Loading...
| by Saida | Monday, May 4th Posted in: Tags: |  |
On April 29th 2009, the Gender 10 (G10) held a press conference to express frustrations Kenyans are experiencing due to the feuding coalition government. The message was strong and very clear: the women of this country, continuing to bear the brunt of poor leadership are tired of the endless political feuds and games between our President and Prime Minister. We want them to do their work including committing to the reform agenda. It is also at this press conference that G10 officially launched a sex boycott campaign as part of the women's call to action to get the President and Prime Minister to provide leadership in addressing the many issues affecting Kenyans. The sex boycott was not the only call to action. The epitome of this campaign is going to be the presentation of performance contracts to both the President and Prime Minister on May 8th, 2009 at their respective offices. The main concern here is about putting the country first and bringing an end to the conflicts within the coalition government. We are also calling the leaders to account by reminding them the work they should be doing to serve Kenyans. We have been monitoring the comments and responses from various sectors and categories of people in Kenya.
May 2nd 2009 marked the fourth day of the sex boycott campaign. Members of G10 called for another press conference to yet again re-emphasize matters of national concern that our political leaders ought to be delivering on. The women are providing leadership in pointing out matters of national importance that need to be accorded priority by the top leadership. I will give bits and pieces of the two press statements in this article so as to give you a gist of what we are concerned about. Those of you who think this is about punishing or being punished using sex as the dangling carrot, you have it all wrong. We have been monitoring the comments and responses from various sectors and categories of people in Kenya. Some of them are disgusted at the guts of women who have not only questioned the leadership of this country but have also used the 's' word that most of them would rather indulge in but not pronounce especially in public. I know that there are others who are not happy that we are using 'motherhood' as a strength for our mobilisation.
The G10 is a coalition of women's organisations in Kenya whose vision is a society where women wield political power. Its mission seeks to connect women's voices and actions to leverage an expanded and redefined political space. The G10 is already taking the country by storm and as a movement, it is gathering more voices of women in different parts of the country. G10 members have following among different categories of women.The G10 members include, the Coalition of violence against Women (COVAW), Centre for Rights and Awareness (CREAW), Federation of Women Lawyers-Kenya (FIDA-K), Maendeleo ya Wanawake, National Council of Women of Kenya (NCWK), Tomorrow's Child Initiative (TCI), Young Women's Leadership Institute (YWLI), Women in Law and Development (WILDAF), the Caucus for women's political leadership (CAUCUS), African Woman and Child Features (AWC) and Development through Media (DTM).Within G10, different generations of women are represented.
Women leaders in Kenya have been in the media before but this is the first time any of our campaigns has generated such powerful debate in different forums, both in the private (households) and the public, and captured in different media including the internet. The sex boycott is political! We chose to tread even where angels fear to tread so that we can get the attention of not just the political bigwigs but also those of us who are affected by the decisions made in parliament and by the cabinet. We are making a strong message that the personal is political. Women are among the lot that is heavily bearing the brunt of bad governance in our country. You do not need to be a political analyst to realise that the decisions that are made by our leaders including the conflicts within the coalition government affects us in our households. Kenyan women are bold enough to use a taboo subject (sex) to get the attention of the two main principals in the coalition government. There are many interpretations to the sex boycott and I will leave this to your imagination as you read this entry. What I know for sure is that this is not the first time sex has been associated with our daily life. It is in fact part of our lives.
Of course there are those thinking that the women in G10 women have not thought this clearly whereas others think it is a bad idea, worse still that leaves a sour taste in your mouth. "What? A sex boycott...since when did sex become a political issue?", I remember hearing someone comment. I have also heard what the holier- than- thou are saying in terming the G10 women 'bad women' and that 'good women' never use such language in public. May I remind you that rape which is a heinous human rights violation is always used as a weapon firstly against women and secondly a weapon of war during conflict to degrade nations. This points to power relations and the destruction of a people as a tactic during conflicts and war. We are using this boycott as a rallying point to get our leaders to put the country first and not their political and personal interests.
It is also not the first time a sex boycott has been called for. I remember in mid January 2008 when women leaders were chatting what to do to get our political leaders to dialogue, for peace and reconcilaitaion after the post election violence. One of the key women leaders who was a young leader in the 60s mentioned that women had tried a sex boycott campaign at that time to protest poor leadership after independence. According to her the boycott did not work because it was not properly ochestrated. In Denmark in 2003, actresses from all over the world held a sex boycott to protest the Iraqi war. During the period of their campaign they held readings of the ancient play Lysistrata by the Greek playwright Aristophanes in 56 countries. Lysistrata, penned by Aristophanes in 415BC is about Greek women who fed up with their warmongering menfolk, go on a sex strike to compel the men to end the conflicts (the Peloponnesian war) and sign a peace Treaty. In Lysistrata there is a unity of women from different regions including those from the different warring factions. Part of the women's plan executed in Lysistrata is to take over the Acropolis, the fortress that houses the treasury of Athens. The Commissioner, an appointed magistrate goes to the Acropolis to get funds for naval ships and finds that women have already taken over! He orders the arrest of Lsysistrata and the other women. When police arrive, they are scared off by the women.
What are the lessons from this play? In Denmark when the actresses called for the sex boycott what they were saying was, " no peace, no sex". It is impossible to enjoy all your rights as a human being when there is no peace and security. Peace and security are closely tied to other goals of development and equality. The sex boycott may be a very literal interpretation of Lysistrata but the point for us in Kenya is leadership is a great concern for women. The kind of leadership we have dictates the kind of governance we have. Bad governance is a concern for women because women have given great sacrifices due to selfish leaders. Fast rewind to post election period between December 2007 and February 2008; women are raped, houses torched, their sons and husbands killed, livelihoods lost and thousands left homeless. Fast forward to the present and hundreds still live in IDP camps. There is a looming food crises, environmental degradation, insecurity, threats to our national security from East and Western borders of the country and the continued dilapidation of the social and economic infrastruture of the country. This list is endless... it would be a consolation if our leaders were doing something about the power wrangles they have that stop them from giving attention to the issues confronting our nation. Kenya has been divided along ethnic lines, thanks to our shortsighted leaders. What G1O has done is to provide leadership in chatting the path for unity. We came together as women and not because a certain woman belongs to a certain community.
What the G10 is asking for is laid out in five main concerns regarding firm and visionary leaderhip.You do not have to agree with us but if you are living in this country, you know that the lack of leadership and political goodwill in addressing some of the challenges we are facing as a nation are symptoms of a conflict waiting to erupt. I speak for the other sisters in the G10 movement when I say that we will soldier on until we get the Kenya we want.
For the President and Prime Minister, it is an appeal for their strength and courage to act in making peace. We are asking them to be heroes for this great nation, our motherland- Kenya.
The following are excerpts from the G10 press statement regarding the women's concerns:
" 1. The security of the nation must be restored so that the majority of the population will no longer live at the mercy of felons and bury their children who they had to go to onerous odds to give birth to, and having survived child birth, only to be felled by the machete of the Mungiki or vigilantes; and when they survive they die at the hands of police in extra-judicial killings. Meanwhile, fear of pirates, alqaeda and Migingo abound among other security threats. Women want to go on with their business of building the nation not mourning their children or worrying about their safety. President Kibaki, as the Commader in Chief of the Armed Forces, such challenges should not even be an issue. Use your powers to their full tenor and meaning.
2. Prime Minister Odinga, as an equal partner to this coalition with powers to co-ordinate and supervise all government functions, entrenched in the National accord. However, all we see and hear are constant statements of what powers you did not get or what your office lacks. Kenyans expect you to use your powers to creatively supervise and coordinate the functions assigned to you by law. The G10 is a group with huge capacity and resources who are ready, able and willing to creatively interpret your powers into reality, for the benefit of this nation.
3. As the builders of the nation in the majority, the women are getting neither access to national resources or opportunity for wealth creation. Kenya has become a country of the rich by the rich for the rich. How can our country be secure if the country’s 60% wealth is in the hands and control of 10 % of its population while the last 10% do not even own 1 %? What about our young people who have lost all hope for a decent living as they continue to wallow in joblessness, hopelessness and as they wait for trickle down of resources? Where Unga has become but a mirage for most Kenyans who cannot afford the same, while millions die of hunger, starvation and disease. President Kibaki, it is your duty to ensure equitable distribution of national resources and creation of new wealth in an environment conducive to creativity, reward, and innovation. Your responsibility remains constant especially for the vulnerable members of the society.
4. President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga, you have both tribalized this country at a great expense to its peoples, especially the women. One of your core duties under the National Accord and Reconcilitaion Act, 2008 was to heal and reconcile this Nation. We have yet to see any tangible efforts or benchmarks for these reconciliation effort and we continue to see divisions across ethnic lines. Unify the country into the one nation that it is meant to be bound by common ethos, values and vision.
5. President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga, as a result of your inability to exercise your Constitutional powers, the country has lost faith in the national institutions including the presidency, parliament and judiciary amongst all other democratic institutions of governance. This has resulted in mistrust, lack of confidence and above all, inability to access services by the Kenyan people especially the women of this country. Restore the faith of the Kenyan people in the national institutions of this great country, so that these can serve them well. Your leadership exercised would mean that we would fast track the reform agenda".
Emphasis on the point
Having read some of the comments on the sex boycott that ended last week, and having strongly supported it. I feel compelled to contribute to the ongoing debate.
Firstly, I concur fully with Saida and others who have rightly talked about the politics of the body. And the fact that the personal is indeed political. Because this was the message that was being communicated loudly and clearly to those who wanted to hear. I mean one only needs to listen to the comments that are being made to realize how women bodies are regarded as property of men for which they have full rights regardless of whether women want it or not.
Secondly, I want to comment about the issue of sexual orientation. Granted.We live in a heteronormative, even homophobic society. The two are issues that require an entirely different campaign to address, if you ask me. They are quite deep and bound to generate a lot of heat. That said, I do not see the sex boycott as having a bearing on sexual orientation. When a sex boycott was called, it did not point to a specific sexual orientation. It called on everyone who identified with the issues to go on a boycott! For all I understand, this could have included the men.The very same people who claim they were being punished and who want to peddle a misconception that women's bodies belong to them. As such the issue of marginalization of the LGBTI and the men for me does not arise. Anybody could have taken part in the boycott so long as they identified with the issues being raised.
As to whether the campaign was about the “elite” women or whether it spoke for the rural and marginalized women, well, I think we are missing the point here. When our country went to war early last year and other times when there has been conflict, it was not the elite women who were being killed, raped or displaced, it was all women who were in danger of all these things. When there is alarming insecurity and women are targeted in such incidents or are affected in one way or the other, when there is hunger and poverty arising from mismanagement of our national resources and poor leadership, when there is disease and ignorance it is not the “elite” who suffer. It is all women who are at risk. If it was the other way, the “elite” women if for sure they are, would have nothing to loose sleep over. I don’t see anything wrong with the “elite” wanting to do something that will ensure the safety and justice to all Kenyan women. So please let’s not split hairs just for the heck of it! Instead we should be asking how we can make such future campaigns more successful for the benefit of all Kenyan women.
Intercourse
Sophie and Kathambi, thanks for responding. Saida, I never knew you were the Director of YWLI and that you responded to the blog was shocking. I thank you for taking us "common people" seriously.
Kathambi you are right, the sex boycott indeed did ask for women (not heterosexual women) to abstain from sex, but the aim of the boycott was [is] to manipulate society in a heterosexual way and not homosexual, so the insinuation is that the sex that matters is heterosexual because it is the one that will "shake" the system. That is why the first lady and the prime minister's wives names were conspicuously linked to the boycott, because, they embody the sex (and female body) that matters (heterosexual, wife, in bed with power). It's no wonder that quite a number of women aspire for that same sex and body "by any means necessary" - that's why many are in bed with the same politicians. But you raise another interesting point that I had not considered, you state that the G10's mandate is to "women of all walks of life".... How will you represent the 'woman' lost in the filth of the Dandora dumpsite in the same template as the one on a holiday at a beach house in Mombasa? And when you find this 'common' template, what will you use to identify the 'women' it represents? Biological sex, hormones, societal behaviour, clothes, facial features? Would an intersex, who lives in both worlds be a woman? What about my good friend who is a transgender - biologially male but lives like a woman? While I believe your mission is quite noble, I wonder who made the G10 the spokesperson(s) for "women of all walks of life". Did they issue you with this "mandate" to represent them? Did you consult these women before planning this boycott? Are you speaking for them at them or with them?
These become pertinent questions at a time when civil society assumes that the people [women] they speak for [at] are naive (victims, powerless, infantile-like) and cannot speak for themselves. I find the arrogance in this "noble mission" quite colonial-like, it reminds me of Joseph Conrad's book (that has become a neo-colonial dictionary) "Heart of Darkness". Like Joseph Conard, the G10 is on a noble mission to "save the women of Kenya". These women "from all walks of life" are a bunch of faceless, nameless despairing masses that needs salvation. Thus the need of a saviour - the G-10, the human rights campaigners! This is the arrogance that is so evident when a group of civil society NGOs I have never heard of (I have asked around, the many people I know had no clue some organisations in this coalition existed until two weeks ago, again your mandate is for or from who?) purport to be speaking for "the women of all walks of life". I read this statement and wondered, do you know of the woman who has to sell sex for 20 bob in mathare to feed her children, how are you speaking for her when calling for a sex-boycott? C'mon now, let's drop the pretence, we have not lost our mental capacities, if you want to speak for me, ask me first what I want you to say.
Saida, you are so right that this campaign is about the body. I do agree with you completely that power is so tied to intercourse. But let's think this through again, I re-read the list of demands of the sex boycott again this morning, and they got me thinking about your reply. While you rightfully place the body right in the middle of it all, the demands say nothing about that body. So basically, the G10 is urging women to go on sex boycott, for a better political (and hopefully social) Kenya. BUT, the sexual and physical meanings and status of 'women's' bodies (and hence lives) relative to that of men does not change, infact that is not on the list of the demands, no demand is placed for 'women' as 'women', everything about 'women' is based on their relationships with men or children...doesn't this logic imprison the same body we purport to want to save?
So what makes the G10 different from every other woman (and men) who uses sex as a manipulative tool for their own selfish means? It seems that there is a general agreement that male power maybe arrogant or elegant, it may be churlish or refined, however, 'women' exist to the extent that these men in power recognise us. We need their money; intercourse is frequently how we get it. We need their approval; intercourse is how we get it; we need them to listen to us, hear our loud cries about the political state of the country; intercourse is how we get it. Intercourse then becomes a means of physiologically making a woman inferior; as a means of communication, a woman's body thus becomes an object that a man desires and cannot have. What again does this say about bodies that matter (that which is the subject) and those that do not (object)? Sex that matters (male) and that which does not (female)?
I also find it quite interesting that while civil society purports to be talking for the "common mwananchi" they do not care about what we think, infact, they go as far as stating that "we choose our meanings based on our personal interpretations". While that is true, then civil society should think twice before asking the 'women' of Kenya to join them in campaigns - they cannot cook up campaigns in their boardrooms (based on their own personal elitist interpretations) and then shove them down our throats by insisting that they speak for "all women" - as such we ought to come onboard cause yours is a noble mission! Reminds me of those Christian missionaries who insist that they "have found the truth" and we are all to simply accept their version as "the truth" (no questions asked).
The "women of all walks in life" were not consulted but through a G10 news release 'all' Kenyan 'women' were united by a "common" enemy and we were "sermoned" into Noah's Ark as it made its way to "the promised land". But the consequences of this boycott, if I were to join, none of you (G10) would help me through. If I am beaten or raped or maimed as a result of refusing my partner sex and I come to any of your organisation, you will simply toss me around like a ball, from one organisation or government department to the next. And where possible, parade me in front of a camera (for your annual reports) to show the desperate state of Kenyan women and how civil society works hard (so international donors, give us more money).
I think it is quite dangerous, especially in a country like ours that is so violently patriarchal, to speak for "all women" in such a personal issue without thinking through the consequences that such a public campaign can have on that woman who says no to sex (she may have a genuine headache) and is not part of your team.
Sophie, yes, I do agree, the personal is political, but be careful how you make it political, because as was noted by Saida, meaning is contextual. Though I have a problem with the manipulative use of sex for I see more problems than solutions with such an act. I know that that the denial of sex has been used for ages (in Africa) in relationships to get a partner to see a certain way. It is especially used against those who are deemed to "want sex more" than the other. I know my grandmother used it (I talked to her in length about this boycott). Withholding sex is nothing new and it has always been a political manuver that works. Our grandmothers did not know of the phrase "the personal is political", but they did know for sure that withholding sex would get money out of their mates, stop an extra-marital affair, or get them a specific request. It has been done before, and is still being done. However, the problem with the Sex boycott is with the manner in which this 'silent and somewhat effective act' has been put out there - paraded for all: to gaze at, abuse, castigate, and mock - that has made the political violently personal! While I have no problem with a few women standing on a podium proclaiming that they have decided to deny their partners sex for whatever reasons, I have big issues when they insinuate that they are the "voice of all women". So it came as no surprise when my dear Aunt told me about a neighbour who silently withheld sex from her husband who had come home late for two days in a row (after the G10 women made their public announcement) and was beaten thoroughly and raped by this husband - the political hence became violently personal!! He thought that she had become like those "women in Nairobi" and sought to assert his manhood. While this is a strategy that has worked before for countless married (and unmarried) 'women' it now has to be used with caution because our "not so cleaver" G10 women do not understand that there is power in silence! They think we must ape the West and go public with our women's liberation strategies that we have been using and have got us where we are - a better place than before. Yes, the personal is political, but let's not be stupid about it...when you mimic campaigns implemented by those in the West, you forget that they have laws (at the very least) that would (somehow) protect them from sexual violence.
Like you have all made it very clear, this boycott is not about sex, it is about politics, sex and women's bodies are just tools used (like it has been done throughout his-story) towards a certain end "by any means necessary" (as the G10 statement states). Thus, even if the boycott works and the G10 demands are met (highly doubtful), the politics of sex will remain skewed to the advantage of men, women will still get raped, maimed, beaten, killed and all in the name of sex. This sex boycott is not about women - it is about men. And the G10 demands are unlikely to be met because we still refuse to understand (and confront) power (and patriarchy) for what it is. Because many of the 'women' in civil society (and the G10) benefit from the status quo as it is, some of them even embody that power and patriarchy they seem to believe comes dressed in a penis. Since the G10 refuses to be reflective, to confront power and patriarchy for what it is, its members result to hollow campaign "tricks" that seem like the "last kicks of a dying horse". This is the intersection YWLI is at but it seems like the tide is too strong, you may have to follow the mainstream (female-stream) for if you dare to be different and speak out, you will be ostracized by those ferocious powerful (patriarchal-like) women who "own" Kenya's heterosexual women's movement.
But wait, incase I am accused of throwing the baby and the birthwater! Remember when Koigi's mother (and other women) stripped at Freedom Corner? Their strategy worked. Or the strategy Wangari Maathai used to save Uhuru Park thus the celebrated freedom corner? Or even the women who raid village drinking dens that have taken their men and sons away from home? Their strategies also work...why? If the G-10 wants to speak for the 'women' of "all walks of life", they will need to abandon the comforts of their boardrooms, humble themselves and go speak to Kenyan 'women' (if they can identify them) with the aim of listening and not preaching. They may just find out - what Kenyan 'women' really want. Don't be shocked to learn that none of them cares for any the things listed down in that finely nuanced, well-articulated, neatly typed, and properly justified inaccessible statement that is laden with NGO jargon.
Aluta continua...and thanks for this engagement also got me thinking harder than I have in the past 5 years.
Re: Talking back- re-thinking sexualities
@ Rita Wanja. bell hooks in her book 'Talking back-Thinking feminist, thinking black (1989)' has an article entitled "Whose pussy is this?". I leave the issues she raises in that article for another discussion. This debate however makes me think about hooks in relation to the sexuality issues you point to especially when you say that sex should not be paraded for all to gaze at ....All in all, we need to re-think sexualities and masculinities. So Rita, I hear you! You raise issues of women's agency and the question of who speaks for who or represents who, and the work of civil society organisations to point to just but a few of the issues. The role of civil society organisations or non-state actors is important to development in any country and the expansion of the democratic space to allow everyone the freedom to exercise their rights. Movements exist so that they can change the staus quo or the governance challenges that are faced in their space. The point I am making is on the power of movements. Even the mothers of political prisoners that you make reference to, were a movement with a lot of backing from civil society. What can not be achieved by one person can and will be achieved by the collective. At times it is better to get into spaces and change them from within rather than pointing to what we think those spaces are not achieving. A movement begins with a story...it can be just one story, but affecting many.
Are you a woman?
@ Rita Wanja. The sex boycott asked women to abstain from sex. It did not ask heterosexual women to abstain from sex.
On the point about men who have sex with men, G10 is about women and leadership and while we may identify with some of the issues that marginalised men face, our mandate is women of all walks of life.
While the courage of the G10
While the courage of the G10 women ‘could’ be lauded, I have serious beef with this campaign that defines women based on who they have sex with! I am a lesbian, aren't I a woman? What about my relationship with my father, I could be able to influence my father more than my mother would, but since I do not have sex with him, guess we cannot talk eh? Then what about men who have sex with men how can they be part of the campaign? What about single women who do not have sex, if the only mechanism to influence men is through sexual intercourse, guess for them, they are doomed huh?
This is the most sexist campaign I have ever encountered. It does not matter who did it before or whether it worked or not. But also it is to look at contexts before we start mimicking other’s campaigns. For me it is not so much what the campaign is communicating but what it is NOT. Which bodies matter and which ones do not! What kind of sex matters and what kind does not! I was very saddened to see YWLI part of this campaign an organisation that claims to be supportive of sexual minorities. This campaign rubberstamps heterosexuality as the only sexuality for women leaving all other women who choose not to have sex with men, or even those who opt not to have sex at all disenfranchised.
I could go on and on...but what's the point?
Re: It is all about the body
Rita, I just want to comment on the issues you raise even though you state that there is no point in going on and on...
You are spot on one main issue here- the politics of body and that it is always about the woman's body. Think of anything at all including what you are talking about...the answer is the body! Culture and why women are taken through FGM, why women are raped, law and inheritance, women and politics and why we are left out, domestic violence and any form of discrimination against women- the female body is the loci. So this campaign and the issues we are raising are all about the body and how the personal is political.Think of all of them one by one and try to locate the body.You will also realise that power is directly related to all of them including the oppression of women.
Having said that, I would like to make some issues clear:
1. This society is heteronormative and you too have been caught up in that heteronormativity. This was a SEX boycott AND NOT about who is having sex with whom. Members of the public including yourself made their own interpretations. Something might have a certain meaning but we choose our meanings based on our personal interpretations. Both the G10 and YWLI are woman's spaces and we do not and can not then say that this and that category of women is not to be listened to. We are very clear in our work as YWLI that we support sexual minorities, their rights and what they stand for even if we do not do the work directly.
2. Even though we used sex boycott as a strategy to get all households taking about why bad governance affects an individual's life in Kenya, we DIDN'T STATE that "sex is the only mechanism to influence men" as you state. I believe you got this all wrong. Please refer to our press statements. Later, you will be able to see what else is lined up in our plan of action.
3. Single women are / were very much a part of this boycott and what G10 is about. Of course not everyone was supportive of it but we know people who are celibate who were in support of the campaign. For them, this was not really about sex but the issues that we were calling attention to. One of my favourites is a group of teens who have been sending us messages saying that they are very disappointed with Kenyans who ask them to chill but do not see the point in doing so for just a week.
Rita, you may still not see the point but for me I will never tire of talking about things I believe in. As YWLI we believe in the right to healthy, mutually respecting and fulfilling personal relationships. We all have different relationships in life. If someone's sexual relationship is different from that of others around her/ him- that doesn't make that person less of a human being, have less rights and/or not included in political life.
The point
Rita, I note with concern your comments and I feel you got it wrong and out of context. The call was for sex boycot not for heterosexual sex boycot, the society and more so men are the ones who made it about men 'being denied sex' hence pointing to heterosexuality. It was to be a boycot from sex, fullstop hence who where and how one does or doesn't do this was to be defined by the indivinduals. on the other hand I think many lose the point on the sex and relevance to people's polical life hence I dont support that this was asumption that all relations have to be sexual for one to influence. There is no one strategy that will influence all persons, but there are strategies to influence more persons. The bigger picture should not be lost, the personal is political, and women were being criticised and still are not for the issue of sex, but for simply saying in very strong words that they are making decisions over their bodies, I don't see that being sexist, but rather daring where the angels fear to trend, briing the topic of sexuality into public arena. This is not the first time it is happening, as women suffer the brutal impact of violence where their bodies are used as battle ground, just that the society has been too shy to say this as it trully is; sex and power. I still feel there is no line between the personal and political since the political ( public) affects us to the private level.
Get the point
The issue of sex boycot has achieved one objective in my view, it has brought attention that it can not be business as usual and the women have got coverage in the media ( despite the bias anyway). Listening to the many views on the same with both women and men opposing this and a few supporting, one thing struck me, for men it was basically 'about men'; it was men being denied their rights etc. I asked one gentleman why he is talking about men being denied sex yet sex is essentially for two persons? Why did they think women will not be sacrificing? Why is it that women in this country have done many actions that only had them ( women) sacrifice like the time they sttripped naked but when it will touch on men then hands are up??The answers are not worth being written down but it was a time that we saw the power struggle and sex as weapon of power being evident. Unforuntately they fail to see how women's sexuality is abused when there is no peace. Many comments fail to get the point that peace and bad governance affects the most private lives of women of families and there is no need pretending otherwise.