A. My MIT Leadership Story
In 2015, I was in my final year of my undergraduate degree at Wits University. I had been selected for a Technology Entrepreneurship Development programme called the MIT Start-Up Labs. For the first time, I had the opportunity to learn how to build technology, how to lead a technology business, create a business plan and pitch for investment. This was my first experience and I was thrown into the deep end as a team leader, leading an entire team of men who I had never met before.
I led my team to an overall win. However, the process of getting the win was a frustrating one because of the dynamics of the team. Dynamics, which I failed to identify at the time.
In between me starting and us winning, there were moments where my team’s project completely derailed because of the very silent, underlying misogynoir.
Everyday, my team and I would make decisions on the way forward and execute on the way forward. However, the following day, one very specific person would question the forward progress made and act confused about what we were doing and why we were doing it.
I found myself feeling so frustrated because this person was the technical lead. We would leave everyday with clear understanding, at least I thought, and return in the morning with this technical lead disagreeing and behaving as though we had not agreed. It was as though he was sabotaging my leadership and the progress made by the team.
One evening, I reflected and realised the error I had made in failing to constantly and consistently check-in with my team every morning to ensure that we are on the same page. The other mistake was that I assumed that him nodding his head like this and saying yes or uh hum was him agreeing and consenting to the thoughts and ideas that were flying across our team’s table.
I quickly and very harshly learnt the necessity and the power of consistently checking-in and consolidating our unified understanding and mindset as a team. To this day, I continue to check-in and ensuring people understand what I have said, and whether they agree or disagree and to what extent they might agree or disagree. If there is something that needs to be done, I reiterate every single step and ensure that everyone around the table is with me in understanding each step. And, I do not assume that “seemingly agreeable” gestures means yes, consent, compliance, etc.
This was my way of thinking then. I genuinely believed that it was my fault that my leadership was being undermined. In fact, for most of my life, I have spent my time cracking my head to understand how to be a better leader. Unaware of the other dynamics that were unfolding.
B. Unpacking Misogynoir
You see, Black women were never meant to lead. How dare this black woman tell us what to do.
But, almost every household is led by women. So, what do you mean women are not meant to lead? has it always been this way? if not, how did we get here?
Oh, I am glad that you ask. Let us start at the beginning… looooong before 2015.
For centuries, African lives have been the subject of broader European inquest. In the case of South Africa, “The Native Question” was further scrutinised at the Intercolonial Conference of 1903.
At the Conference, The Native Question was defined as “embracing the present and future status of all aboriginal natives of South Africa, and the relation in which they stand towards the European population.” In other words, the relationship between European supremacists and non-Europeans was debated among the former; and then imposed on the latter. Especially, as it pertained to land, labour, the economy, education, health, academia and the custodianship of the leadership of this land.
Inequality in South Africa did not begin with the Nationalist Party and its Apartheid ideology. In fact, several systemic segregation laws had already been promulgated before the Nationalist Party took complete power in 1948. For instance, The Natives Land Act, No 27 of 1913 had made it illegal for Black people to purchase or lease land, except within the ten “Reserves” (which became commonly known as “Bantustans”, “Black Homelands” or “Black States”) where territories were designated to Black populations based on their ethnic and linguistic profiles as defined by white ethnographers. This legislative move was the beginning of the stabilisation of the racial segregation regime in South Africa long before 1948.
This inconceivable injustice levied against Africans was further compounded by the quality of the land and its soil; as well as the climate and rainfall. These Reserves were characterised as densely populated and having poor rainfall. The land itself was not fertile. It had become arid and degraded due to over-grazing and over-cultivation. On the other hand, fertile land was allocated to White farmers for commercial agriculture.
Further to this, where the Native Land Act had failed to remove Black land owners who had title deeds to land before 1913, the Group Areas Act No. 41 of 1950 enabled the state to forcibly remove those Black people from the land within the Reserves that had been deemed to be “White land” due to its great fertility. This process of forced removals was called, “Cleaning up the Black Spots”.
Subsequently, through the promulgation of The Natives Land Act, No.27 of 1913, colonial architects successfully positioned African people as mere visitors in their own land, who will never have the right to claim any substantive political and socio-economic rights. Moreover, during the 1930s, pseudo-scientific books, articles and theories of the likes of Francis Galton fuelled another delusion, which motivated that white populations were of superior intelligence to African people. Moreover, that Black people ought to be led by white people.
Therefore, the answer to the “Native Question of 1903” comprised of two key elements:
This historical context is central to the dominating narrative within which approximately 49-50 million African people attempt to survive and flourish in South Africa. It is even more important because these two elements still exist in how we make decisions within our society to this day.
Who gets to lead, and who gets to where the mask. Who gets to eat when there is a global pandemic and who gets to starve. Who gets to be driven to school and who gets to swim with the crocodiles to get to the other side of a filthy river. Who gets to successfully lead organisations, institutions and narratives, and who gets to have their intellectual property stolen, leadership undermined and experiences erased. Who lives to thrive and prosper and who merely strives to survive.
Institutions of religious belief and cultural practice are indeed the reflections of society at large- and whilst they purport to align with God, they are the most violent spaces. And, they have played a crucial role in violating and liberating hundreds of millions of people around the world. It is therefore crucial to pierce the veil of these religious and cultural institutions and peer into our history in order to find the answers that we seek.
The question being, why aren’t black women being given a fair chance to lead at the apex levels of the church and other religious spaces. A female POPE Perhaps. We are more comfortable with bringing Adv, Thando Gumede to speak on Patriarchy than actually dismantling it.
My submission to day folks is thus:
Apartheid and colonial oppression were not simply systems of racial discrimination. They were also intersectional systems of oppression encompassing racism, misogyny and economic exclusion in favour of advancing mainly white, male and elitist interests.
The content and substance of Colonisation and Apartheid affirm the sheer power of irrational beliefs that are founded on pseudoscience and religion. This theme replicates itself congruently in so far as Misogynoir’s narrative in South Africa is concerned.
The “Woman Question” was a term coined by 19th century Victorians. The term, however, became the official title for the theme under which women’s roles and rights in so far as education, social positioning, labour, the economy and franchise were debated under Apartheid. And so, this regime of oppression became influential in how and to what extent women’s issues were raised and addressed.
Though privileged for the colour of their skin, even White women could not escape the clutches of patriarchy. Their privileges paled in comparison to that of White men. Nevertheless, it was still Black women who suffered more human rights violations than White women and Black men.
For black women, oppression looked different. The mix of racial and socio-economic differences combined with the colonially injected social and gender norms that viewed women as subordinate to men, created layers of complexities that naturally presented as greater social challenges for Black women. These layers are not all necessarily present for White women or Black men. Black women’s oppression was a targeted oppression comprising of at least three layers: racism, patriarchy and economic slavery, prejudice or exclusion. This is phenomenon is called misogynoir.
By 1980, almost half of the entire demographic of Black women were employed in traditionally
race and gender specific jobs, such as domestic work. This meant that under Apartheid, black
women were mostly performing low skilled tasks, receiving low income and had little legal
protection. These race and gender specific jobs included, “activities associated with the family
and the household economy: food production and processing; manufacturing and laundering of
garments; and child-care”.
Academic Judith Nolde points out that this mass unprotected absorption of Black women in the White owned capitalist machinery indicates the difficulty of Black women securing other types of
jobs (non-race and non-gender specific jobs). Moreover, out of every ten Black people working in the urban areas, seven of them earned below the poverty line.
From the moment her sex was determined, the black girl child was groomed to take hold of a subservient role. Her surrounding community removed the enablers of her potential achievements, advancements and independence. This was to ensure that she would assume no role in life bigger than that of motherhood, wifehood, unpaid care worker and poor domestic worker. Like racial segregation, this objective would be legitimised through Parliamentary Supremacy, Common Law and Customary Law.
B. The Red Bill, Black Pill and Manosphere
For the past year or so, I have been in deep reflection about the status of human rights and the attainment of socio-economic and political equity, not only in South Africa, but around the world too. My submission is that, if you really want to understand what popular discourse is currently taking place in different parts of the world, just go to the internet and you will find out how different people think, why they hold these views and how they are being influenced. In particular, places like Youtube and Tik Tok have become spaces where more closed-off communities have been able to find greater expression without being anonymous.
There is a relatively new phenomenon called #SwallowTheRedPill, which initially found expression in an online community called Reddit, where intergenerational misogynists and incels would post content about being an Alpha male, dominating women, having sex with women, rejection from women, anti-feminism, etc.
The idea of the “swallow red pill movement” and “the red pill alpha male”, emanates from the matrix, where NEO, had to make a decision to take the blue pill and keep on existing in the lie of the matrix, or to take the red pill, be freed from the matrix and see the truth for what it is. According to red pill men, the truth is that white men are under attack, women are masculine (especially black women), the feminist movement is the main reason for the decay of society at large, boys and men should aspire to be alpha males, masculinity is under attack, etc.
I would like to share an extract with you posted on TRP at Reddit
This community is anonymous. But, when you read the entire post, you can tell that this is a young man because he speaks about going to the gym and taking steroids and his mother as well. So, I am guessing that this is a young man in his 20s or 30s.
This anonymous and exclusive community has been in existence for quite some time.
However, it has gained traction beyond very specific online community spaces and now exists on TikTok, Youtube and Instagram in the light of day. Misogynists are no longer masking their misogyny and they are now even attracting millions of followers across social media platform like Youtube and TikTok. They are unmasked, unashamed and in the eyes of young men, they are mentors for how young men can establish the 4 realms of power:
1. Access to Resources: Become rich in your 20s and early thirties/ or as soon as possible
2. Mobility: Drive expensive cars
3. Ability to Influence: Be seen/heard even if under an unknown identity, attract women and dominate them
4. The Power to self-determination: Heterosexual Alpha Male
C. The Status Quo of Human Rights, Equity and Intersectionality: Disintegrating or Flourishing
Superficially, I see these social movements disintegrating. Largely because of the contradictions and sometimes intentional and unintentional ignorance that has been weaponised against those who wish to free themselves (aka: red pill themselves) from the clutches of patriarchy.
On the surface, there seems to be an unending gender war that sees even women carrying guns against one another, both on behalf of the patriarchy and for the entertainment of the patriarchy.
If you would browse youtube, it would not be long until you stumble across videos of angry young and older men such as Andrew Tate blaming feminism for increased violence in society, for men’s rage, for socio-economic disparities, unhappy households, divorces, sexless men etc. And, if you go deep enough, you will also find the women who are in support of women being abused, being controlled and being the property of men. You know, your typical pick me and patriarch princess such as Pearl Davis (handle:@JustPearlyThings).
For those of you who do not know Andrew Tate, he is an influencer teaching young men how to get rich and often spews misogyny. Recently spoke about how his sister is the property of her husband or would be the property of her husband; and how women must give up their freedom and autonomy in order to be protected by their boyfriends/ husbands. Men must dictate where and when you can and cannot go in order to exercise protection. Pearl is a podcaster known for being the female version of Andrew Tate who is famous for her body shaming women, telling women that it is okay and normal for men to cheat, telling women that they are not special, etc.
These two people alone have millions of followers and their content is the subject of most debates regarding the state of feminism and anti-feminism and the state of human rights, young men and women.
If one were to go purely off of the superficial massacre of equity amongst the sexes and genders, it would be agreeable that these movements, ideologies and theories are dying a slow and very embarrassing death with culture vultures such as Pearl Davis driving the training to end all forms of liberty, dignity and respect for women and girls.
However, upon deeper introspection, I now understand that it is not necessarily true that they are dying or disintegrating.
I believe that this is actually a façade. I believe that five things are actually happening and this is where my personal story become most relevant:
1. we are failing to establish clear leaders of the contemporary times: A few months ago, I had a thought that I shared with my family. Regardless of whether the political climate wants to or not, our generation will have leaders from this generation and the others will be gone. No one can lead from the grave. Whether or not we are ready, in it is time for us to emerge.
2. those who are leaders have failed to orientate the team: the team is lost, confused and requires direction
3. systems of oppression do not acknowledge things that are not a threat to their existence: we are doing well, that is why patriarchy feels threatened. When something drowns it kicks hectically to gasp for air.
4. Feminism is thriving in pockets and we need to establish feminist ubuntu across borders.
5. Always follow the money trail! – Fake Misogyny has capitalist intentions or funded by it
𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑-𝐁𝐀𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐕𝐈𝐎𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐃𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐎𝐂𝐂𝐔𝐑 𝐈𝐍𝐀 𝐕𝐀𝐂𝐔𝐔𝐌:
It requires the forced elevation of one and
the forced subjugation of the other.
Gender-Based Violence and the “ideology”
which underpins it is purely irrational, unscientific and arbitrary to say the
least. It has no substantive basis or logic other than to cause harm to diverse
human beings. And, the result is a
society in which no one benefits. No one benefits from the patriarchy and the
violence that it spews. There is only harm for both those that perpetrate and
those that are survivors/victims. Of course, the red pill, black pill and
manosphere, will have men (and even women) believing that they benefit in some
ways. However, this is a lie. No one ever benefits. Even those who benefit
temporarily later on realise that it was all a scam. And, sometimes, the
temporary beneficiaries believe that the only way out of the scam, is through
further harming others or even harming themselves.
I would like to make a clarion call for
institutions such as these to make an intentional investment in countering the irrational
sexist, misogynistic, paedophilic and criminal rhetoric and extremist ideologies
of the red pill, black pill and manosphere. Many of us young people have been destroyed
by these violent ideologies. And, many more younger people and children are
being fed this violent propaganda through the media, internet, social media,
music videos, film/cinema, as well as through post-colonial religion and
culture. The perpetrators of sexual and related violence are becoming younger
and younger. And, schools have also become breeding grounds for the spreading
of harmful propaganda.
The impact and the role of institutions of worship, religion and culture, can no longer be ignored. They have always been centres of critical thought and access to information for many South
Africans and the world at large. They have also been weaponised as distribution centres for violent ideology from which South Africa and the world is still healing.
Therefore, places of worship such as these are critical in dismantling the patriarchy and raising up the next generation of unified, peaceful, respectful and democratic leaders and members of society.
That said, educational curricula should be imbedded with mandatory education aimed at fighting against harmful attitudes, behaviours and stereotypes. Beyond this, there should be a stand-alone subject aimed at educating children on our history and the role of colonisation in
fracturing relations, communities and families in South Africa. In particular, a stand-alone subject aimed at dismantling the patriarchy and addressing the racial violence of the past, by simply telling children the truth.
Patriarchy and Gender-Based Violence is entirely unAfrican. It does not come from here and it has no place in our collective future and Constitutionalism. We must absolutely disown it! It is not ours and it has no place here. Whether it is expressed by a man or a woman is neither here nor there. It simply does not have a place in our society and we must relinquish it from our language, conduct, practices, culture, beliefs and values.
In fact, it does not belong to humanity at all and it must be done away with, regardless of the geographical location. An
injury to one is an injury to all.
Mayibuye i-Afrika.
Q and A session
left behind
define patriarchal violence: the elevation of men and subjugation.