Crushed by sex bias
It’s been years since I read a newspaper article that resonated as deeply as Natasha Walter’s incisive column about the ”cruel expectations of workplaces that are built around the working practices of men who sidestep their family responsibilities” (”Punished by biology”, October 21).
Just because everybody writes about it, and it’s the subject of movies and constantly debated, doesn’t make the experience of gender discrimination in the workplace less crushing.
I know there are many women like me, black and white, who have all the trappings of success, but face a daily, soul-destroying fight for corporate survival. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been reprimanded for not working at weekends and for doing catch-up reading in the office instead of after hours.
Most of the reprimands come from men who go home, close their study doors and give instructions to their wives that they should not be disturbed.
All the domestic help in the world does not insulate working women from having to read bedtime stories, having a meal with their families or spending an hour perched on a stool at bath-time listening to what happened at school.
Women and mothers, in particular, have inescapable nurturing duties that often use the same after-hours time they are expected to spend working. Very few men ever have to step out of a high-level, out-of-town meeting to take an urgent call from the au pair about the logistics issue of their child’s gymnastics lesson the next day.
Corporate travel is another gender minefield. Men can afford to step on planes at will, fly across continents or spend three weeks a month travelling, without coming home to attention-deprived children or husbands who feel abandoned.
Unlike men, you are immediately expected to be emotionally available when you step through the door, regardless of how long you have spent in meetings, airport delays or traffic jams. Some of us run ourselves ragged on the same-day flight principle — choosing to fly out and back home the same day to alleviate the family’s feelings of neglect.
While men battle each other using allies and territory for corporate power, women are penalised for biological and domestic ”weakness” to neutralise them as a threat.
Sex discrimination, like racism, has gone underground and I believe it is unlikely to change significantly in my lifetime. Which is why a heartfelt ”thank you” is extended to writers like Walters, who continue shining a torch into the dark holes. Without your voices, lots of women would go on feeling alone, or believing they’re imagining it all. — Linda Mapetla, Cape Town
Butt out of ANC debates!
Media analysts have made a lot of noise about the support some of us have demonstrated for Jacob Zuma before his trial.
In class societies, the dominant ideas are those of the ruling class. In South Africa, the ruling class — the white bourgeoisie, certain African National Congress elements, black economic empowerment capital and opposition politicians — are so hell-bent on asserting their views about who must succeed Thabo Mbeki that many ANC activists are concerned.
After realising the ANC will dominate the political landscape for the foreseeable future, the opposition now seeks to influence the internal processes of our movement from outside. Tony Leon’s audacity in saying the Democratic Alliance is obliged to take sides in the current crisis facing the ANC is unbelievable.
The sooner the ubiquitous analysts realise that Mbeki’s successor will be elected by delegates at the ANC’s national conference in 2007 the better. A recent poll published in the media showed most South Africans support Mbeki’s sacking of Zuma. Unfortunately, few of the pollsters, analysts and other elites in society will be conference delegates.
After hoping that the tripartite alliance would splinter for more than a decade, some in the media and opposition now claim there is a split between the ANC and its left-wing allies — with the former supporting Mbeki and the latter Zuma. They persist with this misrepresentation even though the ANC itself says it will support Zuma throughout his trial.
The ANC has accumulated much experience in dealing with internal crises, but the fact that so many people outside the movement have vested interests in the succession of its leaders makes it harder to overcome the current impasse. To them I say: join the ANC or stay the hell out of our movement’s internal debates. — Luthando Nogcinisa, South African Communist Party, Khayelitsha
![]()
There was a hysterical edge to your editorial ”Be afraid — be very afraid” (October 14) where you concluded that Zuma is ”not qualified” to be South Africa’s first citizen, and ”should not be allowed to take us back to an earlier and darker age”.
This ominous warning followed Msholozi’s court appearance last week, which you said was a ”clear snapshot” of a Zuma presidency.
If you mean the people would passionately support president Zuma and that he will take time to share his feelings — no matter how painful — with his people, you are spot on.
Comrade Zuma, it should be blatantly clear, is a man of the people who relates to the masses in a way that is perhaps alien to you and others in the coterie of hired guns who parade as objective commentators.
This is why you perceive him as a ”populist rabble-rouser”, and remark on the ”question marks over his personal integrity”. Thanks to the media, there are no ”question marks”, only exclamation marks.
The National Prosecuting Authority is complicit in the media onslaught against Zuma, so it is not surprising that you defend it with such vigour.
Ever wonder what the cost would be to the Mail & Guardian‘s reputation if you are wrong about Zuma or are found to have been used in the political crusade against him?
You have gone to such lengths to convince readers of Zuma’s guilt before due process that you now have a vested interest in the trial’s outcome. But judging by how ordinary people are responding, you have been barking at the moon.
Perhaps the desperation that underscored your editorial last week is the result. You yourselves are afraid. — Sizwe Shezi, board member: Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust
![]()
The M&G is biased against JZ. The paper is not speaking for the masses but for a section of ruthless intellectual capitalists.
Zuma is a victim of a political conspiracy. He did not squander government funds meant for the people, and that is why they support him. — Zolisa Cebo Soji Ka Mbokazi, South Hills
![]()
Two of the finest opinion columns I have seen in your paper, or any other, in a long time were side by side in your last edition.
In the lead letter, ”Mitchell” quietly but firmly put you in your place in your ravings against Zuma. Why not populism? Why only Zuma? Why can’t he express his feelings? Why are you canvassing? Indeed. And a final crisp suggestion that you ”retain the credibility [you have] painstakingly established over the years”.
I am dismayed that you and other serious opinion-formers should join this witch-hunt. You are speeding up the dangerous spin our democracy is being sucked into, and for all your exposés of this-gate and that-gate, you insist Zuma embodies our corruption problem. Bollocks! Time you stopped hyperventilating, or a growing number of us will suspect you are part of a wider conspiracy.
However, your editorial ”Dear Hugo”, is spot on, in every phrase, and delivers a powerful message. Chavez, as you say, a genuine anti-imperialist leader with a genuine popular programme and popular support, should know better than to make common cause with Mugabe, ”that brutal old charlatan, on the strength of his anti-imperialist rhetoric”. Bravo! — Tony Hall, Mpumalanga
![]()
We need pedestrian cities
Justin Pearce (”Taxi man”, October 21) hits the nail on the head as regards the state of public transport. The aim is clear: public transport should be affordable to the poor, agreeable to the rich and amenable to all our varied needs.
It should above all be public, as ”taxis” are not and cannot be. The public is anyone — it is not ”Together as One” nor ”The Bus for Us”, as some Cape Town buses claim. In neither case am I welcome.
What sort of cars would be suitable for the reduced vehicle-use scenario? Today’s ”responsible” cars have little advantage outside traffic jams; their forte is clean idling. Also, they are designed for consistent operation over a short, maintenance-free life. An almost-car-free scenario would require cars designed for regular maintenance and occasional use in -perpetuity. This is a process in which the manufacturer wields considerably less power, and the owner and mechanic considerably more. We are lucky that such cars are still legal.
The failure of No Car Day emphasises the importance of the urban configuration for the success of public transport. One cannot graft public transport on to a city that is structured around the movement of private vehicles. Nor can pedestrian-friendly environments simply be added to suburban sprawl.
We have to transform the suburbs to become more land-efficient and to accommodate a wider mix of land uses. At the same time, the desire for autonomy that drives the aspiration to own suburban land should be respected.
The result will probably tend to buildings of between three and five storeys, small plots, and mixed-use potential on every plot as a norm. This can be brought about by cities’ tendency to rebuild themselves given appropriate planning regulations.
Why doesn’t the Department of Transport introduce a law allowing municipalities to encourage the development of the pedestrian-oriented cities we need? — DG Coetzee, Claremont
![]()
Let’s hope No Car Day made South Africans aware that our much-maligned ”African taxis” represent one of the world’s cheapest and most convenient public transport systems.
Few other forms of public transport pass so close to homes or deliver people so close to their destinations. Without a car for 20 years in various African countries, I have learned to appreciate this boon. — Peta Jones, Donkey Power CC, Tshitandani/Makhado
![]()
Racists must not run our courts
Did Judge John Hlophe, Judge President of the Cape Division of the High Court, make racist remarks or not? That is the million-dollar question, and the media have been kept well away from it.
Chief Justice Pius Langa was supposed to tell the nation whether his colleague made racist utterances. We need to know exactly what happened between Judge Hlophe and the lawyer he allegedly called a ”piece of white shit”.
Judge Langa, who do you trust: the white lawyer or Judge Hlophe? When you were sworn in you said you would serve South Africans faithfully — and that’s what we demand, chief!
The justice system must lead by example. It has a responsibility to help deracialise South Africa society and build respect among the people by being transparent. Racists must not administer our judicial system. — Parapara Makgahlela, Pretoria
![]()
A typical example of our criminal injustice system. Had a white judge made similar racist remarks, he would have been hounded out of the profession. — John Ivor-Pullin, Stellenbosch
![]()
His peers did not find Judge Hlophe innocent, and they erred when they decided not to pursue the problems surrounding him out of political expediency. We now have no assurance that he will change his racial prejudices.
We have not heard the last of Judge Hlophe’s racism — he will eventually hang himself. — Willem van den Berg, Pretoria
![]()
Cynical
Newspaper reports about Robert Mugabe, though exaggerated, make one wish Zimbabwe’s opposition would grow stronger to panel-beat the wrongs we are made to believe Zanu-PF is committing. Then, like a megalomaniac, Morgan Tsvangarai bucks the decision of the Movement for Democratic Change’s highest decision-making body to participate in the Senate polls.
It is cynical that a man who has always preached the rule of the people does the opposite when it suits him.
The MDC is not failing because of Mugabe’s intimidation of its members, as melodramatic reporters suggest, but because, under Tsvangirai’s leadership, it does not offer a viable alternative. — Luther Lebelo, Midrand