Women are not equal to men. In structure, in theory and in
practice, men are more equal than women. Sure, love takes its toll equally on
all; some more than others. Sure, the sum of this ‘some’ is not entirely made
up of women; experience and interaction abound to prove it.
Sure, money should be split equitably between the sexes. Yet
many a girl gets what she wants, many a times, based on what she can give ‘back
to sender’.
Lay over – a temporary break in a journey;
usually imposed by scheduling requirements.
This is where the needs argument usually comes in.
“I have needs to take care of”, says Stoopy, in justifying her multiple
streams of income. Streams – you will often find – that she pays for in kind
sex, love without benefits, or smiles and pet names.
Sometimes, just sometimes,
streams that are paid for in rape allegations and entrapped alimony.
Watching world wrestling this
weekend, the ironies of our hypocrisy – as concerns the stereotypically weaker
sex – could not have been clearer were they erected in crystal pillars. It was
a tag-team match, one in which two guys chose to beat the brains out of each
other’s brawn. We shall call them Egg-face and Egghead.
The guys went at each other. Fought hard, fought smart…or
some semblance of it. The rules of a tag team are that a teammate usually does
not interfere with the ongoing fight. Egghead’s tag-team partner would thus
remain in his corner, until such a point as Egghead tags him in. At that point,
Egghead leaves the ring, taking his associate’s position at the corner.
Further, unless Egg-face can get to his partner before
Egghead’s partner-in-crime gets to
him, then – ideally – ‘new blood’ should continue to pound on him.
This particular match was different. Whereas the tag-team
partner is usually another man, this time, on the sidelines stood female
reinforcements. Two women wrestlers. We shall call them the sidelined
girlfriends, henceforth SGs. Two things quickly emerged:
a)
There was a special rule for the Eggs’ SGs. If Egghead tags in his SG, then Egg-face has to tag in her counterpart. Because men do not fight women.
b)
The match was won when Egghead’s SG hit Egg-face below the belt. You know, in the luggage; in ‘the boys’. Egghead then took over, pinning Egg-face to the ground for the 3 count. Game over.
Now let’s recap. A woman cannot be hit by a man, when in the
middle of a fight she signed up for; that would be wrong. She is not structured
to be hit in a fight, within a ring, by a guy. Her body is her weakness, in
this fight.
The same woman can hit a man. She can take him out by going
for his weakest point, his weakest weakness. This she can do at a time when she
is not supposed to be interfering with the action in the ring. She can then
stand by and watch a strong man mop up, and take the credit for her kill. Her
body is still her weakness, you see, in this win. Because while she can opportune
a hit that cripples a guy momentarily, physique says she might not stand any
chance pinning the man down.
Before Westgate took over Kenyan airwaves, two similar women
had been consistently portrayed as the shamed queens. Rachel Shebesh, a Member
of Parliament who took a gubernatorial smack in her cheek. Caroline Mutoko, a
Radio Diva who took an unsanitary senatorial blast in her ear.
Two women who were in a fight with two men. Let me rephrase
that.
Two powerful, privileged, obnoxious women, who purport to speak for all Kenyan women, pit their
fists – metaphorically speaking – against two powerful, privileged, obnoxious
men, who purport to speak for everyone. In a fight whose rules these two women expected to control, having carefully
choreographed it to be on the record.
For a second, let’s walk away from the fight I feel coming,
as to whether so-or-so deserved – womanly as she was, is – the reaction her
transgressing action brought bare. Let’s walk as far as Germany, shall we?
Lay over – To postpone for future action
At the heart of the Holocaust, it has emerged, were women as
brutal as Hitler’s men. A mother, who shot fat-nosed Children of the Ark. A
nurse, who injected lethal fluid into Jewish campers, turning their blood as
cold as her own.
These German women were complicit to the white-washing of
Jewish lives from German nationalism. They killed, directly or indirectly. Just
as the terrorist who allegedly warned a pregnant lady he clearly liked, that
there would soon be a stampede at the Westgate Mall, was her savior.
Yet only a small number of these women, such as Irma Grese –
a concentration camp guard – were punished, and fittingly so, for their crimes
in Nazi Germany. Like the accountant who helped Pattni, aka Pastor Paul, rob
Kenya blind with government sanctioned scams, or the lawyer who fattened his
career protecting Nyayo’s corrupt regime, the naming and shaming game did not
apply to these women.
Closer home, a young girl took a knife and stabbed her
father dead. She had been repeatedly raped by her guardian, and could no longer
take it. While the penalty for rape is surely not death, this case was, and is,
justifiably a case of self-defense. For one, she could not possibly rape him
back; but more so, rape is a twisted power play, one that deprives its victim
of choice, not to mention scarring them both physiologically and
psychologically.
I do wonder, though, if the tables were reversed, whether a
17-year old who killed his female guardian would be pardoned on a self-defense
claim. Whether his plea would be given a slap in the hand without warranting a
visit to the doctor’s, at the very least, to help him with the trauma that got
him to take another’s life. I wonder if, simply because he were male, the
question would not be as to whether there was any immediate danger to his life.
I wonder if, as with the case of Duduzile ‘Dudu’ Manhenga, it
matters that life is precious, and unless it is taken justifiably, then it
matters not by whom; just how, and perhaps why. Dudu has been called, in disclaiming her culpability in an accidental homicide, both a 'good person' and a 'woman of God.'
While Dudu's case has many complexities that have little to do with her femininity and a lot to do with her Godliness, even as I write this, a big part of me feels sorry for her. That part of me that feels that a woman should be excused for her actions, simply because she is a woman, and the world has not cut her enough slack.
The same part that forgets to tell girls - as we tell them that they can be anything, as we tell them that they can be like men - that the world they live in does not truly think so. That the men around them will not live in fear of defilement as they walk home late at night. That they do not have to worry much about what happens to their bodies when they're drunk and passed out at an inconvenient spot in a ditch. That while it's OK to push for equal opportunity, equal circumstance can never be achieved.
That same part, I would imagine, that this comment recently criticized in a discussion I was involved in:
[There is a line between] "rape" and consensual sex at a party. Getting drunk with a girl is not necessarily sexual assault or rape [sic]. It still bothers me that it is expected that a drunk man is responsible for ALL his decisions and actions, but a drunk woman is not responsible for her decisions and actions. Where's the equality?
Either drunk people can still make sound decisions about sex, or they can't. Pick one.
Lay over – To place on top of; to superimpose
What many women do not always get, in getting what they
want, is what they deserve. What their needs often forget, in justifying what some
women get – usually and quite simply because of their structure – is the inherent
irony. The irony in expecting to be taken seriously in complete disregard of what
you look like, when your other hand willingly accepts money and gifts; because
of what you look like.
The irony in complaining about the world’s evil hold on
women’s necks, when in the same breath expecting women to receive lighter or no
sentences for their transgressions.
There’s a million voices
To tell you, what you
Should be thinking
So you better sober up
For just a second.
- Youssou N’dour.
To rape… to abort; two unwanted
mutually inconvenient verbs that demonstrate just how much more men equal,
than women.
These two verbs; two doing
words that pit their choices against each other while consciously ignoring
the woman. Choices that society’s misinterpretations of feminism forget to
mention. Mention that some men choose to rape a woman of their choice. Mention that when a
woman aborts, it is often out of lack of choice.
Not every woman, society’s feminism seems to ignore
mentioning, aborts for lack of choice. Being born male, contrary to society’s
ignorant double standards, does not herald a predisposition to rape a female.
Two words that are consistently peddled to generalize women’s
fears and struggles, while simultaneously in many cases pitting men in general
as the cause of these fears and struggles. In one fell swoop ignoring the fact
that these are not, should not be, absolute issues.
This, especially not, where gender were concerned. Because
pitting men against women, not only defeats the purpose of seeking a solution;
it entirely closes our eyes, locking out the few in society who do not ascribe
to our definitions of gender.
What happens when we
refuse to think for our selves? Absolute and systemized pigeonholes become
systemic definitions of right and wrong, and provisions for selective
absolution.
By labeling yourself - dear feminist, dear counter-feminist, dear activist - you simply label others. Because a label asks them, from the get-go, if they are "for us; or against us."
___________________________________________
Written by Fred Wambugu Maina.
Photo by Fungai Machirori.
