Currently South Africa, like many other countries are engaging in the 16 days of activism against abuse of women and children campaign. Like many such campaigns, the objectives are commendable and morally correct. The physical, emotional, psychological, financial and other forms of abuse that women and children have to face should be condemned from all quarters of society. However like all campaigns though this one is not really evaluated for the impact that it has on reducing abuse against women and children. Politicians, when the campaign is launched stand up and make bold statements about how this scourge should be eliminated and often call upon men to renounce and denounce violence and abuse against women and children. State institutions like the police attempt to bring about awareness of abuse and how to prosecute perpetrators, but the question still remains “does this really have a positive impact on the lives of abused women and children?†Another question is “why should there only be sixteen days of activism during this period of the year, why should everyday be a day of activism against the abuse of women and children?†It is strange that only government and political institutions are talking about this problem. Why is the business sector so silent on this cause? Perhaps it is because the business sector has nothing really to gain by this, just as the business sector was silent during the years of apartheid.
There are a few points that I would like to make regarding violence and abuse against women and children in this piece. I am going to briefly mention these points and then expand on them, they are; firstly are we by defining women and children as a vulnerable group, not continuing or reproducing or maintaining their position of vulnerability and subordination, secondly women and children abuse is based on two contributory factors power – dominance and issues relating to ownership, thirdly violence against women and children is a social problem and not necessarily a personal or individual problem and defining men as “bad men†does not help the situation much because it dispowers them and fourthly society and especially cultural factors are maintaining much of the problem. Although I will most probably discuss these points individually they should not be viewed as separate issue, but rather be considered as interacting with one another (or be considered as mutually interdependent not mutually exclusive)
Defining women and children as a vulnerable group
I would like to repeat the question that I have asked above namely. Are we by defining women and children as a vulnerable group, not continuing or reproducing or maintaining their position of vulnerability and subordination? I think as a society we are continuously dispowering women and children by constantly saying and labelling them as a vulnerable group. To be sure they need to be protected from men who are predators, and who do not respect their humanity and their dignity. However by defining women and children as a vulnerable group takes a lot of power away from them. How can we teach our children to say No to advances of paedophiles, but still say that they are weak, innocent and ignorant. How can we say that women should get out of a relationship that is harming them, physically, emotionally, financially, etc when we constantly call them “the weaker sex?†On the one hand society is trying to empower women by giving them power, but society is also taking power away from women.
I would also like to ask the question “who is it that is defining women and children as a vulnerable group?†I seriously doubt that feminists are labelling women and children as a vulnerable group, so for all intents and purposes it is my opinion that men are in fact defining women and children as a vulnerable group to be isolated and further subordinated.
Contributory factors to violence and abuse against women and children
Although all of these points that I am making can be considered contributory factors in causing violence and abuse of women and children, I have highlighted two in this section, because I believe that these are fundamental factors. All the other factors are interrelated with these. These two factors are also interrelated, namely power – dominance and ownership.
It is my contention that power and dominance as well as a perception of ownership and control over women and children are the basic causes of violence and abuse. Men have generally been able to accumulate power in their relationships with women. The sources of this power have been cultural as well as economic. In terms of culture, most cultures in the world, but especially in South Africa prescribe that men are the head of the household or family. Their word is law and women have to submit to this power, or face sanctions, punishment and discipline. Furthermore many religious doctrines confirm this, especially the Christian faith. In addition to this men are considered the primary breadwinners in the household. Men have always been the hunters, and providers of food, while women have been socialised into being gatherers and nurtures. Some believe that this is due to their “incapacitation†during their menstrual cycle and child bearing. Men are therefore empowered by culture and by economics to dominate a relationship and previously the use of violence to dominate has been condoned. Violence within the family setting has often been viewed as “private†and beyond the ambit of the “publicâ€. The advantage of the 16 days campaign is that it makes the private public. In terms of ownership, men have been able through many cultural systems and ideologies been able to buy or purchase women and children. How many times have people used the phrase “this is my wife, or my childrenâ€? The implication of this is that these are objects that I have ownership over. With ownership of course comes control and the ability to do with them as one pleases. Furthermore, due to the power that men have accumulated over the centuries, women have become dependent on men, to provide in all aspects of a relationship. Any form of independence or questioning of the power relations is often viewed by men as a threat to their power and possibly manhood or masculinity and dominance takes place, often through the use of violence. So often men will use violence as a means to “assert†or affirm power.
This brings me back to my previous point, that by defining women as a vulnerable group and therefore giving them power, is also dehabilitating them, since this is perceived as a threat to men’s accumulated power.
For example in many households women take home bigger wages or salaries then men. In impoverished households (and I am not saying that abuse and violence is restricted to the poor) women are the ones who provide an income, while men are unemployed. With this bigger wages or perhaps even an only income, women have been able to accumulate power within the household. This is viewed as a threat, because now the woman is able to start calling the shots. She is able to control various aspects of the household, and although she has become empowered, the man has become dispowered because he is no longer the provider, and this is in contradiction to his male self concept. Furthermore men are socialised to use violence as a means to gain power, to enforce or maintain power. So while society is empowering women, it does nothing to empower men.
Violence and abuse as a social problem
When a problem is social causes or contributory factors and when it affects a large number of people and when the solutions to this problem lay in social aspects of life, then it is a social problem and not an individual problem.
As can be seen from above violence and abuse against women and children is a social problem, since it has social contributory factors, it affects a large number of women and children and its solution lies within society and societal change. Therefore calling violence and abuse a disease and labelling perpetrators “bad men†does not really solve the problem. By saying that it is a disease, means that there is one cause to the problem. There is a linear cause and effect and that there is a quick fix solution to the problem. Violence and abuse is much more complex than just a single linear cause, there are many contributory factors. The solution to this problem is not in the short term, because attitudes, belief systems of both men and women, social structures, culture and ideologies have to be changed. These changes cannot be made overnight. I am not saying that this problem is insurmountable, but it is going to take time to solve and not merely a series of sixteen days of activism. Therefore, I have questioned whether this period has been evaluated for its effectiveness and impact. Has it really helped, is a question that begs to be answered.
Furthermore, by labelling men who are abusers and violent as “bad men†does not really solve the problem either. In fact I would argue that it makes matters worse, since this does not do men’s self-worth, self-esteem, identity and self-concept much good. Furthermore it dispowers them even more, and therefore they may feel the need to assert or maintain their power and therefore lead to further violence. I would therefore argue that this type of statement can further maintain or even reinforce continued violence against women and children. It definitely does not empower women in anyway.
Cultural factors
Many of the cultural factors which maintain or reproduce violence and abuse against women and children have been discussed above. These include religious doctrines and cultural prescripts of men’s roles in families and households, masculine identity which often prescribes that men have to defend their ideology, dignity, honour, property, territory, power, status and prestige through physical means and often this physical means is through violence. These cultural factors along with economic and ownership factors have resulted in men accumulating power, especially over women and children. Cultural factors have also prescribed how men should maintain and gain power through the use of violence and coercion.
Based on all these factors, and I am sure that there are many more, the sixteen days of activism is only one possible solution to this social problem. Children and especially boys need to learn that there are other means to solve problems and disputes. They should learn that masculinity is not only about the physical domain of dominance and violence and that there are many non-violent ways to solve problems. Furthermore, the empowerment of women, should not be at the expense of dispowering men. Instead men should be taught to adapt to the changes in their world. Solving this problem is not merely changing behaviours, it also means that social structures need to be changed, ideologies need to be changed, attitudes towards women and children need to be changed, values need to be changed, peaceful role-models need to be found who use non-violent means of dispute resolution and belief systems need to be changed.
This may be a very tall order, but I am confident that things can change, but it is up to us South Africa’s men, who need to make these changes.
Richard Records
30 November 2007
