst, welcomed and celebrated or at best, seen as unfair or bordering on unethical

Connecting to the Chris Brown boycott

I am making this example because it is a relatable one that most women have gone through, even those who have come out fiercely defending Chris Brown. Whether you are a domestic worker or hold one of the most “important” roles one can hold within your industry, and it is followed by national and global recognition, we have all experienced some kind of gendered oppression in the workplace, relationships, and society as a whole. The structures of patriarchy active in our seemingly more relatable systemic oppression and lives as South African women are exactly the same, even though the events and experiences of abuse might appear to be different. It is the same structures of patriarchy that oppress us on a daily basis, that enable and empower artists like Chris Brown, P Diddy, R Kelly or Harvey Weinstein to rise to such prominence despite being known abusers for decades. To protect and celebrate these people and systems the way we have done, is to preserve and defend the very same oppression we go through in our own daily lives.

We have seen some very influential celebrities and leaders we love and look up to support Chris Brown or criticise Women For Change’s boycott and in doing so have attempted to compartmentalise abuse as separate from Chris Brown’s artistry and work. This is not true, many of these men mentioned above, use their places of work to enact their terror. Their connection to media and ability to shape and inform culture sees them normalising their violence or discrediting victims. We believe them because we are moved by their work and do not want to believe that such talented people can be so vile.

South Africa has its own fair share of these kinds of demonic perpetrators who hunt women for sport. The problem with our division as a country (and especially as women) over issues like this Chris Brown boycott, is that we believe we are different and have therefore transcended some of the patriarchal oppressions. You could be a young, poor woman, wearing next to nothing, twerking in a hip-hop music video for a living, or a church woman and highly respected member of your community, married with children and a thriving career in what is perceived as an important industry, patriarchy does not care. It treats us all with the same brutality, we must understand that these intersectional politics interact with patriarchal structures to create shared oppression and violences. We must see ourselves in the experiences of the women who come forward against artists like Chris Brown because it could easily be one of us. In the rape capital of the world, this threat of violence follows us everywhere, in churches, our homes, work, school and even mundane places like the post office.

16 Days of Activism 2024

The 16 Days of Activism for No Violence against Women and Children Campaign (16 Days Campaign) is a United Nations campaign which takes place annually from 25 November (International Day of No Violence against Women) to 10 December (International Human Rights Day).  https://www.gov.za/16DaysOfActivism2024

 

Other articles by Dr Shange

→ Violent events will continue to take place if poverty is not eradicated as a matter of urgency

→ Black women’s hair: A political battlefield

→ Opinion: Disrupting the harmful ‘strong black woman’ narrative

→ Xenophobic South Africa goes against the Pan-Africanist agenda that liberated us from Apartheid

→ Black men take a page out of their own oppression to marginalise black women in higher education

→ Opinion: Love as Revolutionary Rebellion

→ African Knowledge: Not yet uhuru

→ South Africa has betrayed the dreams of the youth of 1976

→ Charges against Frederick Mhangazo for Cape Town fire criminalise poverty

→ Opinion: Overcoming COVID-19 with the strength and resilience of Sharpeville

→ Can we use African Indigenous Knowledge to tackle COVID-19?

→ Tokenised celebrations of black womanist leaders negate their success

→ What are we really celebrating this Women’s Day?

 

 

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered
2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.  

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply.  What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations.  You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?) 

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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