Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
21 March 2025 Photo Supplied
Siyanda Magayana
Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, UFS.

Opinion article by Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State.


The world is experiencing a surge in backsliding on human rights, particularly for women and marginalised individuals and communities. Across the continent, hard-won freedoms are being stripped away, raising the question – whose rights really matter? From Iran to Africa, to Afghanistan to the United States, we are witnessing a systematic erosion of rights for women and gender-diverse persons under the guise of culture, religion, sovereignty, tradition, and political convenience.

 

In Afghanistan, for instance, the Taliban’s return to power has led to the near-total eradication of women from the country’s public life, i.e., banning them from the workplace, from getting an education, restricting how they dress, and even banning them from public spaces without a male guardian. In addition, in Iran, we see the brutalisation of women protesting for bodily autonomy following the death of Mahsa Amini, highlighting the deadly consequences of gender oppression. Even in so-called liberal democracies such as the US – the repeal of Roe vs Wade, which highlighted the fragility of women’s rights as governments roll back on reproductive rights and freedoms.

Africa, as a continent, is not exempt from this wave of regression. For instance, in Sudan, the continuing conflict has disproportionately affected women, with various reports of sexual violence growing. Even in stable democracies, restrictive abortion laws and patriarchal traditions continue to suppress women’s agency and autonomy. This regression is not just a legal one, but also cultural, as it is sustained by prevailing societal norms and standards that uphold gender inequality.

A justification for these setbacks is often the manipulation of culture and religion, seeking to enforce outdated and discriminatory gender roles. Followed by arguments such as ‘our forefathers had no problem with women not working because they supported them’, or ‘men are the heads of the household, as stated in religious and cultural teachings’, are used to defend and justify the systemic oppression of women’s and other vulnerable groups’ rights. These endemic narratives not only ignore the varying socio-economic realities that demand women’s and other diverse groups’ economic participation but also dismiss their agency. When culture and religion are weaponised to justify oppression and violence, they stray far from their true essence, which is compassion, mutual respect, and justice.

LGBTQI rights under threat

Beyond the regression in women’s rights, the LGBTQI+ community faces escalating persecution. For instance, Uganda’s anti-homosexuality act, which includes harsh penalties – even the death sentence – for same-sex relationships, reflects an alarming trend of state-sponsored homophobia. Similarly, this can be seen in Ghana, where proposed legislation seeks to criminalise LGBTQI+ identities entirely. These policies not only deny people their basic right to humanity but also embolden violence and discrimination against non-heterosexual individuals.

This regression is not limited to African nations. In countries such as Russia, for instance, LGBTQI+ activists are silenced through outdated laws, while in the US, there is an evident rise of anti-trans laws. These laws and targeted attacks on marginalised communities are evidence of a broader and more insidious attempt to control, erase, and dictate identity, behaviour, and personal rights and freedoms.

The question of masculinity, fear, and the regression of rights

A key driver of this regression and repression is the ‘masculinity anxiety’ or ‘crisis of masculinity’, which is the perception that traditional masculinity is being challenged, threatened, or devalued in modern society. This anxiety may stem from global cultural shifts regarding gender roles, the advancement of women’s rights, and the protection of gender-diverse people, which are often framed as attacks on traditional masculinity and male authority. Many men, for instance, conditioned by patriarchal systems, feel displaced when women gain independence and when gender roles evolve beyond rigid binaries.  This fear manifests in resistance to gender equality, as well as the vilification of LGBTQI+ individuals.

However, this perception is deeply flawed and problematic. Masculinity does not and should not rely on the oppression of others. Men are not made weaker by women’s empowerment or by the protection of LGBTQI+ rights, as is the current rhetoric; on the contrary, societies that support gender equality and inclusivity are more stable, humane, and safer. The discourse around masculinity must shift from one of dominance and control to one of mutual respect, partnership, and shared progress.

Therefore, instead of clinging to outdated notions of manhood, we need conversations that redefine masculinity in a way that embraces emotional intelligence, care, and the ability to exist alongside women and gender-diverse individuals without feeling threatened. Initiatives promoting positive masculinity, mentorship for (young) men, and education on gender equity are critical to dismantling these harmful fears and replacing them with a framework and discourse that sees strength in equality rather than opposition to it.

The impact of rights regression

The regression in human rights has profound consequences, both at a local and global level. When women are denied access to education, reproductive rights, and economic opportunities, the entire economy is susceptible to stagnation and/or collapse. And, where LGBTQI+ rights are criminalised, there is a risk of repealing the freedom of expression, leading to increased systemic and individual violence, discrimination, and harassment. The Global South, in particular, is vulnerable to these backward shifts, as weakened legal protections and entrenched conservative ideologies and practices make it difficult to push back against state repression.

In South Africa, for example, the regression of women’s rights is manifesting in a particularly violent manner. GBV and sexual violence have reached crisis levels, threatening the very existence of women; femicide incidents are also among the highest globally. The failure to address these crimes reflects a broader societal problem, which is the normalisation of violence against women and gender- and sexually diverse individuals, and subsequently, the lack of accountability for perpetrators. When women and other vulnerable groups live in constant fear for their safety, their freedoms are curtailed, and the promise of gender equality becomes hollow rhetoric.

What can be done?

As a nation, we must refuse to be silent and to be silenced; human rights are critical to the prosperity of not just the nation’s economies, but also its people. Civil organisations, institutions of education, grassroots movements, and other relevant stakeholders must continue to resist the removal of the rights of women and marginalised groups. Additionally, we need to change the narrative; the rights of women, children, LGBTQI+, and other marginalised groups are not foreign or ‘Western’ concepts imposed on Africa, they are universal human rights. By framing equality and freedom within African values and discourse, we can challenge regressive ideologies from within.

Equally, education remains our most powerful tool, therefore we must continue to invest in teaching about creating an equal, safe, just, and tolerant society that ensures that the next generation does not repeat the mistakes of the past. The global retreat of human rights is a warning sign to all of us; if we do not act now, the freedoms and rights we take for granted today may not exist tomorrow.

News Archive

School of Medicine not closing
2009-10-22

There is no immediate threat that the University of the Free State’s (UFS) School of Medicine will be closing.

This was confirmed by Prof. Gert van Zyl, Head of the UFS’s School of Medicine and acting Dean of the Faculty of Health Science, following media reports that Prof. Andries Stulting has indicated in a meeting with other medical schools and parliamentary standing committee members that the School will have to close due to the serious problems in the health sector.

“This discussion should be seen in context. Prof. Stulting, in his capacity as acting Head of the School of Medicine, and on behalf of the School and the Faculty, sent a proactive warning to the Free State Health Department, the Member of the Executive Committee and the Premier of the Free State regarding the long-term consequences of the health crisis. This statement was not interpreted correctly. Everything that Prof. Stulting said has already been included in the position statement that the School released in May 2009. What is urgent, though, is that the problems that were identified at especially Pelonomi Hospital in May this year were still not addressed,” said Prof. Van Zyl.

According to Prof. Van Zyl, problems at Pelonomi Hospital include not enough beds, lack of funding for the health sector in the Free State and in some instances problems with filling vacant positions.

“Some of these problems have already been addressed by the Free State Department of Health. Our training platform includes not only Pelonomi Hospital, but also Universitas Hospital, National Hospital, the Free State Psychiatric Complex and several clinics in the Bloemfontein area. This means that there are other facilities available that function in order to provide appropriate training to undergraduate students. Therefore, training is not in immediate danger and the School will definitely not be closing,” he said.

“New first-year students will start their studies in 2010 and I can assure you that there will be adequate training opportunities to take in and train students. However, we do struggle with a bigger intake as requested by Government. I want to put Prof. Stulting’s remark in context: He referred to postgraduate students and therefore the specialists who are in training,” said Prof. Van Zyl.

According to Prof. Van Zyl the specialists in training is a problem that was discussed with the Free State Health Department – with specific reference to less time in operating theatres and the number of beds at Pelonomi Hospital. “We are of the opinion that, should the Department address this problem as a matter of urgency, there will be no long-term damage to the training of these specialists in training. These are the students that Prof. Stulting was referring to,” he said.

The School received more than 1 500 applications for undergraduate studies in 2010 – all of these applications met the minimum selection requirements for the 140 available places. “Our current undergraduate students are therefore not influenced and they will continue to receive the quality training for which the School is renowned,” he said.

Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Rector and Vice-chancellor of the UFS, is aware of this and he satisfied himself as to the situation when he visited the hospitals in Bloemfontein on Friday, 9 October 2009. The national Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr Blade Nzimande, was also informed of the School’s concerns when he visited the UFS in September 2009.

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za  

22 October 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