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?