The price we pay

I, like many others, am a frequent user of Facebook, not only for staying in touch with family and friends and work-related projects, but for entertainment as well. Today I just realised how much commercialised crap this kind of social media feed us with, especially if you are a woman. Let me introduce a selection of these ads: “Lashcurl- eyelash lifting treatment”, “S is for Studs- Cute Peter Pan collars and sexy studding are just so haute right now”, “Parlux hairdryers”, “Get slim with this trick!” And my favourite: “Diamond bra- your breasts are worth it”.

These ads tell me how to look, how to dress, that my eyelashes are not curly enough (Wait, what?!), that I need a slim belly and a diamond bra to look good (seriously, come on) to be accepted. We all know that sex sells and that women are being objectified in commercials, ads, movies, music and so on. You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. But do we really know how much this kind of propaganda affects us? Adults still have responsibilities to explain to their offspring how silly this is, but the teenagers with their till-fluid self image, who are seeking solid ground while trying to break with their parents to become self contained and independent individuals at the same time, are more vulnerable to the suggestions of  these kind of advertising.

Science has proved that this increase the risk of eating disorders, among both girls and boys, as well as of psychological problems such as depression. And I know because I’ve been there.

Until I was fifteen years old, I was a real tomboy and couldn’t really understand why everyone was so obsessed with boys. They were my friends and I didn’t really separate my female and male friends. I saw them all as individuals. But once I fell in love for the first time everything changed from being an innocent game to a serious play where everyone had to find a role. I was not a popular girl in school, I didn’t have the looks and I really hated myself, so I tried my best to fit in. I didn’t work very well so I decided to be the weird but funny girl, a comic relief.

So far, so good. It was all about finding your place and I struggled with it for years as a normal teenager. But one thing almost made me tip over. I didn’t have someone to love, and this was a big issue for someone who has grown up in a culture that teaches you that you have no value without a boyfriend. It is normal for a person with low self esteem to think that your existence as a person depends on how much others love you. This started a chain of self-punishment that I’ve been struggling with for years.

I became obsessed with all advertisements. All the beautiful bodies, white teeth and beautiful hair, but mostly the ones about healthy food and working out. I really wanted to look like all these amazing people, I wanted to be them. But most of all, I wanted someone to see me, ME. I worked out more than thirty times a day, while I at the same time ate as much as a seven year old. I hid my problems from others and blamed myself every time I didn’t have the energy for the last lap on the running track. It sounds silly now, but this was my way of having “control” over something in my life.

This is the every-day life of many thousands of teenagers all around the world, but the obsession about beauty is everywhere you go. I paid so much and got back nothing more than a feeling of emptiness.  I luckily got rid of most of my problems, but there are still scars that I share with many women. This disease generates so many unnecessary deaths, but we are still chasing the “good”  life. We are supposed to have Beautiful clothes and even more “beautiful” bodies, and we still believe that it’s needed to catch a man. But you know what? I don’t care if my belly is slim anymore. I don’t care about the colour of my hair or the whiteness of my teeth. I definitely don’t care about whatever I have diamond covered underwear. I chose to be me – warts and all -  for my own sake.

What makes a man marriage material?

This post was initially going to be about a woman’s “marriage-ability”, but then I realised that a big chunk of my life so far has been spent listening to old aunties telling me how I won’t get married if I don’t do that or “men don’t like this and that, they’ll bring you back.” It’s as though from birth, girls and women are taught to be good wives, how to please their husbands, how to care for them and so forth. What I often wonder however is, is there anyone teaching or telling young boys and men how to be good husbands, how to care for and treat their women right or how to be anything other than the revered “god” figures in their homes whose every needs should be attended to at the snap of a finger?

A phrase I’ve heard going around a lot lately is “if the man isn’t hitting you, marry him,” a phrase I’ve had many a heated discussions with friends and family over, because whereas a woman is told to be patient, tolerant, understanding, kind, obedient, submissive, do house chores, cater to her husband’s every need and keep the household together before she can be declared good wife material, all a man has to do is not hit her and he’s good husband material. In fact, what I gather from all that is “don’t give him any reason at all to even want to hit you (after all, you’re being the “perfect wife.”) yet be grateful that he does not.” Snag him, he’s a catch!

  

If anything, I think while we (women) are being taught to be the perfect woman, men are probably taught how to spot the perfect woman. They are being taught how to ensure “discipline” in their households and make sure that this woman “knows her place”. Perhaps they are taught to also be “providers” for the family as well, but at what cost? My problem with phrases like “if he’s not hitting you, marry him”, is that it tells and encourages women to turn a blind eye to any problems or any other kind of abuse or maltreatment they may be facing in their relationships as long as the man is not being physically abusive with you and he is bringing home the bacon then you should “stick it out”.

I think it is high time that our men are taught that not hitting or abusing a woman anyhow does not make you exceptional in any way or ensure that you’ll make a god husband, it merely makes you a decent human being. I think it is time our men are also taught that to make a marriage work, you need to respect your partner, you need to be cooperative and understanding, you need to work just as hard as she does to maintain the relationship. I think our men need to be taught that in order to have a good wife, you need to be a good husband, you are not ‘entitled’ to one simply by virtue of the fact that you’re a man!

Oh, those immoral breasts!

The morning routine in Sister Namibia usually is punctuated by the perusal of the daily papers, just to see whether there is anything note worthy in the news. Very often there is nothing of particular interest, which is followed by the remark “no news is no news.” But sometimes, we have to really wonder what is going on in the minds of our fellow country men and women. Today was one such day.

While it seems that the debate over women’s supposed culpability in rape, because they dare to be wearing miniskirts, is still very acute, we were surprised to find the following ‘jewel.” For somewhat obscured amongst readers sms responses on the miniskirt debate, and apparently adding to this debate, this “insight.” “Die vrouens wat die helfte van hulle klere in die openbaar uittrek om te borsvoed, behoort hulle te skaam! Kan hulle asb. ʼn badkamer gebruik of ʼn ander plan maak. Hulle is regtig ʼn groot verleentheid vir ons ander vrouens!“

For the non-Afrikaans readers: “ Those women who half undress in public to breastfeed should be ashamed of themselves! Could they not use a bathroom or make another plan? They are a big embarrassment to us fellow women.”

What is going on here? Where are we living? When did we become so  coy or “decent” that we are ashamed to see another woman doing what? Feeding  her baby!  Now everybody knows the state of hygiene of most public toilets – it therefore is completely preposterous to suggest feeding a child in this environment. In addition, it raises another question: Where is the breastfeeding mother supposed to be sitting? On the pot? Honestly?

Also the suggestion to “make another plan” seems ludicrous to me. It used to be that whenever a couple was making out in public, people used to tell them to get a room. This was for a sexual act. Has breastfeeding become a sexual act? For surely the writer is suggesting that the breastfeeder is engaged in some or the other twisted and perverted activity – and that IN PUBLIC!  Is breastfeeding your child not a public health instead of a social issue?  What is there to be ashamed of or that needs privacy? Where should the breastfeeding mother go? Home? Sitting in a smoulderingly hot car? Hide behind the shop/ restaurant/ sports arena? What about the bottle-feeders? Would they be considered as immoral offenders of the public’s sensibilities in the same way that breastfeeders are?

Like in the miniskirt discussion, it seems to me that the only indecency that exists is in the heads of those who believe it is their “duty” to uphold morality and decency because why? Because everyone else is morally so decrepit that it needs extraordinary measures (threat of arrest in the case of miniskirt wearers and in the case of public breastfeeders, the old click of the moralistic tongue and banishing to the least suitable regions in public life – the old smelly outhouse.)

I can think of only one response to these custodians of morals and ethics in Namibia. Get your head out of the gutter!

The Symbol of Freedom

When I went to the Zoo Park in Windhoek to watch and take photographs for the Miniskirt Friday demonstration, I realised how exposed I felt. It was not because of the pretty black and white-striped miniskirt I was wearing, and it was not because of the policemen standing with their “manly” guns and batons to control the protesters. It was because of this gang of young men sitting under a tree to watch and yell at the girls (and boys) who gathered to join the demonstration. When they spotted me and saw that I was alone they immediately started to shout obscene comments. One of them came up to me and wanted me to “sit with them in the shadow and talk for a while”. I repeatedly, and politely, said no a dozens of times, before he got angry with me. “You should feel honoured that I want to talk to you, since you are so beautiful” he said. What he actually meant was that I should feel honoured that he wanted to talk to me since HE was so beautiful.

I simply told him to cut it off. I did not want their company and I would certainly not feel honoured for being harassed by them. People who act like that should feel honoured for me even looking at them. He got even more cross and wanted me to know how slutty I looked in my miniskirt and that the demonstration would not change anything.

The young man and his friends were wrong. I was smoking hot in that miniskirt and I’m sure that a lot of changes were made that day. I, together with all the pro-miniskirt protestants, raised awareness to what has happened. Many people have argued for (and against) the fact that men should always be able to control their urges. The miniskirt’s status has changed from being slutty and indecent to become a symbol of freedom, of personal expression for many people and I believe that together, we took one step further to gender equality. We showed everyone who was there that it is NOT okay to use someone’s clothing as an excuse for rape.

I had no interest in arguing about his stupidity and rudeness, so I did what I thought was right: I turned my back on him and focused on the more important thing in this context; my freedom as a woman.

Let’s make every Friday a Miniskirt Friday!!

Photo by: Martha Mukaiwa

Perhaps the burqa?

When General Ndeitunga unleashed furore with his threat to arrest any woman who is wearing a miniskirt, there were some men who felt that they just had to also express their opinions on the topic. And why not? We after all are living in a democracy where one is entitled to an opinion. 
However, I find the overzealous, moralistic and self-righteous attempts by some men to speak for and uphold the “chasteness” and “dignity” of women very strange.
One man who joined our online discussion on the topic stated; “ its [sic] unfortunate that most of the time you women choose to ignore plain truth! I’m not against women dressing in minis, or anything, but please whatever they choose to wear, let it be decent. I’m of the belief that a decent woman will always dress decently!”
Later on he just had to make it clear that “I regard every woman in skimpy clothes in a public place as loose, cheap and not worth any respect at all. Charity begins at home, oh wait. . .women believe it begins with men!!! Bottom line is I’ve no respect for rapists & for those women who choose to parade their nakedness in public!” He went on to urge women to “Take off those women blindness tinted specs & see the truth, ” because “Its a shame to see people wasting their time, hard earned cash & energy on negative stuff!”
Yet another man’s stated that he is “very sad that women think the only way to be respected is to be a sex object. Can’t you women be more classic like the Michelle Obamas, Winnie Mandelas, Joyce Bandas etc? How is being a half-naked drama queen beneficial to the cause of equality?”
What disturbs me about these men’s opinions is that they genuinely believe that a woman can only be respected if she is dressed – I suppose - like a nun. A woman’s hair should not show, neither her skin, nor her body. These men, no doubt will support IG Ndeitunga’s proposal to arrest those wily vixen who dare flaunt their skin in public on the spot. I suppose they would also not be negatively inclined towards public chastening, possibly flogging, eventually executed by stoning.
If there is one lesson that the women in Mali-of-late have learned, it is not to underestimate the conviction of a self-righteous group of militant men, especially if they are of a conservative and/or fundamentalist religious persuasion. What may start with controlling what women are wearing or not wearing, soon will spill over into women’s association and curtailing with whom they may or may not speak. Before long their movement is restricted. We know that the struggle for women’s rights in Mali has been set back for 50 years. Is this what we want for Namibia?
I must say, I see very many Namibian women dressed in minis or in shorts, but I honestly cannot remember seeing any of them dressed “indecently” or “immorally” in any sense of the word. Maybe I am not frequenting those places where our brothers see these indecent women. As for half naked? Whenever I see a half naked person on the streets of Windhoek, it usually is a man. 
In short, what do those men advocating for women’s “decency” actually want? I imagine that they will be happy to next see Namibian women in Burqa – after all, this could also be our African tradition.

When cops become the custodians for tradition and culture

Namibian Police Inspector General, Sebastian Ndeitunga, clearly was abusing his position to impose his personal sense of morality and decency onto citizens by threatening to broaden police action against women who he perceives to be clad “indecently.” This follows the arrest of some 40 women in Rundu for wearing “hot pants” earlier. Inspector General Ndetunga threatens to extend the measures to arrest women throughout the country who are wearing “revealing” clothes, because “...it (the clothes) should be within our [sic] tradition.” 
What law gives top cop Sebastian Ndeitunga the authority to threaten women with arrest for wearing miniskirts or shorts? We would also like to know whose culture the good cop is referring to when he talked about the “need to underline the importance of culture..” Who made him the spokesperson for culture in our multi-cultural society? What about his threat that “those who are behaving outside the normal tradition of an African will be dealt with?” Does he include those people who are visiting our country and continent, therefore do not understand the subtleties of his so-called “normal tradition of an African?’ for surely not every person in this country knows what is meant with normal African tradition.
It seems that Inspector General Ndeitunga needs to first learn that Africa is not a country, definitely not a homogenous and singular “culture” or “tradition” as he is suggesting in his statement.
There were already reports of police harassment in Windhoek of a young girl simply dressed in shorts by a police woman, because the police woman thought that the child’s shorts were “bad.” (the irony of the demin shorts, J. Asheeke, The Namibian 15 Feb. 2013.) Perhaps police officers should focus more on arresting women batterers and potential murderers than imposing their personal sense of “decency” onto women.

Religion, Hate and Culture

Jyoti Singh Pandey and Anene Booysen

23 and 17

India and South Africa

These two young women lived in different countries, were raised in different cultures and did not know each other, but they had something in common. Both of them got assaulted, raped and murdered by a gang of men and died by their injuries in front of the eyes of their families.

It doesn’t matter in which country you were born or behind which boundaries you were raised, the hate against women is always there. The question is why. Why do men think we deserve to be raped? What makes men think they can do this to us? How can you even manage to kill an innocent person? Were do all this disgust of the female gender come from? I have so many questions and so little answers. Sexism and violence against women come with religion and beliefs. I once spoke with a young man from the United States about homosexuality and found out that he thought it was  wrong and disturbing, not just because he himself was a heterosexual man, but: “It says so in the Bible”.

Quote from the Bible:  

Lev. 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them" (American standard version, 1901).

That’s true; the Bible says it’s abnormal. But tell me this then: where in the Bible does it say that YOU should judge other people for their sexuality? It also says in the Bible that women, who are not virgins before they are married, should be stoned to death by the men in the town: 

"20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee."

The young man got crossed when I asked him if this also was his opinion. He told me that he of course did not want anyone to be stoned and that the Bible consists of rules and laws from an ancient society and that the religion and the judiciary were almost the same thing back then.  He practically told me that the Bible doesn’t make sense in our modern society, which I thought was an interesting statement since he so passionately ventilated his hate and disgust against gay people. This is why violence against women makes no sense. Religion and beliefs are just reasons for something more complicated and people tend to use the Bible (or any other religious script) to justify their perverse and distasteful acts, because they can not take responsibility for their own decisions.  It is nothing wrong with the religion, wrong is what people do in the name of religion.

Every minute, 27 girls and women all over the world are getting raped and assaulted and the rest of the world refuses to see this. People are trapped by the society in constructed ideas and insane misconceptions. Jyoti Singh Pandey in India got beaten to death with a metal bar.  Anene Booysen in South Africa was seventeen years old and got her intestines ripped out of her body. Why? Because this world needs to learn an important lesson: We were all born on this planet. We deserve to be treated as equals. How hard can it be? Women should not have to fight for their rights as human beings. 

Women are as human as men.

Living vicariously through your toddler

Most weekends I try to spend at least some time just relaxing in front of the telly. And every weekend I find myself bolt upright and watching perhaps one of the most bizarre and scary things that I have ever come across in my life. Try as I may, I am drawn to this thing as a moth to a flame. I know that no good will come from it, but I cannot help myself. I am spellbound.

What I am referring to is yet another American cultural export that seems to be taking the world –god forbid-by storm. It is the toddler pageantry.

The show goes something like this: a bunch of American women, presumably all of them housewives have an over-active desire to relive their adolescence vicariously through their (girl) children. The children inevitably are real brats who believe that they are special because “mommy” is spending all her time training them to, like obedient lap dogs, learn a routine which consists of shaking their little buts at the audience, swinging their hips and behaving in sexualised behaviour that will make any self-respecting person blush with shame.

The children are taught that nothing is as important as beauty and the beauty that is promoted is unreal and creepy to say the least. First there is the investment in a range of outfits, all bejewelled and expensive. Then the petulant, rude and sugar stimulated brats are preened for the show. They are spray tanned until they look like over-roasted little chickens, then the hair is done up so that these poor chicken children look like their little necks might snap under the weight of all their real and false hair.

Next comes makeup which is liberally plastered in the little faces, with fake eye lashes, which has the effect that the toddlers are transformed into cheap imitation 1980s southern belles. Obsessed as American culture seems to be with straight white teeth, fake teeth are glued into their mouths, for shame on that child who may show a gappy mouth. The children are trained, but probably also threatened to – at all times – flash a broad smile that easily can cause severe clamping of the jaws and which must be excruciating.  But also the smiles are fake as everything else on that child.

But the most disturbing thing is the performances themselves. For here you have little girls between the ages 3 and (let’s say) 10, who have been taught to ooze sex and sexiness. Of course, they will never call it that – it is called sparkle. These little girls get on the stage and strut their hip swinging, butt-wiggling, kiss blowing little routines in the belief that they are doing something extraordinary, or that they are displaying girls’ talent.

The mothers usually off stage energetically coax the child into the nightclub routines by pouting, strutting, and wiggling for their children to imitate. The children, possibly the mothers, think they are talented, whereas they are nothing but conditioned little animals, convinced in a cut-throat manner that they alone are the bestest and the mostest. There is no empathy and no sympathy with the competition who, if they could have, would have been obliterated. These little girls believe with all their hearts that they personally are the ultimate supremes and that they have talent because they can shake their booties. Whatever real talent these little children may have in their little souls and their little bodies was killed I am sure and replaced with an obsessive need to be beautiful in that on-the-the stage manner that they were taught by their mothers. As soon as it becomes evident that they are not beautiful enough will try and live their lives’ dreams through their own toddlers.

 Let us hope that this “culture” never catches on in Africa and that our daughters are safe from this mindless, commercialised cattle-show mentality that is being imposed on these poor little toddlers.

What "Golden boy"?

The front page of today’s (15 February)  the Sowetan blazes “golden boy loses shine.” At first glance the reader might be at a loss about what this headline really means. In the text there is a reference to domestic violence, but it is only upon close inspection of the page  - in the caption under a picture of a non-descript hooded man – that one is informed that Oscar Pistorius has been arrested in connection with the murder of his girlfriend.

You may legitimately ask what my issue with this cover is.  It seems to me that what is wrong with this cover, is that by referring to Pistorius’ fall from grace, the reader is led into thinking that this demise  is the actual tragedy of the story. Why would this be important when the real tragedy is that yet another woman died at the hands of a man.  Are we, the southern African readers and public, so desensitised to the murder of a woman that golden boy losing his shine is the more important message? I read somewhere that the number of women who die because of gender-based violence surpasses the combined number of women who die of cancer, car accidents, malaria and wars. This, that yet another woman lost her life (“allegedly”) at the hands of a partner, should have been the real headline, not golden boy’s downfall. In an ideal world, the next headline should have been about the outrage that this evoked. Sadly, Bertold Brecht sometime ago stated that “the first time it was reported that our friends were being butchered there was a cry of horror. Then a hundred were butchered. But when a thousand were butchered and there was no end to the butchery, a blanket of silence spread.”

This seems to be the pattern in the case of women being killed as well.

What’s love got to do with it?

Wondering what one could write in a feminist blog on the global phenomenon, Valentine’s day, I am somehow reminded of Gabriel Garcia-Marquez’s “Love in the time of cholera.” Could one, for instance write something about love in the time of inequality? As soon as these words are written, I realise that this has been done practically throughout history.

I am asking myself whether modern-day girls still indulge in the romantic novellas which informed my and my generations’ ideas about romance and love between two people.

This genre was the blue print of romance between a woman and a man. The plot typically was about the feverish passion that a somewhat plain – but nevertheless beautiful in that girl-next door kind of way , twenty-something girl – feels towards the fiercely good looking, dark, broody, ruthless and wealthy/ influential in some way, male hero. Either the tall dark and handsome hero of the story has a particularly sinister streak, is/ was a ruthless womaniser or has a character trait that his love interest, the girl-next-door, recognises and is at the same time attracted to and repelled by. In some way, she believes that, because she loves him so, she would be able to change our hero, usually by making some sacrifice. Before she could do that though, our young heroine has to contend with and vanquish a possessive if much more beautiful rival. Our heroine usually was vindicated because the love rival’s selfish greed and evil ways were eventually brought to light in the shine of the heroine’s purity and selflessness. The stories usually ended with our hero and heroine passionately falling into each other’s embrace and we just knew that this will end up in a steamy night between the sheets.

Would these stories still hold sway over girls in Namibia? Amid the all the stories of abuse, violence, control and outright misogyny that one witness in relationships today, it would seem that many girls went through a similar romance schooling that I had. It would seem that girls and women still prefer the attention of that handsome, somewhat ominous male presence. The one who has to be changed – because we love him so.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where unless the heroine wants to keep and change her man, as well as fends off other love contenders, “sacrifices” must be made to prove her worthiness. The ultimate sacrifice in this case is that she will have unprotected sex with her hero. After all, she must demonstrate to her lover that she “trusts” him – irrespective of his reputation. Of course, the moment that a pregnancy or worse, an HIV infection, comes to light, our hero makes a run for it, leaving our heroine alone and in trouble. So much for changing the hero! He simply moves to his next conquest. Beware the girl who has the audacity to first break off with our hero. In Namibia, men believe that because they have “invested” in a woman, that woman has to loyally stick to her man, regardless of how she may be treated.  The girl who breaks off a relationship with a man here, must know what is coming. Our newspapers are full of these stories.

Boys similarly seem to have gone through this school of romance. Sometime last year, I had the opportunity to attend a function at UNAM where a frustrated young man lamented the fact that a man needs money to keep all his various lover girls in tow. This particular young man went as far as stating that – least he wants to appear wimpy in the eyes of his fellow men - a man may be forced to cheat and steal to keep all his various women in hair, nails and clothes, therefore (momentarily) happy (read loyal.) This attests for that ominous streak of the hero in the romance novella – I suppose.

Can there be no other romance stories in our country. For instance ones that promote ideas of equality and mutual respect? Or what about stories of a woman loving another woman, or a man in love with? Is this at all conceivable?

When we receive our obligatory red rose or box of chocolate this Valentine’s day, let us contemplate all the many types of romantic interests that may exist in our land and consider the many possibilities for new stories of love and romance.

Image: oliviaashewriter.wordpress.com 

   

Questions about “virgins”

If there is one thing that staff in Sister Namibia has to be credited for, then it is for our constant efforts to look at issues and topics that affect women not only in Namibia, but also in the region. 

Today, we started reflecting on issues of virginity and what being a virgin might mean. In a culture where a girl or a woman’s “virginity” is a mark of honour for the family this potentially has far reaching consequences for women. We already raised issue with concepts of virginity during the hype around Olufuko (female initiation schools) revival attempts in some northern regions last year.

So our questions: What does “being a virgin” mean at all? Who is a virgin? Can “virginity” be restored? 

It would seem that “being a virgin” might have something to do with the particular disposition of a young girl or woman. In other words, a “virgin” is someone who is “pure and untouched” in some ways angelic.  This person lacks in life experience, therefore has a naive innocence that is unblemished by life experience, definitely by sexual experiences!

Or does being a virgin have to do with the integrity of the hymen, that most flimsy of tissue on which the whole moral integrity of a girl or a woman depends? Possibly not a common phenomenon, there are girls born without a hymen. What does it say about the morality of these girls? I recently heard that plastic surgeons increasingly are engaged in “restoring” women’s virginity – ie. tightening (I suppose) of the hymen. I also had to laugh when I saw a soap making claims to a similar effect. How would a woman whose virginity was restored (whether surgically or by using that special soap) be valued in a society where women are subjected to “virginity” tests?

What about women whose hymen(s?) remained intact in spite of sexual activity – for surely, this is also possible? Would they be allowed to bask in the glory bestowed to an intact hymen?

There are many questions to consider when thinking about virginity. What disturbed me was the statement by a young woman to the effect that girls who voluntarily submit to the embarrassment of virginity tests should be amended for being examples to other girls. I could not contain my outrage at this statement, since I could not stop thinking about all the girls in Namibia who are raped and for whom a moral judgement will be made, should they agree to such an indignity!  

Image: blackartblog.blackartdepot.com

HAIR AGAIN

 Are we captives of our hair?

 

A friend of mine recently cut off her long beautiful dreadlocks, shocked, I asked her why and she told me she just felt it was time for a change. Then she added how ‘liberating’ it was. It made me think back to how many times I’ve heard women close to me talk about the feeling of liberation you get from cutting your hair, it made me realize that the last time I cut my hair, I too, had said I felt liberated.

So that brings forth the question, what is it about hair that captivates women? Is it the social stereotypes that could be associated with one’s hairstyle? For example, a woman with dreadlocks may be perceived as more “African” than a woman with treated hair and then I guess they would feel pressured to act as such(more African). A woman who does not do her hair, might be poor, whereas flaunting your weave may be a statement of your expendable income – or at least of having a rich man – if we are supposed to believe what men say.

What does our hair say about our personalities? For instance, when I cut my hair, I thought it would be assumed it was because I’m a lazy student who doesn’t want to spend too much time and money on hair care. Strangely, the assumptions offered by my friends surmised that I must have just ended a relationship, even that it is because I’m a feminist. Yet another “helpful” friend thought I cut my hair because I am “a true African woman” (whatever that means). What does hair say about our identity or our personalities? Has it become yet another “tool” to dictate the ideals for women’s beauty? Are we ourselves responsible for creating an identity that is inseparable from and which is defined by the length/ straightness of our hair? Who decides whether it should be straight, curly, long, short, coloured? Or is it I am, because I have hair?

 

Mimi

Crocodile tears over abortion pill scams

Headlines in the Namibian, today blazed a story on syndicates targeting pharmacies with false prescriptions of abortion pills. If there is one thing that makes my blood boil in this country, it is the prevailing attitudes and discussion around abortion. We keep on citing supposed moral “arguments” about keeping abortion illegal in our country, while at the same time, there is overwhelming reasons for making it legal.

Firstly, there is no contraceptive that is absolutely safe. Therefore, there will always be unwanted pregnancies. Looking at the number of young girls walking the streets with pregnant bellies, I always also wonder about the circumstances under which these young girls got pregnant in the first place. Did she really consent to having sex, or was she somehow coerced or cajoled into having sex. How much say do women really have when it comes to sex, condoms, contraception, etc? Realistically, can a young girl of, let’s say, 13/14 years,  go to a clinic and ask for advice and assistance with contraceptive options? Somehow, I think not.

Looking at statistics dating back to 2003, I am informed that nearly 20 million abortions were estimated to be unsafe and that about 13% of pregnancy-related deaths have been attributed to complications of unsafe abortions. Almost all deaths and complications from unsafe abortions are preventable. The same source informs me that in places where abortion can be done legally and safely, the risk of death following complications of unsafe abortions have been reduced by several hundred times.  Where is the morality in letting women die when there are relatively easy and absolutely safe ways to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

I cannot understand the arguments “protecting the fetus” when women are dying every day from the complications of back-street abortions. As long as abortion remains illegal in this country, we must expect that illegal and dangerous practices will flourish. /Laura

AGENCY

Our mission statement declares that, “Sister Namibia wants to inspire and equip women to make free choices and act as agents of change in our relationships, our communities and ourselves.”

Everyone knows what making free choices means, but when I look at the types of relationships that women enter with men, I am certain that many women do not understand what being (an) “...agent(s) of change in (a) relationship...” really means.

The term “agency” typically refers to 1) control over resources, 2) the person’s ability to move freely, 3) decision making over family formation, 4) freedom from the risk of violence and 5) the ability to have a voice in society and influence.

The opposite of agency – in its extreme form - is being a victim; Someone who is at the mercy of others, or to whom something happens without that person having an influence in the matter.

A publication[1] cites inter-generational sex, multiple and concurrent sexual partners of men specifically, inconsistent condom use, and transactional sex as major drivers of HIV infection and unwanted pregnancies in Namibia.   

Interviews conducted with young girls revealed that the biggest fear of school-going girls is “falling” pregnant. We in Namibia are familiar with the “fact” that pregnancy, especially of young women, is something that “happens” to one.  The implication of this is that women have no influence or responsibility in reproductive matters. Men decide that they would have unprotected sex with women and women accept this – sometimes are shocked and dismayed at the unwanted pregnancy or undesired STI that may result. One often hears women in Namibia stating that she has to “give” a man a child or that she has to be able to “produce” if she is to remain attractive to men. A woman who cannot “produce” a child for a man, is not worth anything.

Granted that too many women are coerced/ cajoled into compromising sexual relationships in Namibia, it is necessary to ask why so many women, in consensual relationships with men, are delegating agency – ie, the responsibility for one self - so easily when it comes to sexual relationships? Agency as responsibility would dictate that women can and do negotiate about the terms of their relationships with men. Not only that they negotiate the terms, but that we actively take all steps necessary to prevent falling pregnant or contracting/ spreading a disease.  

Common knowledge dictates that men are not reliable, that they are selfish and that they are merely interested in showing their sexual prowess, which, for many, involves proving their “manhood” by having “fathered” – read spawned – x number of children by as many women. In this context, it becomes imperative for women – and women alone - to know the risks, to make a conscious decision to either become pregnant or not.

As far as the transmission of STIs and HIV is concerned, it is here that the woman’s agency should be non-negotiable in a relationship. She should not make any compromise to her DEMAND for safety and her insistence on the use of a condom. No amount of cajoling and sweet talk should convince her otherwise.

As a responsible women’s rights organization, it is necessary that we interrogate structural issues that render power over women to men. However a responsible and responsive women’s organization will also have to explore the ways in which women connive and delegate power to men.  Therefore, this is not an attempt to blame women for unwanted pregnancies or the prevalence of HIV in Namibia, merely, it is a call for women, specifically young women, to become aware of the responsibility that they have towards themselves – if to no one else – and to TAKE agency – as responsibility and control,  over their sexuality and their rights.

If we don’t do it, no-one else will.

---

[1] HIV/AIDs in Namibia: Behavioral and Contextual Factors Driving the Epidemic, Ministry of Health and Social Services

ADVENTURES IN SUPER-WOMAN LAND

The mother of an aspiring techno-geek daughter, I often have to listen to my daughter’s analysis of her current favourite genre of literature, the super-hero comic. Her preferred topic of conversation about the super-hero comic is how the super woman is betrayed. Almost every time she lapses into her excited monologues on the super-hero women, I tell her to write something about it. She dutifully agrees every time, but I am still waiting.

The consequence of all this talk, however, set me thinking about what an African Super-Woman (SW) might be like.

Unlike her northern-hemisphere counterpart, the African super woman cannot be seen to don a skimpy two piece – (top and bottom) outfit. Especially if her abode is in Rundu, where she immediately will attract the undesirable attention of over-zealous law enforcers, who instead of rushing to the side of a sexily-clad SW, 

will mistake her for the super villain and arrest her on the spot!

So what might our SW look like? In all probability, she will be rather demurely dressed in a below-the-knee-length dress or skirt. This will immediately eliminate any suspicion by those pesky police men whose only aim is to hog the pursuit of law and order in our own Gotham , er, Rundu City (RC). On her feet, instead of stylishly laced-up boots, she might wear a pair of plastic Chinese imports that will keep her feet firmly planted on mother earth. So, no flying around at supersonic speed for our Super Woman.

But she does have a trick up her sleeve, or should I say around her waist: For covering her dress, she will be wrapped in a sitenge which has the same effect as an invisibility cloak! This allows our Super Woman to stealthily move through towns and markets and to observe the comings and goings of both law-abiding and law-breaking citizens, with the option to intervene, should the situation require it. In fact she is so adept at blending in, that any woman walking the dusty roads of RC might be mistaken for her.

Unlike her northern sister, our SW will not be allowed to live a fanciful life without children. This will immediately blow her cover. Ideally, southern SW will have a few kids in tow, preferably with one on the back or hip and another clinging tightly to the sitenge. Her super power will come to shine when it comes to single-handedly provide for and feed her brood. For, almost surely, the sperm donor has made a run for it, once confronted with the demands of the social unit. Our SW is also the able provider of household energy and water, while at the same time juggling a market stall and farming small hold.  Northern sister will be truly hard pressed by this feat!

But our SW does have something in common with northern super woman: Regardless of the task at hand, she will rise to the occasion. She will do so selflessly and stoically. Disregarding her own needs and/or interests, Super Woman will sacrifice herself for the good of her kith and kin!

For further adventures of SW, watch this spot! 

 www.greydogsoftware.com

www.picstopin.com 

The right to have your own value

Having officially joined the blogging community, we today are reminiscing about why – in a country like Namibia, which claims to constitutionally uphold the equality of all its citizens - the feminist cause is so urgently needed.

While in some regions of the world, people are already talking about post- and/or second or third wave feminism, I sometimes have the distinct impression that we, in Namibia, are still living in a pre-feminist society. Let me explain: Not very long ago I went to a meeting where there were quite a number of women. While I will not divulge the nature of the meeting, I need to explain that many of the women present that day stated that they no longer “can produce for a man,” therefore they are “worthless.”
What this means is that they no longer can become pregnant. All of these women perceived their inability to have another child (for they all already have children) to be a loss of intrinsic value. Some of them questioned their very being and thought they have been “robbed” of an opportunity to be in a relationship with a man.

Now in a country where “tradition” and/ or “culture’ determine much of our interactions with each other, it is quite common for women to have to demonstrate to a man that she is capable of bearing his offspring. This sometimes has the disastrous effect that many a young teenage girl feels pressurised to become pregnant as soon as she enters into a relationship with a boy. As is expected, the boys do not stick around long after the girls have become pregnant, leaving the young girls, themselves children, sitting with the baby. Even grown women feel that a man will not stay with her unless she has his child. Without this, we seem to be nothing. The way relationships seem to be working in Namibia, the man, of course, never sticks around for long, whether or not the woman has “produced” for him. This means that the majority of kids in Namibia are raised by single mothers.

We now are sitting with a phenomenon where – because a woman is only worth anything if she is with a man and had his child - it is fairly common for infants to be abandoned once the sperm donor has left the equation. We then jump onto our moralistic high horses and shout blue murder at the corruption of women who do these “ acts.”

In a society where a women is valued for who she is intrinsically – as opposed to with whom she is in a relationship with, or whose child she brought into this world, some of these problems may be averted. It is high time that we see ourselves as persons with intrinsic – an own – value. Could this be a good enough reason for promoting feminism in Namibia?

The International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation

The 6^th February was the international day of zero tolerance to female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a so-called cultural practice that occurs very widely throughout Africa. Forms of FGM occur in parts of Namibia as well. It consists of the total or partial removal of girls’ and women’s external genitalia or causing injury to women’s genital organs.  Where it occurs, Female Genital Mutilation usually is inflicted upon girls before they reach puberty. The victims of FGM usually are girls between the ages four to eight years old. The “operation,” usually is done by women, who themselves have been subjected to these practices.

 The most common type of FGM typically consists of the total or partial removal of the clitoris and/ or inner lips (labia.) The World Health Organisation estimates that the majority of affected women have had these procedures done to them.

Another form of Female Genital Mutilation is the total or partial removal of all the external genitals. This is also called infibulation. Once the external genitals are removed, the remaining parts are sewn together and only a small hole is left for passing urine and menstrual blood. When a woman to whom this procedure has been done is married off, the scars of the infibulations are opened so that the husband can have intercourse and the woman can bear children. Subjected to life-long suffering and pain that this causes for affected women, the opening of the genitals for intercourse and child-birth is the cause of additional pain, discomfort and – one imagines – profound embarrassment for affect women.  

While the above are the most common forms of FGM, there are other practices which might include the burning of women’s genitals, inserting corrosive substances or herbs that will tighten the vagina as well as the stretching of the clitoris or labia.

Sister Namibia is aware that the elongation of the labia is practiced in some parts of Namibia especially Caprivi. Where practiced, this is done to young girls from about eight years old until the onset of menstruation.  If, by this time it is found that a girl’s labia is not “long enough” an adult woman will be tasked with stretching the lips to the required size.

There is absolutely no medical reason for these practices. Where it is practiced, FGM happens because they are meant to increase the sexual pleasure of men and to ensure that women’s sexual pleasure is reduced and their sexuality controlled. In those cultures in Namibia where labia stretching occurs, the size of a girl’s or a woman’s labia could be cited as a “valid” reason for divorce.

In cultures where it is committed, people usually argue that FGM ensures that particularly young women will not “run around” looking for sexual gratification. It is generally assumed that women’s expression of sexuality reflects badly on the family and the parents and that by controlling women’s sexuality, the “honour” of the family and the parents is safe guarded.  In societies where women are particularly disenfranchised, women perform these mutilations on young girls and it is not uncommon for women themselves to pay lip service to the supposed virtues of women and girls who have been subjected to these forms of mutilation.  

Sister Namibia is of the opinion that all manifestations of FGM are forms of torture which infringes on the fundamental right of women to have meaningful and full sexual lives. Any form of FGM is an affront to women’s rights and dignity. There cannot be any justification for any form of FGM in a society which respects and values individual and human rights. These practices are barbaric and must be exposed and stamped out where-ever and how-ever they occur.

Laura

Hatchlings into the cyber world

When we first started our first journey into the big realm of social network, we were cautioned by media expert Spectra that unless we want our blog to look like a badly written CV we would need to post something on a daily basis. Now you have to understand that the Sister Namibia team is completely challenged when it comes to all tech matters. Comprised of a BBC (born before computers) and a self proclaimed tech ignoramus, the Sister Namibia team can only admire the techno geek girls who are using this technology so effortlessly to link to the world.

Therefore our fellow cyber-space feminists, we ask you to be gentle with us. We will try to avoid tendencies that may suggest that we have a bad CV. Our midwife into this wonderful world of instantaneous and cyber reality is Amanda Moln who has the benefit of a Swedish education on her side. As for ourselves we had to contend with third rate education system typical for southern African countries. We nevertheless embrace this journey and trust that we will have lot of joy and growth from it.

// Laura & Mimi