Hamjatta,

Very interesting reading.
Interesting enough is that some of your conclusions are points that for many
years back I have been struggling through and ended today with the very
opposite of these conclusions.The Women liberation movement has a history
and its development from one stage to another varies very much from one
place to another and according to the dominating class interest that is
involved and the social conditions and that present moment.In most
places,even in the Gambia,it is not the most oppressive women who were very
vocal in the Liberation movement or the pioneers,in contrary it was and
still,the middle class women who for long have been the dominant force in
the movement.
The Second world war was the first moment that sent the European women folk
in their millions into the factories,thus transforming their class character
from mere house wives to that of working women in the factories.This move
alone would have a great impact on the consciousness of any living human
being and render biology irrelevant as far the struggle against the factory
clock is concern until it comes to the payslip.This new condition of the
women folk in Europe and other parts of the world laid the grounds for a new
form of struggle for the liberation of the women as an integral part of the
general struggle against political and economic oppression.What became of
the greatest achievement of the Women Liberation struggle in the years that
followed,was their understanding that to believed that we have to wait until
the whole society is freed from political and economic oppression,from male
domination,before the conditions of women could be seriously and properly
address has now been proven to be a big lie,they would not wait til then but
right here and from today.This move gave the new Women Liberation Movement a
new dimension .The fact is that it is only through such struggle a genuine
contribution could be made in uprooting this decadent society.They need more
day-care centers for their children,they need equal pay for the job they are
doing,they need maternal leaves with salary,even in some countries,they have
come so far that you have a right to leave your work go home and breast feed
your child and come back to work.Breaking down the barrier of biology is no
magical thing,is as simple as this and thank to the women Liberation
Movements in proving that the biology issue is as false as it could be, such
demands are no longer a dream but a right.To understand the bitterness of
those opposed to this,not even excluding men of working class,since this
means job competition,the question of who will pick up the child from the
day-care,who will be making the supper after work and then at production
level,the profit etc etc.Refusing to address such issues will only boil down
to the question of biology and in our own part to culture.
I am not misunderstanding your point that marking a Woman a Director does
not actually eradicate the oppression of Women.If one understand and accept
the fact that we lived in a class divided society one would not have any
problem of understanding this point.Thatcher was no Woman Liberationist,she
belongs to a class and as a prime minister served to the best of her ability
the interest of that class and not necessary the Women folk,because the
liberation of the Women folk is against the interest of her class,it was at
the same time a fact that the liberation of South Africa was against the
interest of the British upper Class.Do you think Thatcher would have been a
primeminister under the Conservative party had she believed that South
Africa should be free or that women should be liberated,she does not
believed in such things.Equally it would be very impossible for Go Harlem
Bruthland to become the Leader of the Social Democrats and Primeminister for
two times in Norway had she had the same views as Thatcher on the question
of Women Liberation,even though she could be controversial.Most of what
Thatcher is  remembered of today in Britain is either against the interest
of the British working class or Women.
Then why must we be concern in giving Women special opportunities?In the
first place,it is a challenge to the biological barrier lies.A scheme put
forward to continue to hold women in the bed room.We know that it is not
enough that Women have the same qualification as men before they are
considered a position.Saying that 1/3 of candidates of every political party
should consist of women, will force political parties,mainly dominated by
men, from not only grooming their Women members to become good  dancers and
"Yay combine" but to start seeing them as serious and potential members.Male
chauvinism is an integral part of our being,it is not enough with only
reasoning to take it out of us,the practical side of it is very important.In
some countries having a Woman party leader ,or a Director or a
parliamentarian is no news.But in our little Gambia it will be a great news
and in Great Britain a Woman Party Leader will equally be a great news.
   The history of the Women Liberation movement in the Gambia is very
short,as an organised form of organisation mainly for the advancement of
Women interest.In going back a little,they made their presents felt during
the struggle for independence and after ,as part of a Political party.Though
Women "Kofos" existed up to the village level without any political linkage
to a party.Even though we cannot rule these Women village "Kafos" as an
integral part in the development of the Women Movement in the country,their
agenda was not in direct confrontation with the establish Male dominated
society.The present form of the WLM in the Gambia varies very much,so is
also their agendas,it also reflects the class interest involved.Even though
they have so far achieved so much.I would tell you that,my self and friends
have had bitter experience with the Women Bureau through a Women
organisation project we were involved in the country-side.Even though ,these
women with their class background and interest,have been the only establish
organisation who dare to take up a sensitive issue as FGM,not you,not me and
not the most intelligent among us men.They forced us to look at the
situation,its implications etc and what some of  us did reply them is that
the freedom they have in their heads is imported,they are not capable of
thinking so much and so far.They are calling for free education for
Women,why not,since we men have been in control of the house hold have for
decades been given priorities to boys to go to school and the consequences
of which today is the fact that many of us can migrate to better jobs in the
towns and left the Women folk in the Village.If we are concern with the
situation of  our Women in the Country side then let us give their daughter
the equal opportunity to education and not  give the father the choice of
wondering who to send to school the boy or the girl in these difficult
economic times.
Every generation must be able to address her own situation and advance her
own interest.If our women did learn that given special opportunities to
women will in the long run pay,they are not saying this out of vacuum,they
must have seen and learn from somewhere and to leave in this world with all
the tec.infor available to argue that this is not possible,in my opinion is
to advance a hidden agenda.
Yes,I believed that the only way to go forward,to build a society of equal
opportunity,to break the backbone of Women oppression,under the
circumstances we are today,is to give women special opportunity.I for
sometime back in my political development believed that only through a
liberated society that Women could fight and win,I know today this is a
lie,I had listen to arguments that given women special opportunity in
society is to underrate their intelligence and or open up opportunities for
other women who are equally oppressive.I have argued above that Thatcher was
an oppressive woman,but her being a Prime minister was not as a consequences
of her being a Woman but of what class interest she represented.Such
argument are becoming very common,even from women who have a class interest
in taking such a stance and even in countries where WLM did make  great
achievements.
It is true we must guide against or be aware of the fact that the AFPRC
might be using women as window dressing.We know decisions vital to the
survival of our country are taking long before they are in  parliament,let
alone before before they reach the desk of the SOS.How many times the WLM
had to go to war with the president,did he not even tell them that he cannot
guarantee their security.You cannot even say such things to a migrant in
your country let a lone a whole organisation of reason and force.Long Live
the WLM.

For Freedom
Saiks
----- Original Message -----
From: Hamjatta Kanteh <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 6:57 AM
Subject: A Dissent on Affirmative Action and Feminism


> Ever since i read J S Mill's 'The Subjection of Women', i went through a
> significant tranformation from a mere sympathesizer to the fight for women
to
> be break loose from the shackles of ignorance, male prejudice  and
dominance
> and those societal norms that are down right discriminatory towards women
> that had and continues to impede their progress since time immemorial to a
> position which included a private championing of women's liberation,
> especially to insensitive male friends who remain impervious to
demonstration
> about the need to be on equal terms with the sisters. After Mill, there
were
> of course other texts that came along but what made me to realise that
> women's liberation and the developing world's efforts to make decent
strides
> their development efforts go hand in hand, was largely a reading of the
> Indian Economist, Armatya Sen's pioneering work on women and development
and
> its almost determinist insistence that they are inextricably hooked that
> propelled me to  enthusiastically champion the cause of women. Seven long
> years after reading this magnificently informed, illuminating and
pioneering
> book by Mill, i have to say that i have gone through another significant
> transformation. I no longer enthusiastically endorse the women movements,
> especially those as demented, twisted and perverted as that of the Andrea
> Dworkins of this world. This is not say that i no longer support moves
that
> will genuinely help free society from all those norms, supersitutions and
> prejudices that continue to impede the progress of women in society. Far
from
> it. What i mean to say here is that i view women's liberation in a very
> different light and the late discovery that the logical conclusion of what
> today's women's liberation movements seek to attain for women, far from
> giving them or society at large any semblance of  equality, would be a
> perversion of that noble creed. Unfortunate as it is to say, but today's
> feminism or "gender activism" - as the term generally applies to Africa
and
> the developing world - is  not only a perversion of the notion of equality
or
> equal worth with women but will go as far as to imperil individual liberty
> and societal cohesion. I strongly believe that all that propelled Mill to
> valiantly call for an end to the subjection of women and the recognition
for
> the equal worth of all sexes has been perverted. And were he to be with us
> today, he would be appalled by what is being said and carried out in the
name
> of equality.
>
> My gradual cooling and current hostility towards women's liberation in its
> current form is based on two different but related things. First the
absurd
> reasoning that the biological "handicaps" that nature has predisposed
women
> to be at a comparative disadvantage to their male counterpart ought to be
> righted through political and social finessing and must ultimately be
> neutered for society to claim any semblance of the equality creed. The
second
> is the insistence that in order to end discrimination against women and
> integrate them into society proper, the State has got to discriminate
against
> others through preferential treatments in public office appointments or
> elections, i.e., affirmative action that will compensate for the
subjugation
> of women and in the process help in their integration. The problem with
these
> shifts from the Millian liberalism - that has guided feminism in the early
> part of the last century - is that instead of promulgating a more equal
> society and freeing more women from the shackles that continue to impede
> them, has only helped enhanced the social status of a handful few of
> metropolitan feminist professional elites and their immediate families and
in
> the process turned upside the very notion of equal worth.
>
> The ridiculous notion that such biological "handicaps" like bearing
children
> - that can impede women in their public pursuits or careers and thus
placing
> them at a disadvantage - can be fine tuned by political and social
> engineering to the point where women can claim to be on a par with men in
> terms of mobility, space and flexibility, can never help equate what is at
> best a biological "hinderance" and in the event will turn out to be
> regressive. Since this is susceptible misinterpretation, i will make
myself
> clearer. The point is not to say that women can't have careers whilst
raising
> or helping to raise families. Indeed, experience has shown that this is
very
> possible and admirable even if is very Herculean. The point is that the
way
> men and women are biologically endowed, has predisposed men to find it
> virtually hitch-free to be part of raising families whilst having a
> hassle-free public life or a demanding career. In short, the ease with
which
> men can be part of two demanding and oft conflicting spheres cannot be the
> same with women. This is not because of male prejudices, societal
> discrimination or the shackles of ignorance but the impediments imposed
upon
> women by biological disposition. And no amount of political finessing,
social
> engineering and radical agitation can level this playing field to the
point
> where women can be on a par with men in this regard. Yet, modern
feminism -
> at least its most radical proseltizers - believes that the goal of true
> liberation and equal worth cannot be ascribed to any society that lets
> biological dispositions let men have a greater degree of ease with which
to
> juggle both the private and public spheres moderately more successfully
i.e.,
> be part of raising families and leading extremely demanding public roles
or
> careers and leave women to pathetically trail along. So now, apart from
> dismantling artificial laws that have impeded women's progress, modern
> feminists insist that natural impediments have to be dismantled - not
> ironically through, perhaps, genetical manipulation; which it might sense
to
> appeal to given its predisposition towards ameliorating biological
conditions
> that impede progress. Rather, through radical agitation, and with the help
of
> their radical male allies, society must go through a complete revolution -
> with all its implications - only then can such state of affairs alter. It
is
> true most moderate feminists do not subscribe to this; yet their own
version
> of how this can be corrected is to appeal to the long haul of political
and
> social engineering to correct this. Even then  such political and social
> engineering - which invariably comes through preferential treatment for
women
> and reverse discrimination - is logically and practically bound to stifle
> liberty and pervert equality.
>
> Not only does preferential treatment and reverse discrimination - or
> affirmative action as it is popularly referred to - malign liberty and
> equality, but experience has shown that wherever it has been implemented
to
> integrate those who have been at the brunt of past societal ills or
> discrimination, the vast majority of those classified under such groups
have
> little or nothing to show for it. This is simply because preferential
> treatment does not only place quotas on such groups, but it tends to pick
the
> creme de la creme of such groups and only within their circles for those
to
> benefit from such preferential treatments. What do we mean by this? When
> preferential treatment is meted out to a group on the basis of past
> discrimination, it invariably has conditions set up that before any member
of
> such groupings can claim elibility to it, has got to meet. Now,
eligibility
> invariably almost always from the emerging middle classes and their
> offsprings. And because they already know their way around the system by
> virtue of being there before, having done it and having strengthened their
> positions in the social strata, almost always it is their children who
will
> succeed them in eligibility and end up sharing the pie amongst themselves.
In
> this scheme of things, those at the lower end of the social strata will
> invariably fail to get their share of the preferential treatment cake
because
> they are most likely going to lose out to middle class kids when they
compete
> for limited space available in the quota set for them. This is why the
gulf
> between the have-nots and haves of those groups that have been extended
this
> largesse is not declining albeit the maintenance of preferential
treatments.
> What is meant for a group to help themselves integrate into the mainstream
is
> largely confined within the reaches of another elite group within that
> marginalised group simply because of the futility and absurdity of such
means
> to equate situations that invariably require recognising that within even
> disadvantaged groups their are handicaps that leave others hapless no
matter
> the largesse extended to them.
>
> Nowhere is this more truer than between the African rural woman
metropolitan
> professional elite. The latter gets all the largesse the State feels
obliged
> to extend to women in order to integrate them whilst the former largely
> represents the former self of women. There is a dissembling argument here
> that feminists invoke to aid this malignant situation. They never fail to

> point out that those rustic women folk fail to integrate because amongst
> others the tyranny of men still prevail and women are still unlettered.
All
> true to a degree. Yet, what cannot be denied is the fact that whatever
> preferential treatment the State doles out to women in the hope that they
can
> be integrated will make circles around these very metropolitan middle
class
> women and those immediately around them who were calling for it in the
urban
> areas before it trickles down to their rustic compatriots in the
provinces.
>
> Which takes me to the question of whether preferential treatment for
> marginalised women in a polity can ameliorate their situation? Experience
> heavily indicts the idea that preferential treatment extended to
marginalised
> women in a polity can liberate them. Preferential treatment for women in a
> polity where the vast majority of women are still shackled by ignorance
> cannot by itself enhance their situation. The experience of the PPP years
are
> revealing. Through its preferential treatment of the early 80s women like
> Nyimasata Sanneh Bojang, who subsequently became the country's first
elected
> woman MP, outfits like the Women's Bureau and state bureaucracies like the
> women's ministery, the PPP managed to fool itself that it has done a great
> deal for women. Yet , what appears to be the case is that all these
> "advancements" have virtually produced nothing for the ordinary woman in
the
> rural areas. True, more women are going to school and some highly educated
> now. But it is a trickle when one estimates what was involved and the
> duration. There and then one goes back to my point earlier stated which
is:
> such preferential treatments benefit the metropolitan feminist elites and
> their immediate families more before it eventually trickles down to the
> unlettered rural woman. Preferential treatment in the same breath of
reverse
> discrimination for women candidates in elections will invariably produce
> similar results. Whilst a few metropolitan women elites would pretend that
> their status has been enhanced, the rural woman remain detached from such
a
> state.
>
> The new spin from the APRC machinery via Kebba Joke is that the UDP by
> allegedly refusing to adopt affirmative action and fielding women
candidates
> in safe seats, is a very "callous" party indeed. If all that Joke
attributes
> to Juwara as having allegedly said turns out to be true, then i must say
that
> despite the ideological chasm that exists between me and Juwara, we are in
> agreement on this one. If the UDP wishes to genuinely end the plight of
> women, then they will have to courageously go after the root causes of
what
> impede the progress of women i.e, statutory and customary laws that exist
in
> society and abolishing them. If the UDP musters the courage and ban female
> circumcision, they would have given Gambian women more than a million
Isatou
> Njie-Saidys! If a UDP gov't that is courageous enough to muster the effort
to
> end all those discriminatory customary laws and norms like inheritance
laws
> that impede women, they would have given Gambian women another million
Isatou
> Njie-Saidys! It is not such token window-dressings like appointing
> metropolitan feminist elites to the higher echelons of the State machinery
> that sets women free. Nor is it such affirmative actions like reverse
> discrimination for women so they can enter parliament. This is nothing but
> romantic hogwash. History is littered with women who through the odds have
> defied common belief and led difficult socities without affirmative
action.
> For such women of history like Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret
Thatcher,
> Sheikh Hasina, etc, etc, fought for their positions in extraordinary
> circumstances without holding their hands up for preferential treatment.
> Besides, what has all these Jammeh appointments of women to high positions
in
> gov't done for women folk in the Gambia generally? Has it humanised him to
> the point where he will desist from sending animals after their children
and
> butchering them in April 2000? Has it ended female circumcision? Has not
the
> discourse of female circumcision not been banned in the public media in
order
> to pander to the bigotry of the very forces that are keeping women down?
Has
> all those customary and statutory laws that still discriminate against
women
> been abolished? Has not Isatou Njie-Saidy - herself an icon of the
feminist
> movement and a mother to children - not helped carry out an order that
ended
> the lives of 15 innocent souls and remained with the same unrepentant and
> vile gov't  still whoring her intellect for it?
>
> Reading all these critiques, the reader might be tempted in jumping to the
> rash conclusion that i'm a misogynist and or a reactionary fogey. Far from
> it. Despite my cooling towards women's liberationist movements and
hostility
> towards radical feminism, at heart i remain a liberal progressive who
wishes
> to see an end to any form of discrimination that keeps groups or
individuals
> down. How then will a liberal deal with the plight of women and those
> disadvantaged by adverse discrimination - past and present? Within a
genuine
> liberal order, such irrelevant charcteristics like race, gender,
ethnicity,
> religion, etc, etc, will be classified non issues in the public sphere as
a
> law shall be promulgated to end any form of general discrimination against
> any group and or individual. Any statute or customary law found to be
> inconsistent with the above and or a shackle around the legs of such
groups
> like women shall hencefcorth be abolished. Laws will then be introduced
that
> makes equal opportunities a fact of national life. Women and any other
group
> that does not feature heavily in national life for that matter will be
> **encouraged** through sensitisation - not by "gender activists" but by
the
> State through its department responsible for information and or
education -
> to be active participants in both civic and state insitutions and or life.
> Here i hasten to emphasize that such **encouragement** has no no truck
with
> affirmative action, preferential treatment and reverse discrimination. In
a
> truly liberal order, discrimination will cease to be a divisive because it
> would invariably be defeated by progress and if it is lucky to be left
with
> any remants, be consigned to the fringes of obscurity. In truly liberal
> order, women and men would be partners and not antagonists. For these
> reasons, a truly liberal State really has no use for such divisive outfits
> and measures like the Women's Bureau, a State ministry reponsible solely
for
> women, affirmative action and the polarising politics of feminism.
>
> Hamjatta Kanteh
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> You may also send subscription requests to
[log in to unmask]
> if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write
your full name and e-mail address.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------