Battle of the Sexes
We all have a gender. The moment we are born, we are assigned a gender. Then, we perform our gender. Most of us suffice by abiding with the traditional gender roles, some of us decide to play with gender and perform against the gender binary system. Though this idea of gender as a performance is epitomized by Western queer and feminist theorists, most notably Judith Butler, we can apply this concept to the people we meet in South Africa. The Zulu people in Kuhla Village are no exception to performing gender. Their society, just like the one we live in, is a patriarchal culture. Meaning, men benefit systemically (and also personally) at the expense of others (women, queer bodied folks, transgendered, etc.)
We learn how to perform our culture from our families, our friends, our culture, the media, etc. We then begin to internalize the heteropatriarchal messages and subscribe them as the norm. Therefore, we begin to hear things such as: “soccer is solely for boys,” and “girls cannot play soccer.” The rhetoric behind the aforementioned statements is similar to comments we come to hear in the United States about the separation of the two genders (even ignoring the possibility of more genders).
Thus being a male in the United States awards me so many unasked for privileges, known as Male Privilege. Many feminist scholars, both male and female, have written intensively of male privilege as an invisible knapsack. Something we carry with us, without consciously knowing we have it. However, regardless of whether someone knows of their male privilege or not, it does not mean that it is not exercised. Even men of color in the United States, or third world men, regardless of their own systemic oppression because of their race or culture, still benefit from male privilege. Male privilege for men of color/third world men looks different than male privilege for White people, because gender and gendered experiences are racialized.
In a country with hardcore fans of soccer, the playing field becomes an important space where power dynamics are replayed. Though this power dynamic exists, they are ameliorated and assumed they do not exist. Thus, the soccer field – one of the few places were the children, can enjoy their situational freedom. The soccer provides an opportunity to not worry about ones social/political position. A game is just a game. A fun activity that allows a de-stresser and an avenue to forget about our problems. While true for many, it does not remove the possibility that the soccer game manifests a great amount of power. The game itself is representative of many of the political/social power dynamics that exist not only in our culture but also in others. Remember the 2nd Wave of Feminism montra: The personal is political. The soccer game is political.
The soccer game is a homosocial space. A space were men can interact with other men and perform their gender at its most exaggerated degree. Thus, any inclination of anything less than a “man,” I would assume, is reason for what I call in my own research, faggetry (taunting/bullying for performing less of his or gender identity, or performing the other gender). There are countless incidents in professional sports that prove the heteronormativity that often leads to homophobic rants. Thus, the soccer field is an important space worth looking at to explore gender.
But if only men are allowed to play soccer, what happens to those girls who wish to be physically active and engage in some type of sport activity. In many instances, there is a female league or a “girls only” team of soccer. But this was not the case during the Holiday Club, where we were volunteering for a week in Khula Village.
Per my academic knowledge of women of color feminism, specifically Chicana lesbian feminism, when the available avenues in a binary do not allow for flexibility of “gender fucking” or expressing gender differently, people (more notably females/womyn and queers), create a third space. The third space is free of constraints and one can and is encouraged to push all types of boundaries.
I felt while I was volunteering and playing with the kids during the Holiday Club that the females, specifically the “female leaders,” created their own space to play a physical sport. They created the dodgeball teams and played during the entire time. During the dodgeball games the young girls ruled the field. The girls did not allow any else run the show. But the girls also played differently. They allowed opportunity for the younger kids to also participate extensively. Even though the older girls were clearly the leaders of the game, they were able to facilitate and negotiate with the younger kids. They gave the ball to the younger kids so they could throw it evenly. They debated civilly if there was ever any contention regarding anyone being out or not. Even the older boys who wished to play dodgeball (the ones that were not playing soccer), had to succumb to the girls’ rules. But their rules were, in my opinion, equal/egalitarian. They were simple: everyone has the right to play and follow the rules.
In a world controlled by mostly men, regardless of how “equal” we claim to be, patriarchy still exists. Now what would happen if women ruled the world? The dodgeball game provided a figment of what that world could look like. But we have not experienced what an egalitarian society would look like. Even though in theory many Western countries claim to be equal in gender, the fact is that sexual divisions still exist. In the United States, we can look at the underrepresentation of women in Congress. The legislative body of the South African government had an overwhelmingly representation of women, or so that is what it looked like when we went to Parliament. Both countries claim to be equal in so many ways, yet both societies remain to be patriarchal.
This blog post came about after one of our seminar/discussions that we had. Saturday (July 2) night, we gathered around the haunted house to talk about our experiences in Kuhla Village, specifically working with the kids/students via the Holiday Club.
I left the conversation with a great amount of mixed feelings. A part of me was happy that we addressed some gender issues, but mostly disappointed at the complacent tone the discussion was. Perhaps it was because it was late and the week was coming to an end so we were all very tired. Or perhaps, many of us are really complacent with how patriarchy controls everyones’ lives. It seemed to me that because we have had several “waves” of feminist movements in the United States’ history, that we must be at a much superior level of understanding what gender is and how it is represented in our every day actions.
The conversation began with one of the students addressing how there should be more programs geared towards men. “Men teaching men” sort of programs that currently exist in the United States, with the intention of ameliorating rape, violence, etc.The reason this came up was because some students felt that there were a lot of programs aimed towards the empowerment of the African womyn. But empowerment for all members of the community is necessary if we want to see the community became a self-sustaining and successful one.
The differences between gender in the Kuhla community began to linger in the conversation.
We can be critical of the cultural differences in the Zulu culture and community, but we should never pass judgment. Who are we to judge a different culture, when we ourselves have not been able to fully address our own heteropatriarchal culture and actions. When we were volunteering during the Holiday Club we were often contributing to the seperation of genders. The men in our program were encouraging the men, and the women were often supporting the women. Granted, we are not here to educate the community about gender and begin a feminist movement. But what I am trying to say is that we must be conscious of when we engage in cultural deficit thinking, specially when we are talking about other cultures when we can’t even begin to point at our own culture and start addressings our own challenges. Gloria Anzaldua and Cherrie Moraga opened the anthology, “This Bridge Called My Back: Writings By Radical Women of Color” by stating so boldly, “the revolution begins at home.”
