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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------