Home › Blogs › sally_jean.shackleton's blog ›

Can Zuma Defend his actions in the name of culture, privacy or personal choice?

Submitted by sally_jean.shac... on Fri, 12/02/2010 - 09:05
in

Polygamy that exists in a context of inequality is not an expression of 'choice'. Where women are poorer, subject to violence and harassment daily, are 60% of HIV positive people, and are killed by their intimate partners at a rate that is unmatched in the world - choice is a relative term. People who use ‘choice’ to defend polygamy also forget that it exists in systems of patriarchy in which the value of women’s lives are rated by their ability to reproduce children  and service the needs and wants of men – even if she does it in a designer evening gown.

 As a women’s rights advocate I felt terribly disappointed and betrayed by our president's actions and his comments. It was a degrading moment to watch men laughing at his statement at the Davos World Economic Forum – “I love all my wives equally”. The audience – predominantly men, mostly white, laughed as Zuma did on stage, not unlike men sharing a beer and leering at the big-breasted bar maid.

Zuma defends his actions as 'cultural'. He used the same defence for his homophobic statements, the same defence for having unprotected sex with a woman half his age who was HIV positive. And the same defence for supporting virginity testing as a valid response to HIV. Culture, we suppose, is something that is separate from context – culture is set in stone, constant and we are simply passive subjects to it... even if it increases risk, perpetuates inequalities and oppressed women and girls? Even if, as in Zuma’s case, he acted outside of cultural norms relating to fidelity! Sounds to me like a cultural defence of Zuma is just as self serving as his actions.

Zuma alleges in his public apology that his behaviour does not contradict government policy on HIV – I wonder what part of government’s central messaging on HIV/AIDS - ”Abstain Be Faithful, Condomise” he remained true to? Perhaps he read in between the lines. Or perhaps, as in his rape trial, he thought a shower would do the trick. (yes, I am mentioning the rape trial, god forbid)

To address HIV in South Africa, to end violence and inequality we need leaders whose commitment to these ideals is seen and not just heard. We also need leaders to demonstrate their commitment to gender justice in real terms – in action and deed. The measure of a true leader is one who acts for the people, and not for his own self- gratification. 

Comments

the purple tie

Submitted by marionstevens on Fri, 12/02/2010 - 11:51.
I liked the purple tie and so did my little boy as we watched the address yesterday. it was bland and seemed like a collation of departmental plans. The drama of the past weeks was clearly matched by an effort to have a toned down show case. But in between fish fingers and tomato sauce - I noted only one wife, and she looked lovely in her light green dress. Unlike poor Nomaindia - a couple of steps behind - because of protocol not gender or culture? -the Deputy President - although Max Sisulu did look like he was walking along side the President as opposed to behind him. Nomaindia - battled her walk up the red carpet and looked like she needs some good women friends to help her do some self care, and move her body more. The gaffe about ABSA doesn't remain with me as does the strange wording on ' developing gender equity measures' in relation to women, children and disability. What does this mean? Is this what we want? Is there a not more simpler way of saying it? Any who is advising this Minister who nodded with appreciation that her stuff had been covered. Given that this ministry is in formation - how can we 'help'? Issies of violence and rape were noted under the Crime pot, similarly maternal mortality and prevention and treatment in relation to HIV/AIDS also got a mention. The references to Madiba and the history of the past 20 years filled lots of spaces - positively - but Madiba looked completely switched on reading the speech - but not a smile - rather a look of disappointment and disapproval when his legacy was repeatedly acknowledged. Of note was the absence of the inclusion of 'non sexist' when tagged on during the concluding remarks that we are working towards a non-racist democracy etc.....and similarly the absence of the reference to our cultural and religious interfaith legacy. One hopes that more detail on our desparate need for sexual and reproductive justice is made clearer by the ministers in their budget speeches. And given that our President has demonstrated that behaviour change with regard to reduction of partners and intergenerational sex , along with condom use for addressing HIV prevention, violence against women and sexual and reproductive justice is extremely hard to do - we need women leaders to come out of the closet, therapy rooms, writing spaces, consultancy board rooms etc. and claim our democracy and participate in really making a better life for all (including women)