[civsoc-mw] (no subject)

Sat Sep 26 19:39:12 CAT 2020

yo Tre,This is some good provocative shit expected of inquisitive cavemen. Obviously, the cave is rubbing off on you. Yes. Where are the women to take up the positions?

-----Original Message-----
From: KPD <maluwakpd at gmail.com>
To: civsoc-mw at sdnp.org.mw
Sent: Sat, Sep 26, 2020 1:41 am
Subject: Re: [civsoc-mw] (no subject)

I am with you Trevor.
People are saying women were left out. Can we challenge ourselves to name 15 influential or professional women who should be included in the boards. Even 5 names.

I would love to know the process for appointing board members. Is it the president alone? Do  advisors get involved? Does cabinet get involved?
We should appreciate that this "Tonse Alliance" is a different animal. Those NINE parties want to have their people somewhere. I believe if it was the president and his party alone there could be some sort of balance.
How many of those NINE parties proposed a woman on the boards?
But then, board membership is not a full time job. What is so special about being included in something where your presence is required  less than 4 times a year?
Even DPP is failing to replace 2 incompetent women women commissioners with another 2 women. There would be another outcry if they were replaced with men.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, 13:33 trevor chimimba, <trevorchimimba at gmail.com> wrote:

KPD, 
We cannot hide behind patriarchy. It is because it has to be fought that culture cannot be an excuse. 
Why does MACRA or ADMARC, or MERA (some important drivers of the economy) and several others not have not even a single woman on the board? You mean someone could not see this (And yet you other people serving on more than one board), and said wait a minute this is not right. 
Our culture (to the extent you make it composite) respects women.

On Sep 25, 2020, at 5:22 AM, KPD <maluwakpd at gmail.com> wrote:

Inu a Mr Woyee,
Mkazi waponderezwa on the appointment of board members ndi ndani?
I support women inclusion but it shouldn't be another quota system. Countries in SADC have signed the 30% inclusion of women in politics. I don't know which SADC country has managed 20%. Not even in the proportional representation system of South Africa.
As for the pastor, if you want elections then expect that any candidate has a chance of winning, in any a free and fair election. Fair right up to counting and compilation of results without Tippex. 
We can put, in bold, women inclusion in our constitution or statutes but if we don't change cultural beliefs nothing will happen. 
Go into majority of Malawian houses and you still find wives kneeling in front of their husbands like a child - just to tell him to go and bath in a house with a shower and bathtub. We still have wives sitting the kitchen floor with children while the husband sits at the table eating alone or with a boy child.
And you come here to shout on top of your voices that you support women rights and women inclusion. How can a girl child who hrowd up in a household where the mother is treated like a maid be liberated?
Change the cultural beliefs and you will be spoiled by the number of women who can take up any responsibility that a man can have. 
You go out and shout women rights when you expect your wives to kneel just to tell you food is on the table. How can your daughter think she can challenge a man when she has never seen you cooking and wash the plates?.
You are hypocrites who shout and sound holier than thou to impress the world when your own daughter is expected to cook, wash her brother's clothes and hardly has time to do school work.
I repeat. It is the cultural servitude in homes that is stifling women. It is a national psychic that we are happy to see women dancing and being given teachers' salaries. If she feeds her family from mere dancing what will inspire her daughters?
So put out the theoretical figures of 30, 40 50% women participation. Unless we change the basics from inside our homes and our thinking as a nation, nothing will happen.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, 10:15 Maybach Woyee, <mbchwoyee5 at gmail.com> wrote:

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 female2. 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 byMailScanner, 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 byMailScanner, 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 byMailScanner, 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 byMailScanner, 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 byMailScanner, 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 byMailScanner, 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/20200926/a94823bc/attachment-0001.htm>