An open gender forum organized by UN Women last week, hosted Shamim Meer’s presentation on her research paper titled, ‘Struggles for Gender Equality: Reflections on the place of men and men’s organisation’. The presentation comes at a time where men are organizing themselves to support gender equality. Notably in Zimbabwe is Padare/Enkundleni and Varume Svinurayi/Vhukani Madoda. From the names these two organisations have chosen to use, it reflects much about their agenda in the women rights equality struggle. Shamim paper’s sought to really bring out the agendas of some of these men’s organisations in the struggle for gender equality and explore where men fit in women rights struggles.

Her major concern is that these formal structures being created by men give men a leading role in the struggle for gender equality of which that should not be the scenario – women should lead themselves. She gives a warning to say, “They are operating in a field where women are seen as subordinates and by making men key actors then you could be reinforcing the subordination.” Thus she argues for the separation of men from the women’s struggle. She also mentioned that the depoliticised understandings of gender as ‘men and women’ went further to strain donor relations with existing women’s organisations. As most women organisations are now being asked, ‘If you are working on gender, where are the men in your organisation?’

In her paper, Meers refers to this new idea of donors funding men as the ‘silver bullet’. In the paper she said, “Working with men from the donor’s point of view, could reduce costs to the health care system, and thus meet efficiency goals prioritized by development organisations. This seemed to be the new silver bullet, which would give ‘more bang for the buck!” To Meer the power that men have over women and the possibility that it may not be in men’s gender interests to transform gender relations or achieve greater equality were ignored. Thus clearly spelling out her debate.

It is from this background that she strongly puts out her belief that women need to take back the lead in the struggle. To support this statement she said, “… the oppressed in any system are best placed to lead their own struggle because they know the issues, their active leading challenges the notions on their lack of status and lack of ability.” Support for men in the struggle for gender equality is greatly appreciated but as Meer insisted it should not interfere with who gets to lead the struggle.

It is sad to be reminded that negotiations for the Zimbabwe Independence Constitution held in 1979 at the Lancaster House in London were made without the inclusion of women. According to one woman activist the only female present had gone solely for the upkeep of the men, like to make sure they were fed on time. Various movements and efforts by government and civil society have brought about a change in the order of this. One body that has greatly worked for the inclusion of women participation in constitution making matters is the Women’s Coalition of Zimbabwe. They have worked to ensure women’s rights are met and have took a step further to advocate for women’s inclusion in governance.

The WCoZ according to their website is described as, “A network of women rights activists and women’s organizations with national structures. The WCoZ is a forum where women meet to engage in collective activism on issues affecting women and girls in Zimbabwe. Its central role is to provide a focal point for activism on women and girl’s rights”. Among the commendable work they have done is to fight for the increase in participation of women in the constitution making processes in Zimbabwe.

The Inclusive Government, which agreed to pen a new constitution before electing a new president, saw the formation of COPAC, which is co-chaired by three representatives from the three parties that are signatories to the Government of National Unity. Speaking at a FFT session at the US Embassy Public Affairs Section Netsai Mushonga, a representative of WCoZ, gave an analysis of the organisation’s work in pushing for the inclusion of women in both the constitution making process and in the constitution itself. One of COPAC’s steps in the constitution making process was that of getting information of what Zimbabweans need included in the constitution. They created outreach teams but men outnumbered women in these teams. This led to a petition being made by the women’s movement for the engagement of more women in the outreach teams and the figures rose from 10% to 25%. They went on further to advocate for women engagement in the Thematic Committees and managed to get 37% representation of women.

Moving to the constitution itself, the WCoZ clearly spells out its demands for women in the constitution and they list five minimum demands on their site which include: the quota system for women’s political participation; socio-economic rights; non-discrimination (all forms of disability); customary law subject to the Bill of Rights; and access to and control of resources. Netsai Mushonga indicated that the current draft constitution by COPAC had met at least 80% of their needs. She said the forum had vowed to continue advocating for the remaining 20% to ensure full achievement of women’s rights in the constitution. Their decision to vote for or against the constitution will only be made when they have the constitution in their hands. She likened the constitution-making process to a train that moves from New Delhi to Bombay in India, which is overloaded with people entering through the windows, but still makes it to its final destination. Likewise, the constitution making process might not be the best ride in town but one day it will reach its final destination.

The difficulties experienced by rural women include water and sanitation challenges. It is therefore with much delight that I note that rural women were the main talk at this year’s United Nations, Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). This is a platform created by the United Nations and is held annually at the UN Headquarters. According to the UN, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is the principal global policy making body dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women. In this regard, each year member states gather at UN Headquarters to create various platforms to enable the advancement of women rights through discussions and exhibits among other means of communication. This year two ZUSAA Alumni members, Grace Chirenje and Lucy Mazingi where sponsored by the US Embassy in Zimbabwe to attend this annual event. Grace is the Director of Zimbabwe Young Women’s Network for Peace Building, and Lucy Mazingi is a director at the Youth Empowerment and Transformation Trust thus they participated as members of the civil society in Zimbabwe.

This year’s theme of CSW focused of rural women and it was interpreted as, “The empowerment of rural women and their role in poverty and hunger eradication, development and current challenges”. The theme was in full support of MDG number 3 that states the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.  Rural women are believed to be the medium for economic progression in the world.  On justifying the importance of the theme the UN clearly stated that, “Rural women’s economic empowerment is key. If rural women had equal access to productive resources, agricultural yields would rise and there would be 100 million to 150 million fewer hungry people.”

This week’s Food for Thought session at the US Embassy Public Affairs Section gave a platform for Grace and Lucy to give feedback on their experiences at this year’s CSW. Both the participants alluded that it was a learning curve for them as they got to interact with government representatives and civic society members from different parts of the world. Lucy Mazingi supported this year’s CSW theme as she said, “In agriculture, rural women are economic agents that can help reduce poverty thus they require empowerment”. Both women work with rural women and girls and empowering them is one of their mandates.

Grace Chirenje highlighted that rural women are no different to urban women as they face the same issues. Also the challenges and issues being faced by women in developing countries and the developed world are similar. She did point out that some countries in the developed world referred to rural women as ‘indigenous women’, but there was no difference in the aspects regarding these women, it was just a matter of different expression. Asked on why they did not take any rural women with them to the CSW, Grace replied saying that the US Embassy on the basis of being ZUSAA members sponsored them but it would have been ideal to have physical representation of rural women from Zimbabwe. The government representatives at CSW did not bring rural women with them either instead they showcased a video of rural women in Zimbabwe from Binga. Other countries including our neighbours South Africa managed to bring rural women with them. With this in mind Grace Chirenje and Lucy Mazingi highlighted the need for close networking and collaboration between government ministries and civil society.

One attendee at Foord for Thought urged women activists not to waver in their fight for women’s rights especially when it comes to holding the government accountable in implementing policies they have signed and promised to adhere to. She also highlighted that the early fighters for women rights fought not only for themselves but for us too.

To conclude, the call for boys and men to be engaged in gender equality and women rights issues was brought up. Engaging men in the conversation for women’s rights not only helps enlighten them about gender issues but gives them a platform to air their views too. Removing them from this picture is not going to yield results. Youth participation was also considered to be vital and it was resolved to include youths in delegations representing the country at such high profile and important events.

I got a bit depressed this morning when I read The Herald article COPAC in gay storm. For all the bombast of the headline, and the frenzy around keeping gay rights out of Zimbabwe’s new Constitution, there really isn’t much of a story – which just makes the intolerance of the article all the more apparent.

The article references the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, where a non-discrimination clause provides that “Everyone has the right not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner on such grounds as their nationality, race, colour, tribe, place or circumstances of birth, ethnic or social origin, language, class, religious belief, political or other opinion, custom, culture, sex, gender, marital status, age, disability or economic, social or other status.” It latches particularly onto the phrase “circumstances of birth,” and then proceeds to report feedback from a number of lawyers and analysts who acknowledge that yes, hypothetically, this could be used to make an argument to the courts against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Of course, depending on where you fall on the nature versus nurture debate, I suppose one could also make the same argument using the protection of opinion, custom, culture, or other status. But does this mean we must remove the broad notion of tolerance from our Constitution – because some group we might not like might use it to their own benefit? Racism, sexism and xenophobia remain prejudices in some people’s minds – which is why the Constitution explicitly protects people regardless of race, sex and nationality.

Regardless of whether it is used to make an argument in favour of tolerance for homosexuality, including protection against discrimination regardless of circumstances of birth demonstrates the sort of broad tolerance a Constitution should provide. This means it doesn’t matter whether your parents were married when they had you, if you were born in prison, on an inauspicious day, as the child of rape or incest, malnourished, premature and in need of extraordinary medical support, exposed to narcotics in utero, as conjoined twins, as an intersex baby, or any of the other myriad ways in which you might be different from others. You still have the same rights everyone else does.

All human beings are equal. That why they’re called Human Rights. We all get them, regardless. But all human beings discriminate. That’s why fundamental rights and freedoms are including in Constitutions, and why we need protection against intolerance – our own and other people’s. Finding yourself trying to take out a part of a clause designed to promote tolerance? Is all the more reason to work for its inclusion.

Here is the latest paper published by the Research and Advocacy Unit, and prepared by Rumbidzai Dube:

Many a people have started questioning the practice of bride-price known as lobola or roora in Zimbabwe. Wide debates on whether the practice should be abolished or regulated are constantly taking place. Of course, the wider sentiment is that lobola is a part of Zimbabwean culture and doing away with it is tantamount to rejecting our cultural heritage. However, it is also clear that the custom which was meant to establish ties between two families through the marriage of their children has been commercialised, women’s value has been commodified, and the practice has become a source of discord within marriages.

Between January and February 2012, the Research and Advocacy Unit (RAU) had a series of focus group discussions with women from different parts of the country and amongst the variety of issues raised in those discussions was the question of lobola.

Many sentiments were raised, but the overarching idea coming out of the discussions was that the commercialisation of lobola is the problem with the practice, not the practice itself. The women asserted that amassing wealth has become more important than the traditional purpose of the practice, which was to establish ties between the two families (kusunga ukama).

The groups also cited that women (mothers) are part of the problem. Women were said to be pushing their husbands to charge more lobola as part of an ongoing competition by women on whose daughter had more money paid for her than the other. Lobola has become about prestige and not about the joining of two families together. Families are competing to show each other that their children are more valuable than their neighbours’ or relatives’ children.

Culturally, it was known that a son in law is there to assist the family, as expressed in the Shona proverb mukwasha muonde haaperi kudyiwa (literally translated to say, a son-in law is like a fig tree, you never run out of figs to harvest from it). ‘Modern’ generations have lost that appreciation. The women in the discussions pointed to the fact that today’s marriages are short-lived, hence the benefit that parents have from having a son-in law is brief. They tend to charge exorbitant amounts at once so that, if anything goes wrong with the child’s marriage in the future, they would not have lost out on anything.

Parents have turned their daughters into businesses. Whereas previously a woman who gave birth to daughters only and no sons was considered useless, these days, there seems to be a shift. Girls are now considered to be a source of wealth. This not only creates the problem of placing monetary value on human beings, but reinforces the discrimination against girls and women as these women are not valued for themselves but for the potential benefits that can be derived from their existence.
The prevalence of HIV/ AIDS has also become problematic to the whole lobola debate. The contributions from some of the women in the discussions explained that because the in-laws know that should their daughter fall ill, she will be returned to them for home-based care, they therefore charge enough lobola to take care of such cases. Indeed this is not only unfortunate, but borders on a depravity linked to societal degradation, and an erosion of positive cultural and moral values.

As a result, sons-in-law have lost respect for their in-laws. They also have developed an attitude of disrespect for their wives, stemming from the expectation that since they paid so much money, then they ought to get value for their money. Women have no right to negotiate for sex, including safe sex. She is the husband’s cook, cleaner, launder, and keeper by virtue of the fact that he paid for those services. At the end of the day the wife suffers. The wife has no right to demand fidelity from her husband, and, should she be unfaithful, she is sent back to her family.

In a nutshell, gathering from the views of the women who participated in the focus groups, the practice of paying lobola seems to stifle women’s voices and bargaining power within marriage. It renders them subservient to their husbands and they cannot complain should they be treated because society expects them to endure in silence.

The question remains, how then should we mediate the lobola payments? The following are some of the suggestions that emanated from the focus group discussions:
- The cultural aspect of approaching one’s aunt tete or ambuya should be resuscitated so that she enquires how much the prospective son-in-law can afford to pay. This avenue has become ineffective because of greed and jealousy.
- Parents should ask their prospective sons-in-law how much they can afford to pay and charge them only for what they can afford.
- People should not put a price tag on marriage as this makes women some form of property or commodity.
- Parents should value their children’s lives and not the money they can make out of lobola.

The debate goes on. But it remains relevant that we evaluate the role of lobola in women’s lives. Has it not become more of a harmful cultural practice than a constructive one? The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) in its concluding observations on Zimbabwe’s Review at the 51st session said it has. What do we as Zimbabwean women want to do about this issue?

Zimbabweans text in their thoughts

Following a PlusNews story about discussions to introduce door-to-door HIV testing in Zimbabwe, Kubatana asked our SMS subscribers what they thought of the door-to-door testing idea.

We received over 600 replies, and have mapped the 250 or so that we could associate with locations using Ushahidi’s Crowdmap here.

This gives an interesting visual of responses from around the country. About 60% of replies came from Harare and its immediate surrounding areas, with the rest coming from around the country, including Bulawayo, Masvingo, Mutare and more.

Responses were mixed, with 46.6% respondents thinking it was a good idea, particularly because of Zimbabwe’s high HIV prevalence and the fact that many Zimbabweans still do not know their HIV status. However, many Zimbabweans (38.2% of responses) expressed concerns about the idea, particularly because of issues of privacy and human rights. Others questioned whether the idea was the best use of government funds and public resources. Some worried that, without greater availability of HIV treatments and ARVs, the testing would not make the desired difference to peoples’ lives. A healthy portion (15%) of replies expressed mixed opinions of the idea, or believing that it would only work with certain preconditions.

Some of the responses included:

• Door to door HIV testing is a gross violation of one’s fundamental right, why not door to door distribution of food basics as this a drought year?
• The idea is good. It should good go a step further by making it mandatory not just voluntary for partners to disclose their HIV status to each other
• I think the rights of people must respected the cant force people the money to do the exercise should be used buy medicines 4 the sick
• Its not fair to test HIV door-to-door because suicide rate will increase
• The issue of door to door HIV testing is not bad but the problem is, does our government have enough funds to supply the drugs to the millions if not billion HIV victims.
• Door to door HIV testing, I wonder what they would have done with our legislation without room for compulsory testing & the confidentiality clause incorporated in it. They must think before embarking on this endeavour.
• People must not be forced to get tested, they must do that voluntarily
• Government plan of testing people door-to-door is unfair, it’s just like sleeping with woman who does not love you. They must go to well-wishers.
• This is a very noble idea. This idea has more privacy. And may cover those who were to go and get tested at centres.
• That’s bulls–t!! If they do then what? Government must concentrate on bread & butter issues only.
• There will be no more human rights at all
• The idea is good, but people should not be forced to undergo the H.I.V tests.
• This is a good initiative which will go a long way a long way in trying to mitigate the pandemic
• HIV/AIDS is a pandemic, it is reasonable to take measure in a bid to eradicate the disease. A door-to-door VTC is best for our nation.
• It is very positive for people to know their H.I.V. status but more importantly their attitude after knowing their status.
• Door to door HIV testing is good if proper counseling is done also if resources permit.
• I well come door-to-door HIV testing. Some people are denied and some avoided and again some in remote areas such that they lack chances of being informed accurately. Thus they will be rescued from dying due to ignorance. Please try to speed it up if chan
• I would suggest testing be done to all patients who seek health treatment in hospitals.
• It is a noble idea on the side of the government, but on the other side it’s an abuse to those unwilling.
• HIV testing should be voluntary not by coercion. Door to door testing is tantamount to testing by coercion. Instead of embarking on such a campaign, government. Should channel the money to educating the nation on the advantages of getting tested voluntarily
• Good idea but can only succeed with cooperation
• The government + NGOs must make some rigorous campaigns to educate people about the +tive aspects of being tested & its benefits otherwise no one would be found at home.
• If testing is by choice it is a good move. It is a good strategy to bring the programme to the people rather than people going to the programme. It is a violation of rights if it is mandatory.
• Yes its costly but good. We must know our status. Why should HIV be a secret? Diabetics wear a wrist plaque. It should apply so we live positively.
• Door-to-door testing is a good thing but it should start with ministers.
• Door-to-door HIV testing will cause havoc in our country because some of these government officials are not elected by the people I am saying this because the government is failing to feed its people, for example Masvingo governor banned NGOs from feeding
• I think they can go ahead since AIDS is a disease, which is just like malaria. So everyone should know his or her status.

View more and check out the map here

And add your two cents about the door-to-door testing idea in the comments section below!