I once visited my lecturer’s office. When I arrived in her office, she was not there but I found her colleague and another student sitting in her office, also waiting for her. Upon my arrival, my lecturer’s colleague told me, “She just went out but she will be back. You can take a seat while you wait for her.’ There was no other seat in the office. Both guest chairs were occurred – one by my lecturer’s colleague and one by the student whom was already in the office. Upon realisation that there was a shortage of chairs, the student in the room jumped up from the chair and offered it to me. I politely refused the chair. The student insisted but I persisted in my refusal. Clearly this interaction was becoming awkward for my lecturer’s colleague to witness and so he asked why I was refusing to take the seat this young gentleman was offering me. I explained to them both that this goes against my feminist values; that I do not believe this young man needs to leave his seat and give it to me just because I am a woman – I would not do the same for him if the roles were reversed and so I find the notion ridiculous. Anyway, both the student and my lecturer’s colleague claimed to not agree with the values of feminism and so we got into a heated debate that was eventually broken up by the arrival of my lecturer. What stood out for me though, from this incident, is how the student never took back their seat even after I had refused it. For the reminder of the time I was in the office, both the student and I were standing while there was an empty chair in front of us, both of us too stubborn to take. I don’t know why the other student wouldn’t just sit back in their chair. Maybe the chivalry in him made him feel rude to sit, maybe he felt he was standing his ground, maybe he felt emasculated – I don’t know. Last week, I ran into my lecturer’s colleague. He said that when sees me, this incident is the first thing that comes to his mind and now he does not know how to act around me because, due to my feminist values, I might attack whatever gesture he makes. We laughed about it but for some reason, I found his statement quite profound. It occurred to me that one of the reasons people are so vehemently against feminism is because it blurs lines that were perceived to be fixed. It dismantles and deconstructs standing notions of how the world operates; how people relate to one another in society. I can see how this can be unsettling and why one would try to resist it.
However, I also find this idea of deconstruction wildly exciting. This means that feminism is doing exactly what is supposed to be doing. As Audre Lorde said, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”. This means we cannot fight patriarchy with patriarchal thoughts and notions. In fighting patriarchy’s violence, we cannot enact violence against one another. In opposing patriarchy’s nonchalant attitude towards men’s infidelity, we cannot be infidels ourselves. This thought process can even be applied to the racial context; in fighting racial oppression, we cannot racially discriminate ourselves. This is because, if we use the same mechanisms of an oppressive system to liberate ourselves, what we’re doing is not liberating ourselves but further reproducing that system and just calling it something else. So, the reason why my lecturer’s colleague’s confusion me was because it meant that feminism was forcing us to rethink interactions. To be creative and find new ways to interact because the old methods are under attack – they are not working.
It is following this thought process, that brings me to an issue I have been pondering. Lately when I watch the news or listen to people speak, all I hear is how South Africa’s problems can be fixed by the creation of businesses and so on. I won’t lie, I am both sceptical and confused by this. South Africa happens to have the highest inequality rate in the world. This inequality, is not only gendered but also racialized. Thus, it seems to me that we are trying to dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools. We are trying to gain our freedom through an oppressive capitalist system rather than completely do away with it. My problem with this thought process is that it makes people believe that they can negotiate their way out of this system. That they can save their way out of poverty. However, this is not true; this poverty is structured. This problem is systematic. What this notion of creating businesses does is that it veils the true nature of this system. I hear a lot of people say “it is because black people do not want to work” or “it is because black people do not know how to spend their money wisely”. This is disingenuous. While black people could use more financial literacy, the truth is no one works harder than a black person. Black people endure the most dehumanising and most uncomfortable situations for the sake of money. I am talking about the Mamzos who sit outside in makeshift stalls – no matter the weather. I am talking about people who stand in the sun all day/cold just for the little they can get. I am talking about people who wake up at 4 AM (come summer or winter) just so they can make that early morning bus or taxi or train. What I’m saying is that no one is more willing than black people. And yet still, it is the hardest for them to start businesses. This is because this system gives them just enough to almost survive. It makes sure that they have a reason to come back the next day. So, dare I say that seeing this, the reproduction of the capitalist system as a solution is privileged. Because no matter how hard one works, not all black people can make it, the system is structured that way. In fact, the few people that make it are the outliers – they are the capitalist system’s fiction – a crumb of the pie to fool us into believing that we too, can make it. to make us believe that the problem is indeed with us and not the system itself. Thus, we need a more creative way to dismantle the masters house – not using the master’s tools.
It is here I get stuck. It is here where scholars, politicians, economists and every other discipline, gets stuck. What is that creative way forward? A mother who has to feed children does not care how little she is getting in this system – at least it’s something. People have families to look after, relatives to put through school, big houses to build and parents to make proud. That is the reality and it seems quite and unfair (and privileged) to say they must wait. To say that they must abandon this system which gives them just enough to think they can make it if they work hard. I do not know. I guess what I am pondering here is can we win in a system that is rigged? We are just recreating the same oppressive system, using the very tools it uses to oppress us, to supposedly save ourselves. I am wondering where this will lead us. I am wondering if we won’t wake up after it’s too late. The consolation, I guess, is that we are not sitting still. We are trying to find ways. Yes, we maybe be digging our own graves – but at least we’re digging?