[civsoc-mw] (no subject)

Sun Sep 27 13:48:28 CAT 2020

Pat,

When I Google I get 'Gender Equality Act" is there "Gender Equity Act?"

This addresses GBV. Although I haven't  gone through it, the intro shows
that.

Is there a section that deals with appointments? One woman has already
declined - if what I have heard is true.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020, 13:04 Pat Chi, <pmchinguwo at gmail.com> wrote:

> This debate shows how deep our 'power that be/appointing authority' do not
> focus on what is within the law. Appointments herein should have shown that
> Gender Equity Act was consulted. Alas that was not the case.
>
> Tikudikira mzungu
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 07:42, KPD <maluwakpd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 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* <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* <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
>>
>
>
> --
> Patrick Mphatso CHINGUWO
> saved by Christ Jesus to serve Him only
>
> Box 962,ZOMBA
> cell:(+265) 0888 345 369
> alt.email:patrickchinguwo at yahoo.com
> blog:http://chinguwo.blogspot.com/
>
> --
> 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/20200927/5a5a32b7/attachment-0001.htm>