The dictionary defines a sexist as one who is characterised by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Prince Mashele’s column on Lindiwe Sisulu in the Sowetan titled — “Sisulu uses the poor for her own selfish needs,” is a glaring example of the type of sexism reserved for women in media coverage. He opens his piece by referencing a dictionary definition of a prima donna as, “a very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance”.
His avowal that “dictionaries don’t lie”, is apparently, an authorisation of his own opinion on Sisulu as an unstable, self-important and deluded woman. He then goes on to deride her as one who is lacking in intelligence when he asserts that, “in her response to ANC veteran Mavuso Msimang, Sisulu presents herself as someone engaged in what she calls “intellectual debates — even though only she believes herself to be an intellectual”.
As if that is not more than enough sexist disparagement he takes it further in patronising and smarmy tonality when he continues to denigrate her intelligence by quoting yet another male authority on the matter of intellectualism.
He writes, “To be fair, Prof Tomas Sowell (in his book Intellectuals and Society) advises us not to exclude people like Sisulu. “But just as a bad cop is still a cop — no matter how much we may regret it — so a shallow, confused, or dishonest intellectual is just as much a member of that occupation as is a paragon of the profession.”
Mashele has deliberately overlooked, or rather rubbished, Sisulu’s scholarly record as a PhD candidate at Leeds University, or the fact that she is a former lecturer at Fort Hare and chancellor at MUT (Mangosuthu University of Technology) in KZN. And what of her history as a trained intelligence officer with a red star and MK soldier?
Instead he continues his phallocratic trajectory with this missive: “There are people who suggest that given what the dictionary says about prima donnas, and what Sowell says about shallow and dishonest intellectuals, acting chief justice Raymond Zondo should have never dignified Sisulu’s attack on the judiciary with a response.”
Surely an intellectual would be more likely to argue that Zondo’s lack of engagement in tourism minister Sisulu’s article “Hello Mzansi have we seen justice?” (in which she berates the judiciary and the constitution for not meeting the needs of SA’s African majority) is itself a form of anti-intellectualism.
This is felt in his dismissal of the progressive critique of neoliberalism in Sisulu’s piece and his apparent disavowal of the need for the judiciary to undergo a process of decolonisation. Instead Zondo gives Sisulu a furious ultimatum to apologise to the order of things or be thrown out the family. Mashele chooses to back up this conservative and paternalistic backlash.
It is no surprise then, that he quotes Sowell. Sowell is a conservative black academic who pushes laissez-faireism and blames poverty on laziness. That tells us a lot about Mashele’s positionality in the debate.
Political ideology aside, in his flagrant hierarchical display of intellectual snobbery, Mashele reveals a disposition that clearly derives a sense of importance from his own assured status and membership in the club of intellectual excellence as he pulls rank over Sisulu.
His aim is to diminish Sisulu’s work to irrelevance and he is careful not to mention any of her career successes — such as her leading of the ANC’s downgrade resolution on Israel, a victory for progressive South Africans and Palestinians alike.
His is a clear and conscious decision to revile Sisulu with a personal and demeaning attack on her character, using the well-worn masculine device of judging her as lacking in all the qualities required to enter a public debate.
Mashele’s words are both hostile and conscious. One could even argue that their aim is to manufacture public “unconscious bias” towards Sisulu.
Whether conscious or unconscious bias, his misogyny continues into the body of his political analysis in which he bandies about sexist stereotypes with alacrity when he references the many perceived digressions enacted by Sisulu’s role in the SA political script. She becomes the archetypal dynasty woman, using her family name to get ahead. (Was her brother ever accused of this in his political career?) She is the spoilt rich conniving princess, looking to make her father proud, presumably at any cost.
The general masculine backlash against Sisulu’s opinion piece leaves no doubt that she has been marked as the quintessential disobedient woman by many social commentators as well as the ruling party and its judiciary. And she is being dragged to a burning stake as a result. As history has shown, there is a particular frenzied social exhilaration about taking a disobedient woman down.
• Schutte is a feminist, social justice activist, scholar and filmmaker.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.