Category Archives: Sister’s Blog

The clitoris is a gift, so why is there an ingrained fear of talking about it?

If we want to make progress with FGM, we need to first tackle our outdated, misogynistic views on sex

The first UK conviction for female genital mutilation (FGM) this month was a milestone in the fight for the basic human rights of women and girls. But one of the things that stands out from the news reports of that case is how oddly furtive they were about communicating the key facts – in particular their avoidance of the C-word: clitoris.

In reporting such a prominent case, are readers unable to be shown the correct medical terminology? Why do the media carefully avoid mentioning what occurred, using highly generalised anatomical terms before quickly moving on? If this lack of detail was to spare the victim the indignity of having such a personal matter discussed so publicly, I would have sympathy, however I do not think that this is the case here. What I think is at play, is a deep-rooted fear of the clitoris.

Mother of three-year-old is first person convicted of FGM in UK
Read more
Let us consider if a man were to suffer a similar injury: would we shy away from using the word penis? Of course not. A quick internet search is enough to reveal a whole plethora of penis-related news stories (not to mention non-news stories). In fact, there are so many that we seem, as news consumers, to be a little bit penis obsessed. Huff Post and the Independent have gone so far as creating a “penis” news keyword tag, for all your penis news in one place. To some degree, the media has also now acknowledged the existence of the vagina, and its linguistic appearance is reasonably acceptable in polite conversation (perhaps depending on the context). So why are we so reticent about the clitoris? Why is a mention of it seemed to be deemed too sordid for BBC news?
The big difference here seems to be that while the vagina has an obvious functional utility, the clitoris exists entirely for female pleasure. It seems that the issue stems, not from the provocative nature of a word, but our continued societal taboo regarding women daring to enjoy sex. Sure, we can see depictions of women shrieking with pleasure plastered all over any porn site. But that is exactly the point. Female sexual enjoyment remains exclusively in the realm of the forbidden.

This aversion to discussing, or even acknowledging, female pleasure is instilled early. As a teenager, I remember it being commonplace for boys to laugh and joke about masturbation; if anything, it was downright encouraged. For girls meanwhile, it was impossible to admit even to your closest friends that masturbation had ever crossed your mind, except as something disgusting and shameful. We were all doing it, yet no one would dare to ever admit it and risk being branded weird and somehow dirty.

In an age in which we’re revolutionising the debate around sexual experiences and consent, why are we stagnating when it comes to the discussion of mutual enjoyment? Rebecca Kukla, a philosophy professor specialising in practical ethics at Georgetown University, has written about the problems of a linguistic framework built around consent, with its implication that women are passive recipients of an act. Sex is framed as something a man asks for, which a woman may either consent to or decline, rather than an experience of mutual participation, agency and pleasure. This is not to say that consent is not important; on the contrary, it is essential. But to reduce our discussions of sex to this kind of dichotomy is to fundamentally misrepresent what is an active and reciprocal enjoyment.

It’s time that we grow up and get over our fear of the C-word. Even more than this, we need to cease viewing female enjoyment of sex as sordid and instead catapult it into the mainstream. Yes, a woman has a clitoris! Being able, at the very least, to talk about clinical aspects of female anatomy when reporting factual news is vital to accepting female bodies in their entirety. We must be able to mention a clitoris without feeling uncomfortable, without feeling like we’ve crossed some invisible line and left the realms of civilised conversation behind us.

Young girls around the world are suffering horrendous mutilation because of a deep-rooted cultural fear of female pleasure, and the same fear is preventing us from even articulating the problem. If we want to make progress on this issue, there are many positive actions we can take (I would recommend looking into the work of Forward UK among other FGM-focused charities). But we could begin by examining our own views and free our speech from the shackles of outdated and deeply misogynistic views on sex.

By Lucy McCormick
• Lucy McCormick is a Guardian editorial data analyst and a feminist blogger
sourced from: The Gurdian


A year has passed since minister of health and social services Bernard Haufiku called for the revision of our abortion law at a media conference. Two previous health ministers, Nickey Iyambo and Libertina Amathila, also called for the liberalisation of our abortion law. They saw in the 1990s already, the heavy burden that a restrictive abortion law has on the state. A report published during Amathila’s term noted that it costs the state more resources to treat the effects of an unsafe abortion, than it does to have a safe abortion in a health facility. After major resistance from churches, the abortion and sterilisation bill was tabled and withdrawn in 1999. That was the last time we really talked about it, until last year. But then it was on the nation’s discourse agenda for about a month only.

We are still guided by the Abortion and Sterilisation Act of 1975, which allows for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is threatened by the pregnancy. In 2016, there were 138 such cases handled by our health system. During the same year, 7 335 cases of women and girls with various injuries were recorded by the system, all as a result of unsafe abortions. Haufiku noted that figure could go up to 10 000, because many remain unreported. The ministry has to be applauded for not notifying the police when confronted with such cases. In addition to the 10 000 cases, I suggest we add the number of women and girls who can afford a safe abortion by a medical professional willing to take the risk here, or travel to South Africa for an abortion at a Marie Stopes clinic. Then, add a bigger number of women and girls who buy the pills that are advertised on Facebook, and succeed. Then, add the number of women and girls who dump their babies when still alive. Then, add the number of women and girls who flush fetuses down the sewerage system; According to a 2013 Nampa report, it was an average of 40 fetuses per month. Then add the number of women who consume whatever poisonous, acid concoction they can drink to abort, and die.

I was confronted with this as an 11-year old when my cousin’s unsafe abortion resulted in her lying in a coma for days, while the acid she drank destroyed her on the inside. I will never forget the combination of pain, shame and anger on her mother and siblings’ faces at her funeral. In our community, her legacy became that of being used as an example on why not to have sex before marriage.

The abortion debate is even more complex because it is framed within bigger contexts that are even more convoluted, and these are women’s bodies, sex and religion – all in all patriarchy. It is understandable that this will be a difficult conversation, but it is one we must have. At the press conference Haufiku noted that a national conversation, which includes consultations with various sectors, will be held. This is critically important. But the ministry and civil society will need to come prepared for a big fight from the churches and religious groups, yet again. Traditional leaders will not be a difficult target group to convince. Abortion was recognised a necessary part of life among indigenous groups before the arrival of the missionaries. We must also have this conversation while considering that women and girls’ sexual and bodily autonomy is severely compromised. Our rape, domestic violence and murder statistics speak for themselves.

We must also admit that liberalising our abortion law will not put an end to all the challenges women and girls face, but it certainly will drastically reduce the number of them who resort to harmful measures to end an unwanted pregnancy. The health system will also be left with resources that can be applied otherwise. Very importantly, this is a conversation that must be led by women and girls. This is a discussion about our bodies, our lives. Who best to have it?

Further, we should not limit ourselves to the idea that contraceptives are widely available at health centres. This is true, but do women and girls have access to such? What are the conditions under which women and girls gain access, when they do? The woman who is a domestic worker rarely has time off to go to the clinic. When she has time on weekends, there is one clinic in Katutura that provides contraceptives. The 16-year old is too terrified to ask the nurse for condoms or a pill, because she may tell her mother. Access is not as simple as stacking our shelves.

We also need to hear the I-stories of women and girls who risked death and imprisonment when making the desperate decision to have an unsafe abortion, dump a baby, or flush a fetus. The I-stories of families that endured the pain of tragic loss, in addition to the judgement of their community, need to be heard too. The conversation must happen everywhere – on social media, blogs, newspapers, radio, television, bars and street corners.

However, as a life-long Namibian-born feminist, I can vouch for the fact that patriarchy is deeply embedded here, it will not be overpowered by a consultation process and a multi-media campaign of a few months. The fact is, the collective unwillingness to address our outdated and repressive sexual and reproductive health policy and legal framework will still remain after all that work. Patriarchy is a powerful beast.

But, we should not allow the abortion debate to become dormant again. Civil society has a huge advantage in the ministry’s willingness to revise the abortion law. The ministry has an ally in civil society for this campaign. Working together towards a more progressive abortion law can be an easy collaboration.

Our women and girls deserve access to safe, non-judgemental abortion services by medical professionals. They also deserve access to information on sexual and reproductive health and rights so that they can make informed choices about their lives. This is a battle we can actually win.

by Natasha H Tibinyane
Extracted from our Volume 30#2 edition

The GIMAC Award, for real?

Namibia receiving the 2017 Gender Is My Agenda Campaign (GIMAC) Award placed the spotlight on women’s position in our post-independence dispensation. The award allowed us to interrogate not only women’s position in the political sphere, but also where we are socially and economically. GIMAC aims to create a space for civil society to monitor the implementation of the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (SDGEA), which was adopted by AU heads of state and government in 2004.

When accepting the award, President Hage Geingob praised the ruling Swapo Party for implementing the 50/50 zebra style party lists, giving the party all the credit. It is important to note however, that all the credit must go to the Namibian Women’s Manifesto Network, which was a coalition of civil society organisations (CSO) led by Sister Namibia, under the leadership of Liz Frank and Elizabeth Khaxas at the time. The network launched the 50/50 campaign in 1999, which resulted in an advocacy campaign of six years, providing a platform for thousands of Namibian women to demand the equal representation of women in politics. The 50/50 Campaign became a model for women’s political empowerment across the globe.

It was thus notable that Sister Namibia, amongst many other women’s organisations, was not one of the CSOs that received recognition at the event. Not only is it a women-run CSO, it has done groundbreaking work in the areas of gender, and the empowerment of women and girls. The GIMAC award was given in recognition of the progress Namibia made in promoting gender equality, the empowerment of women, and in particular promoting women’s representation in key decision-making positions. According to the Legal Assistance Centre’s (LAC) Gender Analysis Report 2017, women constitute 41,7% of the National Assembly, 23,8% of the National Council, 16% of the regional councils, and 48% of local councilors. Women also serve in the Prime Minister, deputy prime minister, Chairperson of the National Council, and speaker of the National Assembly positions. In terms of the number of women in parliament, Namibia is doing very well with a ranking of 12th in the world. This, after we were ranked 29th in 2007.

The next obvious question is, has an increase in women at political level translated into the improvement of women’s position socially and economically?
The SDGEA not only foregrounds women’s participation in politics, but also women’s human rights, health, safety, socio-economic rights, education, and economic empowerment. According to the Demographic and Health Survey of 2013, more than one-third of women and girls who engaged in agricultural work received no payment for it. In 2016, unemployment among women youths was 49%, compared to 38% for men. Women remain the poorest of the poor. According to the Gender Analysis report, women are “less likely to be employed and, even when employed, earn less than men on average in most sectors.”

The country’s social protection system is a pivotally important lifeline for women, especially since they remain society’s main caregivers. It is important that government continues to improve it so it better serves women. The Gender Analysis report quotes a study by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which notes that the lack of support for the unemployed leaves women more vulnerable because they remain unemployed longer than men. The ILO further notes that maternity benefits, along with benefits for sickness and employment injury, are available only to those in formal employment. This excludes the thousands of women who work in the informal economy. The Namibian newspaper recently reported that women represent 70% of the informal economy, and that this sector is responsible for about 40% of employment created in the country.
“Employment in the informal economy also does not encompass contracts for most employees, with the majority working extreme hours between 9 and 13 hours a day. Moreover, only 40% of those in the informal sector have access to sick leave benefits, while less than 30% have access to annual leave,” the article reads.

The 2011 census found that 46% of rural households were headed by women, yet the National Rural Development Policy does not specifically address the needs of women, although it “recognises that high levels of poverty are most extreme among vulnerable groups, such as female and youth-headed households.”

According to the 2013 Baseline Report on Human Rights, female respondents were slightly more likely than male respondents to say that their access to sanitation had gotten worse.

High rates of teenage pregnancies, domestic and sexual violence against women and girls, the list can go on in relation to the lack of bodily autonomy suffered by this country’s women. In fact, the list that highlights challenges faced by Namibia’s women is long. Some will say that we are better off than women of many other countries, hence the GIMAC Award. This is true, but comparing ourselves to countries that are worse off than us all the time can result in complacency, and failure to interrogate the merits of the recognition, or award we received. Do we deserve the award? Yes, we do because we are part of a continent that performs dismally in regard to respecting, protecting and promoting the overall well-being of its women and girls.

A few years ago I was asked what it is like to be a Namibian feminist woman. I said I consider myself blessed to be a feminist in a country that has committed itself to gender equality at policy level. Most African governments do not even bother with developing policies that could lead to the betterment of women and girls’ position in society. Using the African Union, United Nations and other international instruments as guiding lights, we have a policy and legal framework that reads like Namibia would be an ideal country for women and girls when achieved.

However, appointing or electing women in political and corporate leadership positions certainly is not the best way to achieve this. We tend to forget that women themselves can be partriarchal, because that is the way we are all raised. Most women in power are pawns of patriarchy, they think no different than the man sitting next to them.

In 2016 a motion to provide sanitary pads to disadvantaged schoolgirls for free, was tabled by a man, DTA leader McHenry Venaani. The deputy speaker said she is embarrassed to discuss menstruation in parliament. The deputy minister of gender equality and child welfare also tried to silence the debate by claiming that the ministry does have programmes that provide sanitary pads. How serious is this project if it is such an unknown fact? How is the presence of these ladies in parliament a plus for women and girls?

Effectively implementing the wide range of relevant policies and laws we have is the best way to go about it. In his acceptance speech President Geingob said, “In Namibia, gender equality is not a slogan. We breathe it, speak it, and live it.” This unfortunately is not factual, in Namibia we write about gender equality and appoint women in what is regarded as key positions, but these are mere cosmetic changes.

Dismantling patriarchy requires a commitment to challenging it all levels and it includes adapting what we teach in schools, what we publish in and broadcast on mainstream media, providing gender training to policy-makers, and supporting civil society efforts that focus on the empowerment of women and girls. It is also about developing policies with detailed actions in regard to the achievement of gender equality, so that government and stakeholders can be held accountable when targets are not met.

Let us enjoy the pride that comes with being recognised as a leader in the area of gender equality. But let it also be a reminder that we still have a long way to go before we can truly claim that our women and girls are equal to men in Namibia.

By Natasha Tibinyane

Engendering the SADC Industrialisation Strategy

The Namibian government is pulling all strings in preparations for the 38th SADC heads of state and government summit which is scheduled for August this year. We have been informed that the total expenditure of the summit will cost Namibians close to N$50 million.
Of interest is the summit theme: “Promoting Infrastructure Development and Youth Empowerment for Sustainable Development”. This is a relevant theme as SADC boasts with a vibrant youth dividend and it goes without saying that infrastructure development is important for the socio-economic growth of SADC member states.
During the last three years, the themes were: “Accelerating Industrialisation of SADC Economies (Botswana Summit), “Transformation of Natural Endowment and Improved Human Capital” (eSwatini Summit), and “Partnering with the Private Sector in Developing Industry and Regional Value Chains” (South Africa). All three themes focused on industrialisation. It can be noted that SADC is building a momentum towards industrialisation as this year’s theme is in line with that of previous years.
I browsed through the Labour Force Survey of a few SADC member states and paid attention to the labour force participation by sex and age. I also skimmed at employment by industry. I found the labour force participation of women and youth still lags behind significantly. In almost all the member states men continue to dominate in the labour force. If one looks at employment by industry, career selection in all SADC states is unequally distributed between men and women. Demonstrative is that men still predominantly work in mining and quarrying, manufacturing, and transportation while women are mostly employed in education, health and social work as well as the hotel and retail industries. These sectors are also characterised by a wage gap. The sectors that recruit men tend to offer better wages compared to sectors that recruit females. The only employment sector where the number of men and women is almost equal is the agriculture sector.
As SADC states are forging ahead towards industrialisation, caution needs to be taken not to perpetuate gender inequality. SADC issued two protocols, namely the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development and the SADC Protocol on Employment and Labour, compelling member states to be cognisant of gender issues in their development agendas. The integration of gender should be seen as a systematic progress that must be engaged on from the onset of any developmental agenda and should not be treated as an add-on.
Hence, our appeal to SADC heads of state and government ministers is to ensure that the promotion of gender equality is central to every SADC developmental agenda.

By Immaculate Mogotsi
Sister Namibia Board of Trustees Chairperson

Yes we can

At the United State of Women Summit of 2018 Michelle Obama made a statement that got me thinking.
She said; “So many of us have gotten ourselves at the table, but we are still too grateful to be at the table to really shake it up. Because for so many of us getting to the table was so hard and we’re just holding on, but now we have to take some risks for our girls. We have to be willing to lose a little bit of something. Just holding on to our seats on the table won’t be enough for our girls to be all that they need to be. This will be on us women, but men also have an important role to play in that.”
She also mentioned that she wants to understand how they (American women) had an opportunity to vote for the most qualified candidate (who just happened to be a woman) and they chose differently.
How is it that a woman can be as qualified or even more qualified than her male counterpart but because she is a woman, she will lose a position of head of state, or leadership? And of course the loss of Hillary Clinton was not as simple as choosing between a male and female president. Both their scandals and fraudulent stories were brought to public attention, however Hillary’s faults seemed to have counted against her whilst Trump’s seemed to have made no to little difference, because he still became president elect.
I once saw a picture of a group of African leaders signing an MoU with the UN and I asked the person who posted it, why there were only men in the picture, and she answered that it was the head of states for Africa. And I responded with “Oh”.
But here is the thing, after I had evaluated my answer, I was saddened that I had programmed myself to accept that an African President would traditionally be a man. I was upset that there were only men in the picture, but when I heard that they were presidents I let my guard down. I made it okay not to be upset enough to have a female president. And that right there is where the danger lies.
When Michelle was talking, a woman yelled for her to run for president. And she mentioned that’s where the problem lied. That it would not make a difference if she ran because until we change our mind-sets that a woman can run, most women will change their minds before the voting polls.
Until we understand “Yes we can”, we will not support our fellow women leaders.
We allow men to fail-up. This means despite their patriarchal insults, besides their blatant disrespect for women, or rights of people, despite their corruption allegations, and despite them being accused of rape or harassment they still ascend to the top (fail-up). But we do not accord women the same opportunities.
This is what we do; we say no she will fail so let’s rather give the seat to a man, but even if he fails it’s okay, because he is allowed to.
We all have the potential to greatly fail or to greatly succeed. But we only mostly allow men to fail and succeed (or just fail).
We have yet to break barriers, but these barriers are not physical or legislative, they are, however mental.
So I conducted a small survey to check out the popularity of a woman actually running for presidency in Namibia.
I chose presidency as a measurement, because it’s the highest level of leadership, but more than that it’s the level upon which we are sceptical if a woman can run.
We’ve initially decided that women can be teachers, they can be engineers, CEO’s, but god forbid we make one president.
Let’s have a look at some of the negative responses.
The question was: Do Namibians (especially women) believe a female can run for president?
One harsh one was, “keep running” (meaning run away).
And majority of them were that women are too emotional. Oh but there was an upside to this one, women are emotional but as long as the candidate is mature it was said to be okay, because she will keep her emotions intact. So hey, there’s that, (get your emotions checked women!).
Others were. Wait for 2030 and we are not ready yet.
Which brings us to; is there something that men have done over the ages to get “ready” for leadership roles?
And did the women even begin that process yet?
Or we just leave them to their own demise?
I doubt there is a process to “get ready”. If there isn’t one for men, there shouldn’t be an expectation of such for women.
Among others one interesting statement we got is “We live in a society where women are seen as secondary citizens…and hence they can’t assume power of leadership, and definitely not presidential power.”
Which brings me back to something else Michelle Obama said.
“We are still at that stage where we’re trying to figure out what it means to be women. And you know sorry, but in light of this last election (Trump’s winning), I’m concerned about us as women. About how we think of ourselves and what we think of each other and what’s going on. I think more about what is going on in our heads were we let that happen. So I do wonder what young girls are dreaming about, if we’re still there. When the most qualified person running was a woman and look what we did instead. And that says something about where we are. Because if we as women are still suspicious of one other, if we still have this crazy bar for each other that we don’t have for men, if we’re still doing that today, if we’re not comfortable with the notion that a woman could be our president, compared to what? It is frustrating to see a lot of men blow it and win.”
Hilary Clinton’s loss was a major highlight for how women view other women, but besides that this piece does not argue that women fill presidential posts on the basis of being women, but that being a woman should not be a disqualifier.
Leadership is expectant of certain traits, character and skill. Leaders need to embody capacity, trust, skill, qualification and merit among others (which are qualities that women too possess).
There is an underlying culture among women to distrust other women, this can be linked to learned patriarchal behaviour or experiences of women with each other. This however should not deter us from standing behind each other. Supporting each other into the future is important in showing our young girls the power and potential of what can happen when women stand behind each other, what happens when we stand on shoulders of giants. Should we then as girls not start dreaming of LRC leaderships, heads of debate teams, local church group heads, council members, ministers and presidents?
In Namibia our voting electoral is made up of 53 percent of women, and as emerging women leaders the trust of those women need to be won. Winning the trust takes a lot of work in reprogramming the mind and removing the unfair subjective lens.
Women need to believe that they are all capable, all hardworking and all deserving of everything and anything they pursue, even running for president.
Until especially women can believe that “Yes we can”, we still have a lot of work to do.

by Elsarien Katiti

Bleeding from the vagina

Let me paint a picture.
Two people are seated from across the room debating about the importance of providing free pads to girls in school.
One is defending it the other is so uncomfortable to even hear the word menstruation.
It’s been ten minutes and in that short time, across the country. Over a hundred school girls over bled on their school skirts.
So they are seated in classrooms with bloody skirts. Shy to ask permission to leave the class bloodied.
So they are praying for the class period to be over, to go home or run to the bathroom.
But after that class there is another class coming in, and these girls still have to wait for their whole class to leave before they can get up.
Whatever clothe they were using is fully soaked and just because her skirt is bloody doesn’t mean the blood will stop flowing soon. Even if they go to the toilet or home, blood will still be flowing down their legs.
The blood does not stop flowing!
It doesn’t matter whether you are uncomfortable with the term ‘menstruation’ or ‘bleeding from the vagina’, the reality is thousands of girls do not have hygienic, medically approved menstrual products to use.
And so to all of us, let us stop being uncomfortable and using politically correct terminology and get up and do something about it.
Let’s fight for the provision of free pads to girls in Namibia!
We can make this happen.
Let us support initiatives that provide pads to girls (like the SisterPads)

While we still have girls who’s skirts are blood stained because they have nothing to use, we can’t not fight, we can’t get comfortable.
The blood does not stop flowing.

By Elsarien Katiti

Female Presidency in Namibia: Analyzing the Narrative

It is quite evident that the women presidency fever has emerged and now has a tight grip over the political scene in South Africa, and one can also observe that majority of the ANC’s structures are also heeding to the call. It wouldn’t be that farfetched to say that one can hear a mumble between certain individuals in Swapo, and certain publications trying to develop the exact narrative. However within Swapo, the culture of silence and fear for prejudice holds back the views of those that believe in the cause.
One needs to understand that within many political organizations, women had to fight tooth and nail against the male dominated structures enable to break ranks. Namibia has seen the rise of women in key positions and leaders of government business. It is also observable that Namibia possesses a caliber of women that can lead the country; however the sphere of full bright politics always taken its toll. In the Namibian context, an error made by the establishment was to hire somewhat capable executives to take up presidential advisory roles; the thought was admirable however these executives do not possess the skills to deal with full bright politics. We can define full bright politics, as the process where different political elements such as factionalism, contemporary issues and certain acts determine the political landscape. Why is this analogy important? It plays into the notion that one can’t simply, but must look for individuals that pass through the eye of the needle criteria.

The Narrative
The existing narrative is that women must come and fix what men have broken. In times of need many look to women leaders to come in as unifying candidates to come and unite the political organization and the country. a reality that we must accept in the Namibian context is that the country is divided on whether President Dr.Hage Geingob is delivering and whether he should get a second term, this scenario is accommodating the call for a woman to take over the reins at next congress. The Swapo party women’s league has also made it clear that they will back any female candidate for presidency; this notion by the women’s league is highly flawed. It might come to the point where any female candidate avails herself; however that candidate might not be well placed for presidency. The women’s league needs to focus on ensuring that the crème de la crème of available women leaders get into positions. The women’s league might justify their position by playing the “Women have been marginalized” card. We recognize that women have had their disadvantage share of oppression and unfair inclusion. However this argument still doesn’t justify the need for “any” kind of female leadership. Those that back the narrative of women’s leadership, make it difficult for themselves as they complicate the process of sensitizing the masses.
In RSA, it is easy for one to support Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma in her verge to cling the hot seat, because she speaks out on issues, she let’s known her belief and perspective on many contemporary political issues. One might not always agree with her views, but the fact that she allows one the opportunity to analyze it plays in her favor. On the other hand in Namibia, it becomes very difficult for one to rely on existing women leaders in the establishment, as they are rather num on issues that require their perspective.
It is easy for one to say that they are maneuvering strategically, however the political dynamics have changed as more conscientious and academically oriented youth challenge the establishment. The harm of this perceived “maneuvering strategically” is that only when it is time to tally up to the masses, is when we get to hear the views of these leaders, furthermore one can also analyze that one can’t then take them seriously because at this stage their views are very much systematic and agenda driven.
Mitigating the political sphere
Women leaders in Namibia and around the world owe it to themselves to remain defiant and resist being used in the name of “it is time for female presidency’. For us as Namibians to start taking grip of the possibility of Women Presidency, we need start hearing independent views and perspectives of women leaders in and out of the establishment; it sets the platform for much needed growth of women within the country. When one observes at how revolutionaries embark on change and sensitization, the simple answer is that they let their perspective be known, an engage all forms of criticism on it. Independent perspective development allows one the opportunity to be critical on an intellectual level, and it gives the gallant masses the platform to engage purposefully, this is the kind of growth that the women presidency narrative needs.
It would be easy for die-hard feminists and Feminist radical sympathizers to allude that this opinion piece diminishes the image of women and further intelligently marginalizes them, however from an intellect perspective, this opinion piece looks at factors that influence and hamper the growth of women leadership, and how women can spearhead their own growth in a just and independent manner.

By Dylan Mukoroli
Managing partner at Social Chapter Consulting

Eric Schneiderman on Women’s Rights: In His Own Words

By Austin Ramzy
May 8, 2018
Before his abrupt resignation Monday after four women accused him of physical assault, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York cultivated an image as an advocate for women.
Here are some of his own recent comments about gender equality, abortion rights, and sexual harassment and assault.
Violence against women ‘prevalent and dangerous’
On the 20th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act in 2014, Mr. Schneiderman said that despite legislation, threats to women’s physical safety remained a problem across the country.
He said in a written statement:
“Twenty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Violence Against Women Act, a major milestone in our nation’s efforts to prevent violence against women and help the victims of such reprehensible acts. But two decades later, despite the significant protections established under VAWA, recent events have shone necessary light on the fact that violence against women remains a prevalent and dangerous problem across our nation. Basic safety is not a privilege: It is a fundamental right. Protecting all Americans from harm, regardless of their relationship to their abuser or their gender, is and will remain one of the most important aspects of our ongoing pursuit of equal justice under law.”
Support for victims of domestic violence
Mr. Schneiderman’s office published a brochure to inform victims of domestic violence of their rights under state and federal law.
In announcing an updated brochure in 2016, he said:
“We’ve made tremendous progress protecting victims of domestic violence through enhanced legal protections and enforcement actions. Yet this month, we must recognize that our work keeping New Yorkers safe from domestic violence is far from over.
“We know that domestic violence victims are often some of the most vulnerable residents of our state. Our hope is that our enforcement actions, as well as our education and outreach efforts, will assist domestic violence victims to escape the violence they face at the hands of their abusers and assist them in building safe, productive lives.”
Honored for abortion rights advocacy
On May 1, Mr. Schneiderman was honored by the National Institute for Reproductive Health at its annual Champions of Choice luncheon. “If a woman cannot control her body, she is not truly equal,” he said.
He added:
“The federal government has been taken over by anti-choice and anti-women extremists. We need to reimagine the pro-choice movement and build a stronger, louder movement for women’s freedom and equality than we’ve ever seen. Movement politics is not the politics of accommodation, it is the politics of perseverance.”
Health care cuts ‘oppress and disempower women’
Mr. Schneiderman was a vocal supporter of the Affordable Care Act, and he saw his defense of President Obama’s policy to expand health care coverage as a protection of women’s rights.

He told GQ magazine last year:
“It’s important to keep in mind that in one respect the health care fight is part of a wider effort by radical conservatives to oppress and disempower women. Denying women access to contraception and abortion services is a critical part of the larger machinery of oppression, discrimination, and violence against women and it’s incumbent on all of us to fight.”
Pursuit of Harvey Weinstein
After the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women, Mr. Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against Mr. Weinstein, his brother, Bob, and their studio. “We have never seen anything as despicable as what we’ve seen right here,” Mr. Schneiderman said in announcing the civil rights suit.
He said at a news conference:
“Our investigation uncovered a pervasive pattern of sexual harassment, intimidation, discrimination and abuse at the Weinstein Company. Women were coerced into facilitating Harvey Weinstein’s misconduct. Sometimes they were targets themselves. If they refused they were threatened with insults. Their careers were threatened. They were threatened with physical intimidation and violence.”
He added:
“The board and management knew all of this. They knew how pervasive it was, and not only did they fail to stop it, they enabled it and covered it up.”
Praise for reporting that inspired #MeToo
Last month, after Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey of the The New York Times and Ronan Farrow of The New Yorker were awarded the Pulitzer Prize in public service for their reporting on Harvey Weinstein, Mr. Schneiderman praised their work in a tweet.

Without such reporting, “and the brave women and men who spoke up about the sexual harassment they endured at the hands of powerful men — there would not be the critical national reckoning underway,” he wrote.

Why Men Grope Women Culture, sex, and projective identification explain groping.

This was a repost on groping and public harassment of women. After a Fox Sports reporter Maria Fernanda Mora was groped by a man on live television, during an interview.
We wanted to understand why this still happens.
This post is not meant to justify harassment against women, but to look at a psychological reason of why it happens.

Here are three reasons men grope women.

The first is cultural conformity. By culture, I mean the implicit and explicit rules of conduct that will generate approval and avoid disapproval. When a man gropes (or otherwise assaults or harasses) a woman for cultural reasons, it means that the reward sought is not so much the physical contact with the woman but the approval of others for doing so.
A cultural explanation would also include the relevance to the man of inducing the woman not to dress or behave in certain ways. News stories of men in other countries attacking women in public for wearing Western garb may fit this model.
In many parts of America, cultural rules strengthen the patriarchy and the privileges of maleness by defining men as free agents and women as property. Hitting on women may be rewarded by cheers from other men. As other men have reported, I’ve never heard anything in a locker room (or in a poker game) like Trump’s comments. Still, to the extent that Trump’s behavior with and about women is reinforced not only by the women and their bodies but by giggling admiration from other men, it’s cultural.
Groping and ogling women garners sexual reinforcers in the form of touching and seeing things that are pleasurable in a sexual way. This would seem to apply mainly to teenaged boys, who presumably are more strongly potentiated to be reinforced by sexual stimuli than adults are, and who presumably are not as used to seeing and touching women as adults are.
For many men, the sexual reinforcement obtained by touching or looking is offset by the effect on the woman; for them, causing the woman discomfort is aversive. In consensual sex and in pornography, there is either no aversive effect on the woman or no apparent aversive effect. Information that links pornography to sex trafficking or pathological reasons for the woman’s engagement can ruin pornography for many men.
When the man is very wealthy or very charismatic, women may pretend not to be bothered by the groping in exchange for the chance at a relationship or so as not to disadvantage themselves socially or economically. And some women in some circumstances may enjoy groping or ogling by strangers for reasons not relevant here, except to say that these women require men to distinguish them from most women, a relatively easy distinction to make for men who find women’s discomfort aversive.
The main reason men grope women, though, is projective identification. Projective identification is a defense mechanism: It works to preserve beliefs about a person’s narrative and definition of self by disowning aspects of the self that don’t fit that narrative or definition.
In projective identification, you get other people to embody embarrassing aspects of the self so you can then define yourself in counterpoint to the disowned aspects. In projection, you merely imagine that others are like you claim not to be; in projective identification, you act in a way that actually gets them to be what you claim not to be. For example, a woman who cannot bear to think of herself as aggressive drives slow in the left lane and marvels at how angry other drivers tend to be as they honk and scream at her. In comparison with the people she sees, she has indeed become someone with remarkably little anger. A man who is terrified of being ordinary insists that every encounter with him be intimate, startling, and emotionally courageous; others react with exhaustion and retreat to mundane pleasures like small talk and watching TV. In comparison with them, he has indeed become an extraordinary person.
Many men are raised to detest their own dependence, passivity, and vulnerability. This occurs not only through punishment of boys for being weak but also through excessive praise for their strength, agency, and toughness. The latter creates a situation where the boy being normally vulnerable or scared becomes a loss of face. Groping, ogling, and catcalling are often ways of inducing in women feelings of vulnerability, weakness, and fear. Compared to women scurrying away from a frightening man, the man seems to himself to be tough, strong, and courageous. Compared to a woman paralyzed or befuddled by being groped, the man seems to himself to be a master of the universe. Bullying works the same way.

Author: Michael Karson Ph.D., J.D.
Published on: Psychology Today

Conservative or Liberal?

OTTAWA — Rachael Harder took it as a personal insult.
“Women and girls from across this country had a prime minister stand up and say, ‘As the prime minister of Canada, it is up to me to dictate whether or not you hold the right beliefs,” said the Conservative MP for Lethbridge, Alta.
“What prevents him from saying that to any one of the women in this room?”
She was speaking to a crowd of Ottawa-area Conservatives gathered at a pub overlooking the Rideau River one weeknight last month, refering to the time last fall when Liberal MPs on the House of Commons status of women committee decided to block her nomination as chair over her views on abortion.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau backed the move, saying the committee should be led by someone who would unequivocally defend the rights of women.
“There is a prime minister that claims to be a feminist prime minister,” Harder, the Conservative critic for the status of women, said in an interview.
“Yet, he has shown very little to no respect for personal choice or individual liberties among women.”
Trudeau has made the push for gender equality a top priority for his Liberal government.
The gender-balanced budget. The feminist international assistance policy. The proposed gender chapter in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The G7 gender equality advisory council, featuring none other than Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai.
And, of course, the because-it’s-2015 response when a reporter asked Trudeau why he chose to name an equal number of men and women to cabinet.
The Liberal government has firmly branded itself as a feminist one. So, where does that leave a Conservative woman who considers herself a feminist?
Sabrina Sotiriu, 31, who came to hear Harder speak that night, said it leaves her frustrated. And, reluctantly, a little impressed.
“I hate it,” she said with a laugh, “but I think it’s very successful.”
Sotiriu, a Conservative staffer on Parliament Hill, said the Liberals have done a good job of defining feminism on their own terms, so that if critics disagree with the Liberal approach to gender issues, or the economy, they’ll be dismissed as an anti-feminist.
“You know, you have to be progressive and progressivism has to do with feminism and if you’re not progressive, you’re not feminist,” she said.
Finance Minister Bill Morneau suggested as much when he appeared before the House of Commons finance committee to discuss the budget, which had undergone, for the first time in Canadian history, a gender-based analysis.
“Isn’t this just a way to get a woman’s vote?” Conservative MP Lisa Raitt, the deputy leader of her party, needled him at the meeting.
Morneau said he took offence — and then he went on the offensive.
“My view is that we will be more successful collectively if we’re actually able to successfully promote women into leadership roles,” he said.
“We will drag along the neanderthals who don’t agree with that, and that will be our continuing approach.”
Rachel Curran, who served as policy director to Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, said that as a long-time feminist, the commitment to championing the rights of women was one of the things she liked about Trudeau when he first came to power.
Now, she thinks the Liberals are using feminism as a political weapon.
“They are turning gender issues into this sort of wedge issue or identity-politics issue, which pits women who maybe hold a certain set of beliefs, or approach women’s issues or feminism in a certain way, against what the government sees as the true or correct or right version of feminism,” she said.
The controversy over the Canada Summer Jobs program is seen as one such example.
The Liberal government is now requiring organizations seeking federal grants for hiring summer students to attest to their respect for sexual and reproductive health rights — including abortion — as well as other human rights.
Many faith-based organizations said they were being forced into choosing between their values and grants that helped them run programs having nothing to do with abortion.
There are also ideological differences in approaches to gender issues that are more broadly about how Conservatives and Liberals view the world, which, according to Harder, boils down to this: equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.
To illustrate her point, she brings up a figure included in the 2018 federal budget: women represent four per cent of apprentices in skilled trades. The budget committed $19.9 million over five years for a pilot grant program aimed at narrowing the gap.
“Should we be making sure that all barriers are taken down and women have the opportunity to enter these fields? Yes, absolutely. But should we be somehow social engineering a society where there is 50 per cent women and 50 per cent men in every single sector?” Harder said as she accused the Liberals, inaccurately, of imposing quotas for the skilled trades.
“That doesn’t respect a woman’s choice. That doesn’t respect her freedom. That doesn’t respect her interests and her objectives for her own life.”
She also has no time for the idea that, even if the conservative vision of ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’ is true, there may be some — including women — who could use a hand getting out of the sea.
“That is the most patriarchal thing that I have ever heard,” she scoffed.
Raitt, meanwhile, does actually believe in setting targets in some cases.
She recalls that when she was transport minister in the Harper government, and responsible for naming some 400 people to the boards of Crown Corporations, she made it clear she would be looking to improve the statistics.
“Little by little, we started seeing progress,” said Raitt. “But I didn’t come out and announce, ‘Boom! Everything is going to be 50-50.”
That, in her view, is the whole problem with the Trudeau approach to feminism.
“Capital T, capital F: ‘The Feminist’ government,” she said.

Joanna Smith, The Canadian Press
Published Sunday, May 6, 2018 1:47PM EDT