I recently asked someone (who I deemed broad-minded) what the term ”gender” means to him. Without thinking, he said, ”A big woman, with big hair and a big voice, standing somewhere in public burning her bra.” Then he guffawed.
The man next to him, chuckling heartily at his friend’s stroke of genius, added that, to him, ”gender” means making love to a woman ”without falling in love”.
Nearly 10 years after the political settlement that brought a commitment from the new government to gender equality — the ”non-racial, non-sexist Republic of South Africa” as promised in the Constitution — remains deeply patriarchal.
The Commission on Gender Equality, which was established by an Act of Parliament in 1996 to breathe life into this ”non-sexist” commitment, has been treated in large like a Cinderella organisation.
Budgetary constraints, structural weaknesses and a simplistic tendency by people to understand gender as a gynaecological issue mean that the commission is becoming another ingredient of cappuccino politics — all froth and no substance.
”Gender has become a bit of a joke in South Africa. People hear the word and say, ‘Oh God, here we go again,”’ says Gail Smith, a South African feminist writer. ”It is a great idea to have [the] Commission on Gender Equality, but I’m not convinced of its efficacy. It is not getting to the nitty-gritty of addressing the power dynamics and unspoken codes between men and women.”
The commission is an independent statutory body to ”promote, protect and monitor gender equality in the country”. It is one of six state institutions set up in terms of chapter nine of the Constitution to support democracy.
The idea behind their formation was that the bodies would become stronger in their work and independence by monitoring and protecting human rights. But the reality for the commission is that its base lags far behind its superstructure.
While the formal legal status of women may have improved with democracy, the social effects of gender discrimination remain.
”Men still don’t have to take women very seriously. They can trot out a couple of lines about ‘gender’ and ‘where are the women’,” says Smith. ”But what is the point of a non-sexist Constitution if women still can’t walk down the street without being harassed?”
Some of the most recent reports released by Statistics South Africa prove that gender equality is still a hollow phrase.
In 2001, 37 711 rape cases were reported, up from 36 137 in 1996. Currently one woman is killed every four days in Gauteng by her partner in a syndrome called femicide.
Another report released this year shows that women make up the majority of the unemployed. Those women who are employed tend to take up the lowest-paying jobs, such as farm and domestic work.
A report released by the Employment Equity Commission in 2001 shows that 87% of all top management positions in the private sector are still held by men, as are 80% of all senior management jobs. Women currently hold 37,6% of jobs in management and professional jobs combined.
Joyce Piliso-Seroke, chairperson of the commission, believes that while it is addressing gender with increasing vehemence, the commission is seriously undermined by budgetary constraints.
According to commissioner Sheila Meintjes, the commission is underfunded by about R5-million a year.
A look at the financial statements shows that from a total budget of R13-million in the 2001/02 financial year 57% was spent on remuneration and only 27,5% on programmes.
This year the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has allocated R14,9-million to the commission.
Asked about the healthy budgetary slice to remuneration, Meintjes says: ”It is unusual that such a large portion of the budget is spent on this area, but we are bound by civil service regulations.”
The Human Rights Commission has been allocated R27-million and the Office of the Public Protector R35-million.
”In a perfect world our budget would be three times its size,” says Piliso-Seroke.
Meintjes says the government needs to move beyond talking the talk to walking the walk.
”The constraints of the budget need to be addressed by Parliament. If this doesn’t change then we can begin to argue that the state is setting us up for failure,” she says.
But another well-known South African gender researcher, who wishes to remain anonymous, says that the small budget is not an excuse for the commission’s blurred delivery.
”The commission is not what it used to be. Weak leadership and a lack of vision and direction means that it is not receiving as much donor funding as it did with previous commissioners.”
The loss of CEO Colleen Lowe-Morna in 1999, following a legal wrangle over her resignation, and the redeployment of former chairperson, Thenjiwe Mtintso, to the African National Congress as deputy secretary general in 1997 were a ”real pity and a major blow to the commission”, says Smith.
Meintjes says the commission will shortly receive funding from the European Commission and the Swedish International Development Agency, which will support the commission’s advocacy campaigns and restructure the body.
The second set of commissioners, appointed in 2001, is attempting to refocus the programme according to the commission’s mandate and taking into account the ”structural problems that Smith talks about”, says Meintjes.
Asked about these structural weaknesses, Meintjes says that there are ”inbuilt structural tensions” between the commissioners and the secretariat.
Caught in this turf war the commission has spent more time on internal politics than external advocacy to improve the gender picture.
The commission comprises 12 commissioners, and a secretariat is appointed in terms of the Act to support them.
”The commissioners are the voice of the commission and the secretariat staff provides the backing. But we are all experts and that is the tension,” says Meintjes.
So what is the commission doing?
A campaign is under way to increase women’s representation in Parliament to 50%. Presently there is a 30% representation, which ”makes a special case for women”, says Mentjies.
The campaign, launched last year by the Gender Advocacy Project, has the full support of the commission.
To fulfil its mandate to monitor all sectors of society according to gender policy, the commission is now publishing an annual report card on progress in the state, the private sector and civil society. It has formed partnerships with similar organisations, such as the People Opposed to Women Abuse, to broaden its impact. A pilot project to assess the report card has been successfully completed and the first report card will be released at the end of the year.
A plan of action for gender advocacy in the future was formed at the National Gender Summit in 2001, which prioritises poverty, HIV/Aids and gender-based violence. These fall under four themes: gender and poverty; gender tradition, culture and religion; democracy and governance; and gender-based violence.
But gender analysts say that the drive by the commission to change history will only work if there is a shift in focus from attention on women to attention on women and men and the relations between them.
Meintjes says the commission is addressing these concerns by dealing with ”men and issues of masculinity”, to change the simplistic view of ”gender” as a poor woman’s issue.
Says Smith: ”The challenge is understanding that gender is variable and context-specific — men need to be taken to task properly to understand that it is less about bean-counting and bra- burning and more about power.”