Focus on Africa: Two mainstream African arguments I have refused to accept

My country Kenya – as is the case with many countries in Africa – is effecting numerous political, economic and social changes to conform to current international best practices. These projects are focused on renovating our governance practices, creating a homogenous national identity along with the alignment and integration of our economics to conform to the international system.

Alongside these renovations, Kenya is implementing her largest and most aggressive modernization project since her independence. The vision 2030 project is creating the physical infrastructure, obtaining enabling technologies and commercial tools to facilitate this integration.

These modernization projects are taking place at a time when the population is predominantly young (63% below the age of 35). The young people are defying the set norms in order to access their individual freedoms accessible in this new reality – causing a movement in culture.

This tectonic movement is generating anxiety and even paranoia on the part of those whose religious and cultural thoughts are validated by the status quo. This anxiety is driven by the fear that a movement which expands individual liberties (especially sexual freedom, equality of women and men) will destroy a precarious social order – whose incentives they like enjoy.

As a result there are several pervasive mainstream arguments which embody this fear – which I refuse to accept.

‘The politics of motherliness’

I refuse to accept the argument that Kenya’s Martha Karua is unelectable because she is not ‘motherly’. Likewise, I refuse to accept the argument that if she won the elections, she would turn out to be a dictator because she is not like a ‘woman’.

In this argument ‘being woman’ is a qualification for achieving respectability. Let us explore what being a ‘woman’ would mean to Kenya’s Martha Karua.

Would it mean a dutiful submission to men? Would it also include wearing a pleasant smile? Or long ‘womanly’ inoffensive dress? Would it be better if there was some cooking or serving? How about cuddling children? While these are not negative expectations, would they be anticipated from a head of state?

What if she did not qualify to be ‘woman’ would it be better if she gave up for a male candidate?

Further, is there a correlation between her ‘motherliness’ and her service as head of state if she got elected? Would we only expect social services and social welfare from a ‘motherly’ president? Can we ever distinguish women as individuals separate from their service/ gender role?

I am persuaded that women who aspire for public office are often remarkably strong people; characterized by great personal resolve, professional skills and discipline. They have overcome great odds to become who they are not just mothers, professionals but political leaders. Nonetheless, they have to prove their ‘maternal-ness’ in order to achieve respectability, a qualification which is not required from their male counterparts.

Is it not ironic that in most African societies, the typical male leader is often unaccountable, flawed masculine character – who has disproportionately amassed wealth, land, disparages women and who controls the tools of violence? Is it not hypocritical and defrauding that women are only eligible for respect and protection only if they are in society’s service “mothers, sisters and daughters”? Would this standard be yet another superfluous qualification illustrating society’s refusal to liberate women?

‘Homosexuality is Un-African’ 

Second, I refuse to accept the argument that homosexuality is Un-African. This argument is disingenuous and even dangerous. This argument is predicated on a romantic pre historic myth of a righteous, virgin Africa, tacked away from the corrupting influences of other cultures – especially western cultures.

It is easier to deny the reality of homosexuality in Africa, if only to avoid dealing with complex issue of human sexuality, however, it is ridiculous to justify this behavior by suggesting that Africa (is) was completely insular. It is a fact that communities in Africa always interacted through commerce, wars and migration; which always brought some movement in culture.

Again, it is also disingenuous to suggest that historic Africa was righteous; as most nascent cultures – it was often brutal, pitiless and cruel. Most cultures were ruthless and unforgiving; boys had to fight lions to become men, some forcefully extracted their teeth as initiation ritual, others still practice the dangerous virginal cut as a womanhood ritual, some fed deformed infants to hyenas to forestall disaster, they dismembered the body parts albino children for witchcraft, and most sold their daughters for bride price.

The harmonious, pristine, morally purist and uncomplicated African past is a myth is created by those who would rather refuse to acknowledge the complexity of the human reality. Instead of seeking to build understanding, they attempt to organize the human experiences into simple, manageable, binary and hetero-normative taxonomy – where the sex of an individual has an assigned gender role as well as an expected linear pattern of identity, sexual preference and relative social power.

This argument refuses to acknowledge that sexual attraction is a basic human instinct – not merely a cultural idea. It also refuses to acknowledge the fact that in both historical and contemporary African societies there were (are) many ordinary indigenous people who were (are) sexually attracted by members of their sex and/or gender. This argument allows some to dehumanize and brutalize their compatriots without the burden of guilt –since have been corrupted by the ‘evil foreigner’.

Uncomfortable Cultural Shift

We are living in exciting times. We are at a critical cultural inflexion point in our time, the tension is between the modern man in us, who is seeking to be free and his/her earlier counterpart who is afraid of change. The woman and the homosexual are a mere canvas on which the society is projecting its internal power struggle.

To emerge successful in this struggle, we must not see gender roles as static and inflexible structures, but a social arrangement that are continuously negotiated in order to respond to contemporary realities.

On the other hand, we must critically examine our fears about homosexuality and see them for what they are. If we are indeed honest, we must face ourselves and deal with our preciously held and closely guarded prejudices. We must accept that we are equal in our humanity with the Homosexuals. They are our brothers, sisters, even mothers and fathers and they should be seen as such. They are citizen of our countries, they are African. What’s more they deserve protection.

We must accept – however hard this may be – that the myth of the purist historic Africa is misleading. We must find another narrative that allows for our common pride without denying the realities. Our cultural patterns and religious perspectives have since changed. These issues are not about to go away, unless we face them.

It is almost silly to consider that only three generations ago, fathers would not sleep in the same house with their daughters. Their time, this was a highly controversial matter. They risked prejudiced and banishment to live in the same house with their daughters. Today, it is a norm.

Societies do not advance towards the past, they do not stroll into the future they instead take giant leaps forward. While some might consider women as lower, weaker or lesser to men, and homosexuals as perverts, immoral and foreign, I am certain that this shall not be the case tomorrow. Tomorrow has its own challenges to face.

We are at that inflexion point, tomorrow sexual and gender equality will not be controversial. Women will be appreciated and considered rightfully equal. Men and women will be free to express their love to one another without inhibitions.

We cannot stand in the way of the future.