In about 1991 I remember having some female friends when living in Cape Town. Some were divorced or going through one. Two in particular one evening were discussing how they were going to wangle more money out of their “ex’s”. They were laughing and putting down their poor ex-sods. I was most indignant, made a few very cutting remarks and lost two “friendships”. To this day I am still very cool with that.
Since then I have sat down and had off-the-record chats, even support sessions, with male friends who were going through a devastating divorce and were getting absolutely fleeced for every dime they were worth. One bloke I remember in particular, a best friend. He was just about to finish off paying the mortgage on a lovely home in the Helderkruin area of Joburg when the missus announced the “good news” of their splitting up. She took him for so much money he had to re-mortgage the entire property and then some. He visibly lost weight and had to go in for counselling and came close to a nervous breakdown. It affected their three children. Those are scars that can be carried well into adulthood. That man was a good man and provided well. Often I was around for braais and knew the entire family well, including taking the kids out for movies and treats. As with most children, they thought I was the next bubbly, goofy thing since bubblegum. But I remember him sitting at a table in my home and telling me about his bewilderment, fighting back the tears, “What did I do wrong, Rod?” The children were equally devastated. That is just one of many examples I can talk about in defence of the blokes and their abuse by women.
There is a current and very necessary heated debate over the abuse of women, specifically with reference to polygamy, sparked off by our beloved president. The cannons of vitriol have been booming between genders and races under the blogs about the abuse of women. Many women are abused; don’t get me wrong there and when it comes to physical abuse I despise bullies. I would be the first to say that women definitely get abused more than men.
But amongst the feminist cannon-fire I would like to fire my popgun in defence of men and that we sure as hell also put up with abuse.
Many times in my early twenties and even in my mid-thirties I told my mother about my relationships with certain girlfriends who had abused me financially, emotionally, led me up the garden path, played me off against other guys to be first in line for favours, and not the sexual kind, as I truly wanted a genuine relationship, not just a “quickie” or a one-night stand. (Whew, that was a long sentence because of the emotive force that went through my drumming fingers as I sit here and type.) Again and again my mother reprimanded me, horrified, begging me not to be so generous. “Rod, why did you have to spend so much, my boy? Be very careful about who you go out with! Women are dangerous!” This from my mother. I still remember the pleading, almost panicky look in her eyes. She confessed that in her youth she also “got men into a position” to empty their wallets, spoil her on various things.
Boy, was I naïve with women! At the same time I was really good at making what we South Africans sometimes call “lady friends”, girls who were just buddies and we could bounce things off each other, go out, do stuff, talk about our issues and relationships. Those girls loved me (yeah, yeah, platonic love). This was because, unlike most men, so they said, I was in touch with my emotions generally and was literally not ashamed to cry when feeling enormously vulnerable. Most SA men are extremely uncomfortable with showing deep emotions. Correct me if I am wrong.
The beginning of this blog was going in a direction where a vitriol of a different kind may have started appearing in the commentary. That might still happen. It could include a venomous debate where women defend the women. A debate where some men rightly stand up for the rights of women. And also some resentful, wrath-filled comments and anecdotes from men in support of me bringing up the abuse of men by women. The commentary under this blog, if any, may still go in that direction. But what responsibility am I taking as a writer — often a clownish one or a would-be poet, I confess — if I do that? Should I be stirring up intense emotions?
Well, yes. I have said in at least one previous blog that the debate stirred up by our beloved, polygamous Caesar is a watershed moment. We need to honestly debate it and respect others’ opinions provided they are constructively put. But the polemic strikes me as somewhat biased. The heat stirred up by the feminist writings too often makes men look like monsters. And, for one, I am getting tired of reading academic phrases like “patriarchal chauvinism”, “the undermining of women’s rights”, “paternalistic” “patronising” (as a pose to matronising, I suppose) and so forth. Not because they are not representative of very real issues, but because after a while they themselves become patronising and destructive. These commentaries disregard and abuse the very many authentic and beautiful relationships that exist between genders and same-genders.
In other words, the constant depiction of the role of men, both historically and currently, is subverting the very aims the feminist writings are trying to achieve: the upholding of women’s rights and therefore having beautiful relationships, both in the home and other societal roles. That cannot be achieved by only seeing men as monsters, or only focusing on those times when they most definitely are monsters. We can be quite sweet and kind too, you know. These particular feminist writing are creating, I suspect, more rifts between the genders than bridges of understanding. It makes me suspect that these writers — and many of you know which specific writer I am referring to — do not have healthy relationships themselves as they harp on so much about unhealthy relationships or depict certain relationships as abusive or a violation of human rights.
The specific rights violation that tiresomely gets brought up is polygamy. That is only potentially — and I stress potentially — a small aspect of the current abuse of women. Loads of abuse of both genders, yes, dammit, both genders, also occur in monogamous relationships. Duh. Going with battering hammer and tongs at one form of marital custom, polygamy, risks missing the real issue of abuse. Why? Because few people practise it or wish to practise it. How do I know that? Well for cripe’s sake you don’t need to do an exhaustive research and present a Gallup’s poll of statistics. Keep it simple. How many people do any of you know in South Africa — not Botswana and Swaziland — who are in genuine polygamous relationships or even want to be? Precious few. We just want a beautiful relationship with one person. Like me and my Chookie here in Shanghai. I wouldn’t know how to deal with more than one wife and would not want to. I am convinced I am speaking for the majority of South Africans out there. So why, oh why, for crying out aloud, keep baying about this issue, polygamy, that is currently practised by a teensy-weensy minority? And, again, the debate, with its focus on the tiresome “p” word, seems to be negatively impacting women/men relationships and race issues. Men are ogres, is the refrain and unfortunate subtext of this kind of writing.
On the “p” word. In all the debate I have yet to see a coherent argument for its “wrongness” as a pose to monogamy. It is rather like saying the colour blue has a greater moral value than the colour orange. What hogwash.
We need to get back into putting at the centre of the debate one of Africa’s greatest cultural treasures: ubuntu. A person is a person because of other persons. I am a person because of other people. Notice it does not say women or men, the aphorism refers to people, us. Ubuntu’s corollary cannot possibly be this awful canyon that seems to be getting reinforced, or perhaps created, between men and women, or should we use the cute, academic expression, men/women. Ubuntu does not say “I am a woman because you are not a man” (pejorative suggestion as to ungentlemanly, bullying behaviour intended). It does not say, “You are a woman because I as a man let you free to be one”. Both of those statements are wrong, and yes, often practised. But you can also change the words “men” and “women” around in those sentences and we find they are also practised. But all the sheer focus on vicarious practices only perpetuates the abuse, does not free us from them. We need to get our focus on the solutions, the healing needed to take place between genders, not keep on concentrating on more and more descriptions and proofs of the very real abuse of women … or of men.
End of my bitch session. Oops, sexist me. End of my bastard session, um, dog session, no … bokke catharsis … heck what can I say to avoid being called a sexist by either gender?
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
