[civsoc-mw] (no subject)

Fri Sep 25 10:13:56 CAT 2020

The moment we will have a woman as a Pope or Sheikh, is the day women will
stop fighting for their rights. The moment both a boy and girl will be
allowed to put on dresses in class, stand in front of the class and put
their heads down while legs up, then tears of women will go. I personally
hate it when men love to palm oil women on gender equality while they tramp
on them. Women are powerful, strong leaders than men. To see women being
sidelined in 2020 in various public positions makes me sick. Prisons are
full of men not women, most thugs out there are men not women, any
President including the nepotistic Pastor who sideline women therefore is a
thug and thief. He or she chooses to surround themselves with fellow thugs.
I have no apologies, women deserve the best. Zauchitsiru ine ayi. In 2020,
we can not be talking or debating about women rights and positions in
society. The nepotistic Pastor would have done better after staying in
opposition for long on the plight of women. Women are not dancing toys.
Ndakwiya kwambiri.
MB

On Fri, 25 Sep. 2020, 09:47 KPD, <maluwakpd at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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* <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/a327e927/attachment-0001.htm>