Infidelity by another name is VIOLENCE!

Infidelity and all its appendices has become common fodder for many radio call-in shows, gossip columns, gutter press and juicy gossip among family, friends and acquaintances. Discussions often manifest tacit social acceptance and tolerance for men’s infidelity. Having ‘mpango wa kando, clande, gachungwa’ as we have popularly christened marital infidelity has seemingly become the in-thing. If it is not about glorification of extra marital relationships as men’s entitlement (infamous myth that ‘men are polygamous in nature’ and perception that fidelity is an impossible feat for men) it is about a plethora of excuses and justification for men’s infidelity. The real cruelty behind infidelity or the devastating consequences of infidelity rarely features...off course unless the man is on the receiving end.

 

While pondering over the social acceptance of infidelity, i was struck by the stark similarities with violence against women in intimate relationships.

 

Infidelity hurts just as violence does, if not more, and it sometimes is a form of psychological and emotional violence. Women who stay with perpetually unfaithful partners often exhibit similar psychological and social characteristics as women in abusive relationships, including deep sense of personal hurt, humiliation, rage, betrayal, low self esteem and a sense of worthlessness, dependency on the perpetrator and a longing for their approval and warped sense of reality. Infidelity, just as violence against women, also results in negative psycho-social and health consequences, including depression, panic/anxiety attacks and post traumatic stress symptoms/reactions such as obsessive pondering over details of the affair/s, continuously watching out for further signs of betrayal and flashbacks.

 

Infidelity in ongoing relationships often mimic the cycle of violence against women, with a typical cycle including tension building up phase, pain (explosion/violence phase), brief period of remorse and guilt and then the reconciliation (honeymoon phase). Philandering men are almost always oblivious and insensitive about the pain they inflict on their partners, just as men who perpetrate physical and psychological violence. They are the epitome of lies, deception and denial. They rarely accept responsibility for their unfaithfulness – they adopt the mantra it wasn’t me’, ‘blame the devil’ or play the victim by accusing the partner of pushing them into having an affair/s. When busted, they may act guilty and remorseful but they often continue with the infidelity as soon as the partner is back in the ‘box’. Women victims of infidelity just as women victims of intimate partner violence often try to make sense out of nonsense - they may try to rationalise their partners cheating/abusive behaviour, sympathise with him, engage in self blame for their partner’s behaviour or go out of their way to appease and please him hoping to win his approval. Subsequently, the cycle continues.  

 

Changing behaviour patterns in both infidelity and intimate partner violence against women contexts does not just happen – it calls for deliberate and decisive action. Sitting back and pretending that all is or will be well with time, staying together for the sake of the children or to maintain the illusion of a loving couple/role model family/’complete’ family, blaming the third party and others for your predicament or co-perpetrating infidelity and violence to get even and hit back will do nothing to change unfaithful behaviour. Taking personal responsibility and control of one’s life and destiny would be a good starting point. The unfaithful partner must take responsibility for his behaviour and subsequent negative consequences, genuinely commit to change and make deliberate efforts to make and sustain the change. Women in such contexts must draw a red line and chose between resigning themselves to perpetual pain and suffering or harnessing their inner strength to reclaim their lives and happiness with or without the man. If the woman choses to remain in the relationship, then it is critical that she is clear about the shit that she can or cannot take. If the scenerio involves a child born out of wedlock, the woman needs to be alive to the reality that the man may never completely severe contact with the other woman. For the woman who decides to go her separate way...."you are better alone than sick with someone else"....your children are better off without exposure to negative energy in the relationship.

The reverse also applies.   

Quantity Vs Quality is not the Issue

Reading through today’s Daily Nation newspaper, I came across an opinion article by Dr Joyce Nyairo on Women’s Representatives in relation to the Marriage Bill debate in the National Assembly last week. It was thought provoking but also irked me a bit...

Dr Nyairo was seemingly disappointed and frustrated with the lacklustre performance of women MPs present during the debate. Fair enough. I was equally disappointed in the seeming ‘lack of content’ in their submissions as well as display of seeming lack of strategy. It was similarly disappointing that nearly all the ‘seasoned’ women MPs were pitching camp in New York for the 58^th session of the United Nation Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). Given the emerging gender dimensions since publication of the Bill, the women MPs surely needed to have been more strategic.

We parted ways at the point the article seemed positioned to argue on the value addition of women representation in parliament, particularly where the same is achieved through affirmative action. The first argument was that quantity does not always translate into quality. Absolutely true! However it is also true that this is not unique to women. The quality of submissions by the majority men MPs bear me out. Which begs the question…why is it that the debate on quantity versus quality always comes up in relation to women’s representation? Why is that we are wont to be rather quick to criticize women leaders for their supposed inadequacies yet don’t use similar parameters in relation to men leaders? Why the double standards?

Having more women in Parliament may not be directly proportional to better representation on women’s issues but the numbers do make a positive difference, no matter how small the difference may seem. The cited great contributions by great women MPs of yore such as Phoebe Asiyo, Eddah Gachukia, and Grace Onyango cannot be gainsaid. That notwithstanding, the small numbers of women MPs then could not have possibly been a strength to their causes. They may as well serve as classic examples of the difference it would make if we had many such women in Parliament.

The current crop of women MPs may be a very pale shadow of the likes of Phoebe Asiyo, Eddah Gachukia, Grace Onyango, Rose Waruhiu, Dr. Julia Ojiambo, Martha Karua, Njoki Ndungu. That notwithstanding it is insulting and demeaning to insinuate that current women MPs are subsequently not ‘self respecting women of substance and superior acumen’ or that they lack ‘good brains, focused attention and a public service mentality’. It is also in bad taste to speculate that their attendance of CSW may have been part of a strategy towards serving ‘dubious causes’.  

I also cannot fully reconcile myself with the generalized assertion that affirmative action embodied in the Women’s Representatives function ‘has become a site of tokenism’ that ‘breeds mediocrity and entitlement in equal measure’. There are countless positive results out of the agency of some women beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, just as there are countless ‘zero’ results from some other female as well as male beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. It would be unfair to use the latter group to rubbish all affirmative action.     

Why do women stay in abusive relationships?

I visited a sick friend admitted in a hospital in Nairobi sometimes back. Her ‘neighbour’ was apparently a victim of physical violence by her husband – she had a broken leg and we gathered that one of her ears was not functioning properly following the violence. My friend could not understand why the woman was feigning reasons for her broken leg or why she did not want her parents to know about it, or why she would not press criminal charges. Worse still, the husband came to see her and they were all lovey dovey over each other and reciting their commitment to each other. My friend said she felt like drawing the curtain and asking the woman to wake up and smell the coffee. My response....not surprising at all....it’s all too common. Many women in abusive relationships dont and/or may never smell the coffee.....

Of the many frameworks that have been developed to understand violence against women in intimate relationships, one that is permanently etched in my mind is the “Cycle of Violence” because it fits almost perfectly with the lived/living experiences of many women across different contexts.   In this regard, abusive relationships have been found to follow a specific three stage cyclic pattern comprised of tension building phase, Explosion phase and Honeymoon phase.

Tension building phase is characterized by  increased tension and stress in the relationship which may be triggered by day to day life challenges - poor communication, financial worries, job related problems, children etc. This phase is seemingly all about denial and rationalization. The man exhibits negative behaviour, ranging from finding fault with seemingly minor issues, extreme criticism, unwarranted demands, obsessive jealousy, controlling movement and interactions with others, to other forms of verbal and psychological abuse, and blames everything and everybody else other than himself. The woman adopts coping mechanisms – she faults herself and makes effort to appease the man e.g. by complying with his demands, avoiding to ‘annoy him’....but ultimately, the tension at some point boils over...can result to stress related illnesses such as headaches/migraines that won’t go away even with medication, depression etc    

Explosion phase is the all familiar phase – the accumulated tension and stress ‘explodes’ into the ‘real/actual’ violence. The violence is not necessarily physical; it can take the form of extreme psychological/emotional abuse such as name calling/insults, repeated and constant belittling, criticizing, berating, humiliating and blaming, isolating from friends and family, excessive monitoring, restricting or denying access to and control over money and other resources, perceptions of entitlement, jealous actions and possessiveness, emotional manipulation to get his way and other controlling behaviours. During explosion phase, the man may try to justify his actions, blame the woman for his actions, minimize the violence, or become unpredictable and difficult to reason with. The woman may passively accept the abuse or minimize it to herself or others – she may blame herself, feel guilty for ‘letting things get out of hand’, find ways to keep it private, feel trapped or may look for help.  

The honey moon stage is just that – honeymoon! The man will do just about anything to placate the woman to avoid any negative consequences and to achieve reconciliation. He will be calm, loving, and profusely apologetic for his misbehaviour, offer gifts with promises to change and that 'it will never happen again' and act genuinely sorry in order to draw the woman back into the relationship. The woman may initially consider and plan to leave the relationship or even leave the relationship, but may feel guilty about possibly 'breaking' the relationship. She may feel overwhelmed by thoughts of ‘time wasted and starting life afresh’, and ‘life without him’ and subsequently may minimize the violence. The woman is often hopeful that he will change, that there is still a chance to ‘save’ and protect the relationship from imminent failure and is desperate to get back ‘the man that she fell in love with’. She therefore easily falls for the hook, line and sinker and forgives the man. As soon as the woman is in the ‘box’, the honeymoon is over and the cycle begins ....again.

The tragedy is that as the cycle repeats itself again and again, the tension building and honeymoon phases get shorter and the explosion phase gets longer and more intense over time. Unfortunately, the emotional reconnection and renewed sense of hope at honeymoon stage serves as the epitome of women’s victimization par excellence! Women are trapped in abusive relationships because of the constant return to honeymoon stage.

Sounds familiar?

Systemic injustice of yore alive and kicking....

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Memories from the past...

I was going through my archives and i came across a presentation for the launch of a Sexual Identity and Human Rights Debates Project by KEFEADO in 2009....am quite impressed with myself.....

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 When I first got the request from KEFEADO to give a panel presentation on my perspectives on the issue of sexual identity and human rights, I enthusiastically thought, why not and excitedly said yes and confirmed my participation. But later when I reflected back on the kind of reactions that the subject evokes, I got a bit apprehensive and started wondering, what I would say and whether what I said would be the politically correct thing to say. It is not so often that one willingly places themselves in positions that could be perceived to go against the common grain or to support unpopular positions on controversial themes in the public court. Upon this reflection, I realised that I no longer exhibited my earlier confidence to share my views on sexual identity, and let alone in a public debate. I am sure that many of you would face the same dilemma in our circumstances.

Nonetheless, it is during such situations of dilemma that one has the opportunity to deeply interrogate their values, beliefs and guiding principles.

As I went through my thoughts on the issue of sexual identity, I remembered a previous public debate event on abortion that ended up in disarray due to an almost physical confrontation between pro choice and pro-life activists. This and many other incidences bring to the fore the high levels of intolerance for divergent views that permeates all sectors of our society. We are so intolerant to divergent views that our guiding mantra in both sexual and non sexual issues seem to be that anyone that is contrary to our views is an enemy or needs to be forced to ascribe to our view.  

Is sexual identity a human rights issue?

I subscribe to the affirmative view that sexual identity has everything to do with human rights.

To clearly discern the question whether sexual identity is a human rights issue, it is important to put into context what is meant by ‘human rights’ and sexual identity.

Human rights are entitlements that all human beings have by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. Basic rights and freedoms belong to people; unfortunately rights are not always respected. 

Sexual identity refers to a person’s perception of their sexuality and is closely related to sexual orientation, which refers to a person’s expression of sexuality based on individual preferences. Hence, sexual identity and orientation is a matter of personal choice and preference and in which regards people define and express themselves as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual etc.

In the context of human rights, sexual identity and orientation falls under the category of sexual rights. Sexual rights include right to live ones sexuality without fear, shame, false belief and other impediments, right to choose sexual partners without discrimination, right to be free and autonomous to express sexual identity and orientation, right to express sexuality independent of reproduction, right to information and means to make decisions, amongst many other rights.

In sexual rights discourse, sexual identity and sexual orientation is one of the most controversial themes. On the one hand we have respect for diversity and individual choice at the core of what is meant by sexual rights and on the other hand there are also certain moral codes and values in all societies on what is right or wrong, what is permissible or not permissible. On matters of sexuality, it is not always the case that the individuals’ choice conforms to the admissible societal constructs of the same. People who have chosen a sexual orientation different from the perceived ‘right’ orientation go through untold suffering ranging from negative labelling, stigmatisation, murder, sexual violations, jail terms etc. However, I believe that while societies have the responsibility to determine and establish their values and morals, these should not be codified as to impose sanctions that are not universal to all human beings or specific beliefs that serve to deny fundamental individual rights and freedoms.

As a person truly committed to human rights principles, I associate myself with human rights protection and promotion. In which case, I recognise and acknowledge that every person has the right to determine and express his or her sexuality free of discrimination for as long as there is consent on the part of everyone involved. In this sense, any restrictions on the individuals’ choices on their sexuality amount to discrimination based on sexual orientation and a denial of their human right of choice on their sexuality.

However, despite being a proponent of the human rights approach, I like many others sometimes experience bouts of internal battles of conflicting opinions on matters to do with sexuality and sexual rights. This is because of the dilemma brought about by other equally central identities including religious, cultural, and gender identities that are deeply ingrained in us through socialisation processes. It is a challenge being objective on sexual identity in an environment where sexual diversity is viewed with so much hostility and discussions on sex are still viewed as taboo.

Whenever I entertain the thought that heterosexual orientation is the only normal and acceptable sexual orientation, I come around by questioning what right and high moral ground I have to deny the experiences and choices of others just because they are different from mine. I usually think, what if I was in their shoes, how would I want others to treat me? 

Sexual identity as a social construct

Many theories have been advanced to explain the concept of sexual identity.

In my view, sexual identity is fundamentally a social construct. This is on the basis that not all people that have had specific sexual attractions or behaviour actually adopt those behaviours. Our sexual behaviour and how we define ourselves is a social construct of personal values, experiences and expectations, which not only implies the element of choice but of learned sexual behaviour. The practice of homosexual behaviours particularly in secondary schools is one case in point that indeed sexual behaviour has an element of learned behaviour.

Social attitudes are important in affecting the development of a person’s identity; the expectations of our parents and the society are powerful influences on how we construct our identities including sexual identity. The ideals of how women and men, males and females should behave and relate to each other are taught and reinforced through a socialisation process by men and women, peers, media, community and other social institutions. This is however not a guarantee for conformity to the laid down ideals.

In many societal settings, social cultural and religious norms dominate discussions on sexuality, particularly relating to ‘correct’ sexual behaviour and relations. Sexual identity is created and transformed by social, cultural, religious norms and values. For instance, heterosexuality is considered and reinforced as the normal, right sexual orientation, but also only sanctioned in certain settings. Any deviation from this is reinforced as abnormal and consequently other sexual identities are still characterised in stereotypical ways characterised by negative labelling, condemnation, abuse, violation, discrimination and violence.

The construction of sexual identity is at its most dynamic period at adolescence, and is characterised by sexual identity confusion and uncertainty on sexual identity. This is the stage of sexual consciousness among young people, characterised by immense curiosity, exploration, questioning of values, need to affirm personality as well as psychological transformations.

There has been contention that introducing discussions on sexuality to young people amount to encouraging them to adopt certain sexual behaviour. However this amounts to sinking our heads in the sand as it already evident that homosexual behaviour is widespread in schools hence sinking our heads in the sand and behaving as if it doesn’t exist will not address anything.

There is need for creation of platforms to help young people be aware of diversity in sexual identities and to provide them with accurate information on the same. There is contention that some may have not yet reached the stage where they have developed full consciousness of their sexual identity, however open discussions about their sexuality and information is better placed to guard against the risk of creating confusion in their development of a sexual identity.

There is need to develop ways of discussing sexuality in a safe, none threatening manner. Given that we still have weak institutional frameworks and environment for delivering rights, there is need to frame rights language and develop ways of discussing sexuality in a safe and none threatening manner. 

Respect for diversity is fundamental to guaranteeing enjoyment of rights by all irrespective of their identities. Promoting spaces for discussion and understanding about sexual diversity is key to building a tolerant society to diversity. I applaud KEFEADO for opening the spaces for dialogue on sexual identity, as it is only through such interactions that we can debunk the myths about sexual identity and approach such issues within the broad parameters of respect for diversity..

 “Human beings by changing their inner attitudes of their minds can change the outer aspects of their lives”

Thankyou.

 

Caroline Nyambura