Let me state from the onset that I’m not sexist. In fact, some of my best friends are women. Both my mother and my wife are women whom I respect very much.
Let me also state categorically that I find nothing more deplorable than Neanderthals who believe that men are superior to women. It is a barbaric, primitive and unscientific belief that was used by men to oppress women for centuries and to hold on to power in societies all over the world.
In 1996, we in South Africa adopted possibly the most progressive Constitution in the world when it comes to gender equality, ensuring women full protection under the law and guaranteeing them full participation in every sphere of society. Women’s representation in our Parliament has, in just 14 years, more than quadrupled and we are now sitting at about 50% representation in almost every one of our public institutions. Great strides have also been made in private institutions and nobody can argue that women have never been in a better position in their history than now.
But as a young, gender-blind male who has fully embraced the new South Africa, I must register my disapproval at a few aspects of the new dispensation.
1. Affirmative action
I was born towards the very end of the old era where women were oppressed. But the playing fields have been levelled since 1994. And I never personally benefited from male chauvinism in any shape or form whatsoever. As a matter of fact, my father was part of that rare breed of men who treated everybody the same, regardless of gender. I remember as a child how my father often risked his life and raised the ire of other men in the neighbourhood by standing up to bully husbands in cases of spousal abuse. I remember how my family, at my father’s insistence, sheltered a woman who was the victim of an abusive husband for weeks. And these are the values that my father passed on to us, his boys.
But, in 2008, I feel that I am personally being punished and disadvantaged in the job market by affirmative-action policies. Surely, 14 years into the democratic dispensation, affirmative action is really just punitive reverse sexism? Surely affirmative action should not extend to females born post-1994?
Now don’t get me wrong and think I’m counter-revolutionary. I’m not sexist and I think that when a female is qualified and competent, she should be given equal consideration for any position. But the starting point should be qualifications and competence. What I have a problem with is when a woman is given preference over her male counterpart based solely on her gender. This is counter-productive and tantamount to lowering of standards in society.
As a matter of fact, I know many females (who are my friends) who feel degraded and insulted by affirmative-action policies that reduce women to window dressing and tokens. Of course they would never speak up because it would be seen as letting the side down. And I don’t think that giving positions to females who are inexperienced and clearly out of their depth is doing them any good. I dare even say, it probably does more damage to their confidence than anything else.
I am an intelligent, qualified South African man who was in the top 5% of my class at university. How am I supposed to feel when I see some of my former classmates, who averaged 20% less than I, being given opportunities in companies that keep on shutting doors in my face just because I’m a male? Yet we complain about a brain drain when innocent young men such as myself decide to seek greener pastures in Middle Eastern countries that do not have any such policies.
Is this what the new dispensation is about — retribution? Because if it is, I do not want to be a part of it. As patriotic and as proudly South African as I am, I am considering making the painful decision to move to Yemen or Pakistan where my skills will be appreciated. My father and other courageous men of his generation did not fight against male domination only to see it being replaced by female domination.
2. Exclusive women’s organisations
Could you even imagine the furore that would ensue if men formed an exclusively male organisation and kept women out? Surely every women’s organisation in the country should be declared unlawful under our Constitution. I will be the first to acknowledge the need for these organisations in the pre-liberation days. But of what relevance are these organisations in 2008? Most men are scared to say it, but everybody can see that these are clearly sexist organisations. How can they be allowed?
If you want to stir up a hornet’s nest, ask the question: Why can’t we declare, say, September as Men’s Month? The proposition would be rejected offhand as preposterous. But for what reason? Don’t women, in 2008, enjoy exactly the same rights under the law as men do? Why is there a need for a women’s month during which inflammatory and clearly sexist slogans such as “You strike a woman, you strike a rock” are repeated over and over again?
Would society tolerate it if I started a male organisation with a slogan such as “You mess with a man, you mess with an immovable boulder”?
3. One-sided reporting in the media
Most men in our society are non-sexist, law-abiding citizens who do not engage in any acts that contravene any of our laws. However, we are all painted with the same brush when it comes to sexist behaviour.
Every single time a man commits a sexism-inspired act against a female, the matter is blown completely out of proportion because men are easy targets when it comes to sexism. Colourful words such as “bigot” and “sexist pig” are thrown around. After all, who would seriously defend a “sexist pig” (an expression which, incidentally, is only ever associated with one particular gender)?
Yet there are thousands, if not millions, of men who are also victims of female chauvinism all over the country on a daily basis. Female sexism towards males is seldom reported. To report female sexism racism in the mainstream press appears to be an unspoken heresy. When a male is sexist towards a female, the incident is far more likely to be reported than when the reverse is the case. It is often hypothesised that for every 1 000 cases of female-on-male harassment, only one ever is reported.
Obviously a story about a man harassing a woman is more sensational and probably sells more newspapers than a story about a female boss harassing a male subordinate. I do believe I have made my point. End of rant.
[This is where you, the reader, come in and tell me what is wrong with my rationale in the above piece — as it stands. Try to pretend that it is not a spoof of another popular argument, which it obviously is.
The parallels are clearly far from perfect and admittedly often ludicrous to the point of absurdity, so you won’t get an extra credit for pointing this out to me. Just humour me by pointing out the many flaws in the argument itself. As it appears in the piece.
Shoot.]
Author
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
