Image via Wikipedia
It seems like there have been lingering gusts of wind from the “Arab Spring” in sub Saharan Africa. When Malawian women recently took the streets to defend their right to wear pants, miniskirts and short dresses, they were exercising their rights to be liberated from the shackles of Malawian patriarchy. It seemed inconceivable that almost 18 years after being legally allowed to wear what they wanted; a small section of Malawian men (reportedly street vendors) wanted to take Malawian women back. Malawian women were not allowed to wear pants or miniskirts until 1994 after the late dictator Kamuzu Banda stepped down from the Presidency in part due to the resistance of brave Malawian women. In the recent attacks by a few male dissidents, the perpetrators argued, in an odd, misplaced and criminal display of nationalism, that the way in which Malawian women were dressing in contemporary times was contradictory to traditional Malawian culture. Due to this claim, it is important that one dissects what this Malawian culture is that exists in the mind of a few: should practicing “our culture” mean adhering to the whims, tastes, and preference of a former dictator? Perhaps, it means adherence to colonial culture? Or maybe it means adherence to a traditional culture? What is problematic about making claims about traditional culture is that like all culture, it too evolves over time.
What is problematic for me is this imagined idea of “Malawian culture” comes to play when it is convenient for a few. It is important to note that traditional Malawian attire is anything but conservative, and exposes much more then what many ordinary Malawian women are wearing in the street. It was also interesting to note that the photos that were attached to some of the reports about this story featured exaggerated photographs of women with thongs hanging out, women with their derrieres on display, and women in clothing that can be considered inflammatory. Such type of journalism needs to be addressed because it is not reflective of that was occurring on the streets. It is also a part of the problem. The women being attacked were wearing what one would consider ‘proper’ attire in Malawi – some heading to or from regular 9-5 office work. Even if this was not the case, this is where a chance to sensitize the public on democracy can be taken. It needs to be drummed in that no one has the right to infringe on another person’s rights – also that this was a clear cut act of violence not an act of “cultural preservation”. If by “culture” they meant traditional clothing it is a mute point. If by “culture” they meant oppressing women, then there is room for debate. Although important to note that in traditional African culture, the relationship between men and women was more egalitarian. One would need to debate over whether their response, undressing young girls and women in pants are part of what they are referring to as indigenous Malawian “culture”. It become necessary in cases like this to really ‘return’ to our roots and understand our own cultures before using culture as a weapon to oppress fellow citizens along gender lines.
Image via Wikipedia : Sisterhood of the travelling pants movie poster
It is important for me to note though that there seemed to be support from Malawian males over these issue that saw the attacks on their mother, sisters, and daughters as problematic. This is not the society that they want to live in. It is also not the society that Malawian women want to live in, which is why they protested. Malawian women decided not to sit down and take this violence quietly. They exercised their voice particularly when it was clear that the elected leadership in Malawi was slow to respond. One would expect such blatant displaced victimization of women to be addressed at its infant stages and not a few days later. It was very problematic that response was slow from the higher offices of the land after one too many women were attacked and after it was clear that both men and females denounced these acts. The significance of the women’s recent protests cannot be understated. The fact that Malawian women joined together in sisterhood to defend their rights, speaks volumes for what they are willing to live with. They continued to wear pants to work in protest! Others threatened to go nude! As one sympathizer that wore pants to work for the next few days noted on facebook, this was the ‘sisterhood of the travelling pants’. Malawian clearly realized their economic power, calling for a boycott of purchasing goods from vendors and demanding the government take action. After the women in Malawi spoke up, it was clear that the state was going to have to act, and that they were going to have to choose a side. The state chose to defend the rights that Malawian women fought for over 18 years ago, when they fought to rid themselves of the oppressive colonial government, an oppressive dictator, and most recently, an oppressive male street vendor.
Kabudula in Chichewa means ‘shorts’, ‘short pants’, or ‘underwear’
Twitter: ethnicsupplies
says:
I had to red this twice Sitinga! I recall reading a tweet last month that Ugandan politicians were proposing a law against mini skirts. You really have to admire the nerve of these politicians. I have never been to Malawi but I am guessing that like Uganda it has big challenges around feeding people, decent hospitals, access to education, good quality roads etc but they choose to worry about the length of a woman’s skirt!
The general point that stands out for me too, is the issue of holding onto to cultures that do not serve us and hooray to those sisters for standing up for their rights!
ethnicsupplies recently posted..Mountain Gorilla Organization Coffee Estate Association- Kisoro SW Uganda
Yes, Malawi has some of the same challenges as Uganda so their are bigger fish to fry! With regards to gender, it is probably similar to Uganda as well and people are trying to hold on to a cultural dress style that really wasn’t ours to begin with – If you search for photos of traditional Malawian outfits, they are less conservative then pants. We need to address real issues, not non-issues!
Twitter: AlbertsCrochet
says:
It astounds me that the way women dress is still an issue in Malawi years after Banda stepped down. I thought this nonsense had been replaced with more urgent concerns. Issues like this are usually a way of distracting sensible people from the bigger picture. I hope that the women of Malawi who, in the natural way of things, obviously display far more common sense than a minority of men in their country finally sort this out for good. There are far more inportant things to worry about.
Albertina McNeill recently posted..Passing it on – an afternoon with Ealing Transition
It was certainly a strange situation that came from out of the blue which is why people think its orchestrated — the who and why will hopefully come out later!
MsTinga recently posted..African Immigrants In North America: Making The Grade, But Not The Corner Office
The perpetrators of this act were none other than a bunch of psychopaths – street vendors in Malawi are a very unfortunate group because there is no really differentiation between a vendor who is out on the street hustling to look after themselves and their families. There is actually no evidence that a single vendor said they did this despicable act to defending “Malawi culture”, as it has been reported – speculative journalism! It is beyond any logic that a vendor who’s out to sell trousers, legging, min skirts etc… would stop women wearing these items of clothing. In other words, vendors are a convenient scapegoat. The real issue is internal security, Malawi constitution, which comes to force in 1995 following the ousting of Kamuzu Banda (he lost elections, he never stepped down as reported) defends freedom of dress and it was on this basis that middle class women (yes they were) in Malawi gather to denounce the violence – again they never marched as reported, they gathered in a hall in Malawi’s commercial city Blantyre. This gathering was largely supported by men, so to see Malawi as a chauvinistic society is unfortunate and inaccurate. During Banda’s era it was state policy (enacted in the 1970s) that women could not wear miniskirts and trousers. Today the president himself is surrounded by female security wearing trousers. This was simply a failure of internal security. Interestingly, non of the reported 36 arrested men (I doubt they have actually arrested anyone) in connection with the violence is a vendor – and leaders of vendors associations denounced the violence, days before the state president or any cabinet minister did. The misinformation surrounding the issue suits Malawi government because it means they don’t have to explain the lax security or the lack of it.
thanks for your feedback. I could sense from your post that you have been frustrated by some of the reporting on this issue. I have read some contradicting articles as well but I did take care to choose my words deliberately in this post. So there is need to for clarification on some of the points you addressed:
On the issue of Banda stepping down – He was a dictator. There are only two ways to oust a dictator without killing him – through a coup, or to give up power. Banda gave up power, held an election, and lost — But as a life time dictator the power was his to give up – so this is why people say he stepped down – he stepped down as a dictator, then ran for elections as a presidential candidate and lost –lets give him credit where its due. As far as vendors admitting to defending culture, this is what witnesses reported hearing from the people doing this -we can debate weather they are vendors or not (In my post I note: “allegedly” vendors. In addition, vendors do not swear allegiance to a moral code, particularly gender based values. what binds them together is that vendors are in the same trade, So whilst some vendors believe in X, others believe in Y. Also, some sell pants, others sell car parts, vegetables, electronics etc… so they are not necessarily damaging ‘their own’ business. But regardless of weather it is vendors or not, it was a specific demographic – men attacking another women – so my issue was not about who did it, it was based on the gender aspect. Weather these women were ‘middle class’ or not, they were still attacked.
Malawian women came out to defend their right to wear pants. Rights are granted by the law and therefore, this is the basis they used — protesting can take the form of marching, toy-toying, doing nothing,etc… In my post I note that they protested but did not mention a march. They also called for the right to be protected from violence due to wearing pants. But to say that security is the real issue ignores that a violent act was committed in the first place. There is no need for security if there is no crime. The vendors association seemed fixated on saying ‘it wasn’t me’, when a representative spoke at the meeting in Blantyre he said ‘he did not come there to apologize’ — weather it was vendors or not, he needed to condemn the acts first, sympathize, and then distance himself and organization from the acts. I noted that many Malawian males sympathized, but this doesn’t change the fact that it was a gender based crime. There are many men that do not agree with honor killings in India but that doesn’t mean India is not a sexist society. In a country where property grabbing on widows still exists, women kneel in front of men, the workforce is predominantly male, the largest church doesn’t allow for women to wear pants, domestic violence occurs, and a few men take it on themselves to undress women publicly (there was no mob of men defending these women as they were being attacked – they all sat and watched, many being rescued by other women), saying that it is inaccurate to call Malawian society sexist is a very hard sell. I have read the comments on the bottom of articles about this topic from Malawians – it has unfortunately been a mixed bag of reactions from men.
MsTinga recently posted..African Immigrants In North America: Making The Grade, But Not The Corner Office