Hello, I’m Tawanda and I’m trash.



The only time we typically seem to be in agreement that “Men Are Trash” is when something physically violent or hurtful has been done to someone by a man. For instance, a man rapes someone, man beats up a woman, or a man is deceitful to his family, then we are all in agreement that men are trash…well, most of us anyway. But is this really the measure we should be standing ourselves up against? Is this really what we, as men, should be aiming for? To not rape, assault, deceive, or pillage?

I remember Munroe Bergdorf getting slaughtered by the media for saying all white people were racist. She explained her statement very clearly, however all the focus was purely on the phrase “all white people are racist”. Rather than listening to the explanation and arguing it logically, even the most accomplished white journalists found themselves reacting only to that phrase and not her clarification. “Are you saying I am racist?”, “Have I ever said anything racist?” they all screamed. But what Bergdorf basically meant, as she repeatedly explicated, was that white people benefit from racism and thus are racist. I totally get her argument. If you benefit from criminal activity, are you not a criminal? If you benefit from a system designed to benefit, prioritise and protect your race before anyone of any other race, are you not a racist?

This is exactly what happens with the statement “Men are Trash”. We focus so much on the semantics that we get defensive by pointing out how non-violent we are towards women. Where a white person would say to a black person “I did not call you the N-word hence I am not racist”, a man would say to a woman “I did not beat you up hence I am not trash”.

To use Ms Bergdorf’s argument as a starting point, if, as a man, you benefit from patriarchy, are you not trash? In my humble opinion, you are…I am. When women say “Men are Trash”, so many of us are quick to reel out our non-violent attributes à la “I don’t beat up my wife”, “I take care of my family”, “I respect my girlfriend”, etc…but what we should rather ask ourselves is “do I benefit from patriarchy?” “Do I benefit from certain privileges in my home, workplace, and/or daily life purely because I am a man?” “Do I call out patriarchy when I encounter it?” “Am I a genuine ally to women in their struggle to put an end to patriarchy?”

It is not enough to not physically abuse women. We must go beyond that, way beyond that. We must be visibly part of the fight to dismantle patriarchy at every turn. I mention the term “visibly”, because sometimes we as men do fight patriarchy but only behind closed doors. I remember someone tweeting that her husband used to treat her as an equal in everything until his boys were around. Then, she’d have to be a traditional wife and him the traditional alpha male. TRASH!

Come on gents; let’s dismantle patriarchy in ourselves and in our sons (and daughters) from the day they are born. Let’s help each other, let’s open up, share, and talk about it in our spaces. If we see patriarchy rear its ugly head, let’s call it out. And yes, I know some men (and women) will call you weak for it but you need to remember that that thought process too is a result of patriarchy. When women think emotionally expressive men, or men who aren’t alpha, macho, or violent, are weak, they do so because they are conditioned to think that way by patriarchy. We’ll discuss the effects patriarchy has on women’s thought processes another day. Until then, let’s kick patriarchy out of your spaces by any means necessary. Otherwise, we really are just trash.

Just scribbling my trashy thoughts.


Caster and the curious case of performance reducing drugs…seriously. :-|

13th IAAF World Athletics Championships Daegu 2011 - Day Nine

So, it appears our friends at The International Association of Athletes Federation (IAAF) are at it again. This morning they published a set of rule changes aimed at any athlete who has what they call “a difference of sexual development (DSD)”. In science speak, this is any female athlete with levels of circulating testosterone (in serum) that are five (5) nmol/L or above and who is androgen-sensitive.

The new law stipulates that female athletes must adhere to the following rules:

* must be recognised at law either as female or as intersex (or equivalent);

* must reduce her blood testosterone level to below five (5) nmol/L for a continuous period of at least six (6) months (e.g., by use of hormonal contraceptives); and

* must thereafter maintain her blood testosterone level below five (5) nmol/L continuously (i.e.: whether she is in competition or out of competition) for so long as she wishes to remain eligible.

Put simply, according to the IAAF, if Caster Semenya wants to continue competing in any events from 400m to the mile (including 400m, hurdles races, 800m, 1,500m, one-mile races and combined events over the same distances), she must take performance reducing drugs. Yes folks, performance reducing drugs. | WHISKEY, FOXTROT, TANGO???

Those of you who follow athletics know this has been a thing for a while now. The IAAF has been after Caster Semenya for years. I’ve listened to their arguments repeatedly and, to be honest, the more I understand it, the more I don’t. You see, the IAAF believes most females have low levels of testosterone circulating naturally in their bodies (something between 0.12 to 1.79 nmol/L in blood). However, they believe individuals with DSD can have very high levels of natural testosterone, extending into and even beyond the normal male range. Herein lays the problem.

Now, up to this point, I understand all of this (kinda), but here’s where I get a little lost: the way I see it, athletes like Caster Semenya were born the way they were born. They are who they are. Caster Semenya did not dope herself to become faster than the pack. She was born that way. Why then are we making her dope herself so the pack can catch up? If we are going to allow doping to be part of athletics, why not just allow the other athletes to dope up so they can catch up to her? Why is she being punished for being awesome?

And while we are at it, where do we stop? Usain Bolt was the king of sprint for years, thanks in part to his height. Was that an unfair advantage? Should we have slowed him down for the shorter athletes? Michael Phelps apparently had a larger lung capacity than the norm and a long ass wing span. Should we have removed one of his lungs? In fact, so many elite athletes have some anatomical advantage over their competitors. Where do we draw the line?

Now, just to be clear, I’m not saying Caster Semenya and other female athletes with supposedly higher testosterone levels do not have an advantage. Maybe they do. My question is simply this: if indeed it is an advantage, is it not a god-given advantage? Isn’t she just blessed? Or Talented? Or Gifted? Or whatever other superlative we tend to use for exceptional athletes?

Just scribbling my testoste-thoughts.

Draw up a relationship will…in case your relationship dies.


My ex used to have this habit that annoyed me at the time but, in hindsight, I kind of understand where she was coming from. Basically, whenever we were on holiday, we would take a photo together right? Then she would ask me to take a photo of her on her own i.e. same photo we just took but without me in it. Why? “In case we split up” she would reply rather candidly.

I remember tweeting this some time back and a lot of people thought it was weird and quite pessimistic. Like I said, it annoyed me too but now I get it. I mean, I have so many awesome photos of various holidays we took together but I can’t post them anywhere because my ex is in so many of them. She on the other hand has lots of photos without me in them. She can gladly post them wherever she wants without having to answer to her new partner(s). You see, she wasn’t willing the breakup, she was just preparing for it…in case it happened…which it did.

We always prepare ourselves for possible negative outcomes in our lives. We have car insurance in case of an accident or theft of our vehicles, home insurance in case of break in’s, immunisations in case of illness, wills in case of death…why then do we not prepare for breakups? I mean, if you understand the importance of preparing a will in case of your death, why not also prepare a will for your relationship? Yes, a will in case your relationship dies.

Have you ever been to a divorce court? I have. I’ve been thrice actually, as a mere spectator I should add. It’s not a pretty sight at times. If you ever have some time to spare, go to your nearest divorce court and spectate. You will not believe some of those couples ever loved each other. And yet, I’m sure if you go back a few years in their lives, you’ll find they were madly in love; the “I can’t live without you…here take my kidney” type of love. And now it’s all court orders, visitation rights, and alimony.


I genuinely think a ‘relationship will’ is a great idea especially whilst you are still in love and have each other’s best interests at heart. Decide now how you will handle the children, the property, the finances, etc should you ever divorce/break up. Decide how you will discuss any issues regarding the welfare of the children. Discuss how you will handle the presence of your new partners especially in respect of your children, assets, communication, etc. Once you are happy with everything, sit down with your lawyers and iron out all the nitty gritties till you and your partner are happy.

It may all seem awkward now but best believe it’s a million times easier now than when you despise each other and are going through a nasty breakup/divorce. And no, preparing for a possible breakup does not mean you are willing the breakup to happen…just like having car insurance does not mean you are willing your car to be stolen and/or damaged. You’re just preparing….just in case.

**** Just scribbling my thoughts…just in case ****

Just be happy you’re here…immigrant!

download (1)

I’ve been an immigrant for over half my life now. South Africa is the 3rd country I have settled in since I left Zimbabwe at age 17. It’s always nice to move to a new country. New life, new people, new cultures, new languages…I mean, what’s not to like? Oh yes, the xenophobia. There’s usually always a bit of xenophobia to greet an immigrant wherever you emigrate to. That part of the experience is never nice.

Anyway, what I wanted to scribble about today is something I’m sure many immigrants have faced before. The “if you don’t like it, leave!” narrative. There is this notion that when you are an immigrant to a country, you don’t really have the right to complain about any shortcomings or negativity that country may have; that the country is doing you a favour by taking you in so you really should just “be a good immigrant and be happy you’re here.”

I remember once being attacked on Twitter because I was complaining about some government department in South Africa. Someone said to me “if you don’t like it why don’t you go back home?” That tweet gave more Tweeps the impetus to have a bit of a discussion on the matter. There were tweets like:

“I hate how foreigners come here and aren’t grateful for our hospitality”;

“Why do foreigners always complain? They are not prisoners here. They can just leave”;

“You allow people to come here and they start acting all fly”.

Now, this got me thinking…I live in South Africa. I may not be a citizen, but I am a resident. Do I not have a right to be unhappy about certain aspects of the country? And if I am unhappy, do I not have the right to complain?

And please note, this is not a South African phenomenon. From the United States, to the United Kingdom, to Australia. Ask immigrants in any country worldwide and they will tell you a similar story. It’s bizarre really. Why do locals feel the need to curtail the rights of foreigners to vocalize their grievances?

Anyway following my dressing down on Twitter, I was telling the Mrs. all about it. For context, she’s South African. I rant to her about how I think it’s so unfair and borderline prejudicial to be expected to live (or die, rather) in silence just because I am an immigrant who should be grateful to be living in SA. Guess what? She agreed…with the Twitter folk! WHAAAAT? She wasn’t as crass about it but she agreed with them nonetheless. Her exact words were “You can complain…just not like us”


It’s always a tricky subject. I guess immigrants can’t be choosers…or was that beggars? What do you think? Do you think immigrants should just be content with what they get from the host country and if they don’t like it, they should just leave? Or do you think immigrants should be allowed to complain if they are not happy?


**** just scribbling my immigrant thoughts ****

Co-parents are not single parents.

I had an interesting conversation (read: argument) the other day with a friend about her use of the term “single mum”. Single parents are not a new phenomenon but they are on the increase globally. I saw a statistic the other day that said “15% of children around the world live in single parent households”. Here in South Africa (SA), only about 30% of children live with both their parents. Of the over 1.1 million births registered by the SA government in 2014, 64% of said registrations had no information regarding the fathers.

There are numerous reasons why single parent households are on the increase but that’s a conversation for another time. Today I just want to scribble about the term “single mother”. I can’t help but think some mothers are misappropriating (for lack of a better word) the term. Now, I agree you don’t live with the father of your child, but is that enough to be categorised as a “single mother?” What if the child’s father is present and active in the child’s life? Are you still a single mother then? My sister and cousin are fitting examples of this:

My sister is a single mother. She takes care of her daughter’s every need. We last saw my niece’s father about 8 years ago. He doesn’t contribute anything to his daughter’s wellbeing. He doesn’t call her, doesn’t send Christmas cards, hell, he doesn’t even know what school she goes to. In fact, he’s pretty much dead to us…till he decides to pop up out of nowhere when his daughter’s all grown up and employed…the absent father’s ultimate party trick.

On the other hand, my cousin’s baby daddy is present in their son’s life. He pays the boy’s school fees, buys him clothes, takes him on holiday with his other kids, and takes him on alternating weekends. He attends most of the boy’s school events and has been there for all his birthdays to date. The only difference between their setup and a “traditional household” is they do not live together. They are married to and live with other people. So can my cousin call herself a single mother? Personally, I don’t think so. Co-parent? Yes! Single mother? No!

And yet, so many women in my cousin’s situation still throw around the term “single mother”. Question is: is that fair to an active father? I play my part in the welfare of our child and you, his mother, continue to label yourself a single mother? Seems a tad unfair don’t you think? More than taking away from an active father, I think it takes away from actual single mothers because, God knows, “real” single mothers have their work cut out for them. It’s even worse when they don’t have a supportive family or adequate finances to get help.

Ultimately, whether you’re a single parent, co-parent, or parent in a “traditional household”, you hold a precious life/lives in your hands as parents. So do everything you possibly can (and more) to ensure your child becomes everything they can be. And remember, unless one parent has died, there really shouldn’t be any single parents out there. If you played your part in creating a life, play your part in raising that life.

**** Just scribbling my parental thoughts ****

Ps: Shout out to the single fathers out there. Rare as they may be, they are there; single handedly raising their kids. We see you too.


Maria Sharap-It’s Over!

Maria Sharapova News Conference

LOS ANGELES, CA – MARCH 07: Maria Sharapova reacts as she addresses the media regarding a failed drug test (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)


Can I just start by saying I did not come up with the “Sharap It’s Over” pun. I remember seeing it somewhere on Twitter. I just don’t remember where it was now, but I found it absolutely hilarious.


So yes, Maria Sharapova is a drugs cheat. Who would have guessed? The darling of tennis. She may have been beat more times by Serena Williams than a teenage boy beats his meat, but she indeed was still the face of tennis. That’s why when you take into account her endorsements, she makes a tonne more money than Serena does. But yes, this was a shock to everybody. On March 7th, Sharapova tweeted the following:

Sharapova tweet

As you can expect, the rumour mill went into overdrive. There were three main rumours circulating:

  1. Maria was retiring;
  2. She was injured; and
  3. She was pregnant


That was it. Every news channel or sports programme you watched, that was it. At no point did anyone say, “Hey, maybe she failed a drug test?” ‘cause it’s Maria Sharapova right? She would never cheat…right? Right? WRONG! She would…and she did.


So here’s my question to you: How does one of the most famous athletes on the planet and highest paid sportswoman on earth fail a drugs test and the news doesn’t leak? In this day and age where media get their hands on even classified government documents before presidents do, how did they not get wind of this? How was she afforded the chance to send a buzz-generating tweet to build hype around her announcement and still NOTHING but some speculation from the media? I’ll tell you how…white privilege, that’s how.


Do you genuinely think if Serena Williams failed a drugs test she would be allowed this much space and sympathy? Do you think she would be allowed this much courtesy by the same media that’s always body shaming her? I mean, the UK’s Daily Mail once wrote of Serena “…she’s physically powerful and has a ferocious temper…but cannot compete with Maria Sharapova’s blonde Siberian beauty”. David Frum, senior editor of the Atlantic and former adviser to George W, once sent out a tweet implying Serena uses steroids. Hadley Freeman once remarked that “Serena has long been compared to animals, from gorillas to generic beasts, with one sportscaster suggesting in 2001 that she looked more suited to National Geographic than Playboy”. Remember Shamil Tarpischev, the then Russian tennis boss? She referred to the Williams Sisters and “Williams Brothers” adding that they are frightening to look at?


There are loads of examples where some of the news articles about Serena are almost tinged with revulsion. Imagine that. And this isn’t just anyone we’re talking about here. This is probably the greatest female tennis player of all time. And yet, here is Maria Sharapova with her failed drugs test and we are flooded with news headlines like USA Today’s “Maria Sharapova handles positive drug test with grace”, or Miami Herald’s “Credit to Maria for her honesty”. I’m hearing words in the media like “upstanding”, “upfront”, “integrity”. Really? Hell, even Serena herself praised Maria for her “courage”.


But that’s white privilege for you. So ubiquitous yet so subtle. If you blink, you just might miss it…like Maria missed that email. 😉


**** Just scribbling my thoughts ****


American woman steals candy from a blind baby


In case you decided to read this post purely to find out why the hell an American woman stole candy from a blind baby, sorry to disappoint you. This post actually has nothing to do with that. But, if said woman had indeed stole candy from a blind baby…or any baby for that matter… would her nationality be relevant to the story? That’s what this post is about – the relevance or lack thereof of mentioning nationalities in news headlines. Check out these actual headlines from various papers here in South Africa:


Nigerian drug dealers released on bail

Zimbabwean in court for fraud


These are real headlines from real newspaper articles. I mention only South Africa articles simply because I live here but this is common practice worldwide. Every time I see a report like this, be it in print media, digital media, or on TV, it makes me cringe. Why is it necessary to mention people’s nationalities in such reports? What does the perpetrator being Zimbabwean have to do with the fraudulent act he committed? Am I the only one who finds this kind of reporting to be more harmful than it is helpful? And the thing is, it’s never the nationalities of locals that’s mentioned, it’s always the nationality of foreigners…as if to say “hey, look what they’re coming to our country to do.”


I’ve had this discussion with some friends in the past and their argument is usually that the report is mentioning nationality simply for descriptive purposes. But if you are mentioning the nationality as a mere description, why stop there? Why not mention religion, qualifications, height, or even sexual orientation? Why don’t the above headlines read:

“Tall, dark, Nigerian Muslim drug dealers released on bail” or “Short, gay Zimbabwean Christian in court for fraud”


Tall and gay are descriptive right? But they are never mentioned. Why? Because they are irrelevant to the story. I’m not saying let’s not mention nationality in news reports. I’m saying let’s stick to information that is relevant. If the article is talking about immigration, then nationality is very relevant. If the article is talking about athletes at the Olympic Games who have been busted for using performance enhancing drugs, then nationality is very relevant.


Maybe journalists have a good reason why they are so eager to mention nationalities of foreigners in their stories. Is it something that’s taught in journalism school? Is there some sort of journalistic or scientific reason for doing it? Do tell because, from where I’m sat, it just looks like subtle fodder for the xenophobic inclined folks among us.


**** Just scribbling my Zimbabwean thoughts ****

South Africa’s slow death…on our watch.


I wasn’t there during apartheid but I feel like it was an easier fight than that faced by South Africans today. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying apartheid was “easy”, I’m just trying to highlight how today’s struggle seems easier yet it’s actually the harder because so many don’t even know there is a struggle.


When South Africa was under the wicked rule of apartheid, everyone knew apartheid was evil, immoral, and depraved. There was no middle ground and nothing subtle about its wickedness. It was gruesome, demeaning, and fatal for black people. As a result, every black person knew were they stood; every black person knew they had to fight the system. The frog knew it had to jump out the pan. This is not so obvious today. The frog is slowly burning to death in the pan.


For instance, last night protesting black students at the University of the Free State (the same university where white students made black workers drink urine) were beaten up by fellow white students (and their parents) and not one word has been uttered on the matter by the government, a black government for that matter. What’s worse is you have some black people apologising to white people for “other blacks’ behavior”. Furthermore, you have more black people who are blaming the protesting black students for not “promoting a racially inclusive South Africa”….are you fucking kidding me?


Black students are fighting for equality…like blacks have done since forever. Unlike white people who fight for superiority, all black people have ever wanted is equality. These students are fighting against abuse, white privilege, a curriculum and language policy that is skewed in favour of a white minority, and for that they are accused (by other black people too) of essentially promoting racism? This is exactly what I mean by “apartheid was the easier struggle”.


For me it’s like depression versus a broken arm. If you break your arm, everyone says you need to get to the hospital ASAP. It’s not life threatening but everyone is in agreement that it needs urgent attention by medical professionals. However, if you are depressed, people miss the urgency. You have people telling you to “cheer up”, some telling you to “just pray”, and some even telling you “it’s all in your mind”…and no, that wasn’t a pun. But we are talking about the human brain here. The command center of your whole anatomy. If it has problems, surely that calls for urgent attention right? Just because you cannot physically see that my brain is broken, doesn’t mean it’s not.


And this is the problem South Africa is faced with now. Unlike back when all black people could clearly see the ‘broken arm’ that was apartheid, so many cannot see the ‘depression’ that is white privilege; brutality of the police particularly towards black bodies; the need for decolonization; the historical advantages white people garnered during apartheid and continue to hold today;….the list is endless really.


And you know what the saddest part is? You may not be able to see it, but depression will kill you.


**** Just scribbling my thoughts ****

Is there Unity in our languages?

I was born and raised in Bulawayo and I get exactly was both writers are talking about. I was always struck by how one didn’t need to speak Shona in Bulawayo (a predominantly Ndebele speaking City) while you could not survive in Harare if you didn’t speak Shona.

My dear mother is a perfect example of this. She is Shona and moved to Bulawayo in 1982. To this day, she can barely string together a sentence in Ndebele. Her best friend of the last 13 years is Ndebele. She (her best friend) can speak Shona but mum makes absolutely no effort to learn Ndebele. And this type scenario is very common i.e. you can get about in Bulawayo with only Shona as your spoken language while in Harare speaking Shona is almost a prerequisite to anything.

It’s all a damn shame really. I have a Ndebele friends who despise Shona people for just that. I agree, as one of the writers notes, learning each other’s languages is crucial to national unity. In South Africa, white South Africans, on the whole, make no effort to learn “African languages” and that in itself is proving to be a barrier to national Unity.

If I ruled the world, I might make one new universal language for everyone and eliminate all the rest…just so no one would think their language was more superior to others. But I don’t rule the world, never will, and so we shall remain with multiple languages…which in itself is a beautiful thing. We just need to make an effort to learn each others’ languages, especially if your place of residence has a language that differs from your own. As von Goethe once said, “He who does not know foreign languages does not know anything about his own”.

**** just scribbling my thoughts ****

Mwana Wevhu

Dating back from 1987, Zimbabwe’s Unity Day celebrates the coming together of the country’s two political parties (Zanu PF and PF Zapu) into a mega political force. Almost 30 years on and 22 December is now a public holiday with all the rituals and fanfare synonymous with Zimbabwean national events -cue obligatory national holiday theme song:

Unity Day is a political occasion.  However, this is not a political post.  Rather, it’s about another aspect that’s not often publicised but is nevertheless crucial to discourse on Zimbabwean current affairs. The Shona/Ndebele language struggle is one that many Zimbabweans face and have to deal with.  Shona is the language of power in the country’s landscape.  It’s possible to go your whole life without learning Ndebele – to be honest, there isn’t a drive or push that encourages people to learn the language.  However, the reality for those not born into the Shona language group…

View original post 1,210 more words

Penny (Sparrow) for your thoughts?


In case you’re not from around these parts (or you are and you just don’t care about current affairs), there’s been a bit of a racism storm in South Africa the past couple of days. It all began (I use the term ‘began’ very loosely) with a white estate agent named Penny Sparrow and her Facebook account. She and one Justin Van Vuuren authored the above pictured Facebook posts during the festive season. Just to make it clear, Penny and Justine don’t know each other. They’ve never met. They just happen to be two white people upset at the number of black people at the beach for the New Year’s Day celebrations; something they feel, like the good old apartheid days, should still be reserved for white people only I guess.


Penny and Justin are the two that have made it to mainstream news but they are in fact just the tip (of the tip…of the tip) of a massive racist iceberg here in South Africa. Rants like this are a dime a dozen on the comments section of South African news sites, Facebook, Twitter, etc. The major news outlets have resorted to disabling the comments sections on their articles because of the amount of racist commenting that consistently takes place there. No points for guessing the worst culprits…yep, white people.


It seems white people really struggle to comment on, complain about, or simply discuss anything that involves black people without making it about race. If a black person does anything negative…it’s because they are black but if a black person does something positive, it’s never because they are black. It appears to be deeply indoctrinated in many a white people that “black skin = negative”. The worst thing about all this is white people aren’t just racist out here…they are angry unrepentant racists and that refusal to reform and contribute to building a non-racial South Africa is now being met with an increasing level of frustration from Black South Africans….Collision Course anyone?


The thing is I believe Penny and Justin-type racist rhetoric is commonplace in a lot of white South African households; at dinner, at braais (BBQs), offices, etc. And frankly, that’s their prerogative. My main problem (well the racism is my main problem but I can’t change what happens in their households) is the way people like Penny are so comfortable spewing such racial hatred in public. I mean, Penny had her name, name of her employer, phone numbers, etc. right there and she still had no issues with posting such racist garbage. That surely can’t be acceptable. Maybe there should be laws in place to criminalise such behaviour and rhetoric. If that’s what it will take to reduce said behaviour, then maybe that’s what should be done?


Someone once told me “the only way we’ll ever get rid of racism is if we are all turned inside out. That way we all fall under the racial classification of ‘fleshy red’.” As absurd as that sounded in my younger days (days when I truly believed we could all one day live harmoniously across racial lines), it’s something I think about more and more these days. “Maybe Mike was right” I think to myself, “Maybe we’ll never get rid of racism.”


Ps: Just in case you agree with Penny and Justine in thinking going to the beach in large numbers and leaving litter behind is a racial thing, below is an image of white monkeys….ooops, I mean white people….at the lovely Brighton Beach up in England. (courtesy of @MathewLove36)


*** just scribbling my monkey thoughts ****