[civsoc-mw] (no subject)

[KPD]

Dunstain,

I doubt if KB has followed your argument.

Your argument is the same as asking for volunteers from a group of people.
You have more than enough volunteers and you select the number you need.
Suddenly someone says you have left out those who didn't volunteer.

Women participation in politics and other publicly competed for positions
is rooted in our culture. Women activists in our society are looked at with
disdain. Majority who dare are usually single or become single.

In a society where marriage is highly regarded and sort after, the focus by
our ladies is on what can qualify them as a good wife or wife to be.
Activism or competed for public office doesn't in the nicely fit as a
qualification for marriage.

Back to your post. I would be happy if you provide names of women that were
submitted but left out. Or names of women who are interested and are
capable. Not just the usual noisy ones.

You argument suggests that we should go out there and drag out women,
screaming and kicking and give them positions of responsibility. Up to,
maybe, 1986 no single girl was ever admitted to do Engineering at Poly. I
don't know if they were applying and never got admitted.  It was believed,
at the time, that Engineering was for boys.

Your theories are jumping the gun. You are assuming that we now have
liberated women who are ready to take any responsibility. It is usually
very few names we keep hearing. Has the pool of such ladies grown that we
are now spoiled for choice?

Putting out % for something that you don't have doesn't make sense. If
someone here can give names of capable women who put up their hands and
were not considered then I am game.

We can't assume that Martha or Nini want to be in parastatal  boards if
they haven't shown interestor no one proposed their names. It has taken a
long time for board members to be announced that during that period you
could have submitted names of women who should be appointed.

If that was done then you can come here and say, "I am aware of good
capable women who have been left out because I submitted their names."

What is the solution? Let us go to the basics. Give ourselves time frame,
say by 2025, we should have a pool of bold daring women who can raise their
hands when their services are needed.

How? Train our daughters to think independently and not believe that their
survival and success is dependent on a man or marriage.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, 08:39 Dunstain Mwaungulu, <dfmwaungulu at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> CENTRE FOR LAW AND POLICY
>
> Gender minimum levels
>
> The minimum 40% gender is a neutral formulation for either gender. It
> caters for conceptual overflows and merit beyond gender. Look at three
> scenarios.
>
> 1. Where there are many female in the spectrum. The remaining 20% can be
> wholly or mainly female
> 2. Where there are many males, 20% can be wholly or mainly male.
> 3.the 20% can cater for other things like professionalism, disability,
> localisation, etc BUT EQUALLY ON GENDER  ONDIDERATION
>
> There was a misunderstanding about my earlier posting. I said that in the
> next appointment there should be the 40% rationalisation. That was in
> ration to judicial appointments.
>
> But in relation to this, our male folk in principle should resign to
> enable their political parties to submit names based on this gender
> formulation to enable the President who, obviously, was not advised or
> properly advised on the matter.
>
> If there is any President who wants to set things right and with decorum,
> it is this Predident.
>
> I do not see how men can look in the face of women tonight and say this is
> right! Obviously, our women are once again victims of a Male dominated
> society. That is undemocratic and unacceptable in a democratic society.
>
> Alot of people when I raise things like these, for example that under the
> Constitution, the legislature cannot legislate for the death penalty,
> retort and say it is done in the US or elsewhere. The answer is a weak
> defence. Our  constitution prides in its UNIQUENESS and is unrivalled if
> not the best in the world.
>
> We must abide by our UNIQUE Constitution. Our Constution required us to
> respect rights in the Constition and rights created by laws. Very
> progressive. We as a country and sovereign must abide by law including
> (customary) international law.
>
> Any organisation meeting the section 15 criteria MUST access the Courts
> and wipe out this gross injustice against women.
>
> And our male folk, must resign from the appointments to enable the
> President, on better advice, to do the lawful and right thing.
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
> civsoc-mw mailing list
> civsoc-mw at sdnp.org.mw
> http://chambo3.sdnp.org.mw/mailman/listinfo/civsoc-mw
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chambo3.sdnp.org.mw/pipermail/civsoc-mw/attachments/20200925/fb45fcaf/attachment.htm>