I meant to write this blog two weeks ago, but between life, work and feeling sorry for myself at the loss of The Weekender (which no longer even has a web presence, so I can’t link to the archive, so read Peter Bruce’s last piece on it), it has taken me this long to get down to it.
It has been three weeks since The Weekender appeared on a Saturday. I had looked forward to this paper every weekend. I am a great fan of weeklies, even though I know I should be more thorough in my reading of the dailies. The truth is that I scan a few dailies, depending on which ones are available in the province I find myself in on any given day. Most of the time I am in Gauteng, so no prize for guessing which rags I read more regularly than most.
Each weekend, I pour over my newspapers and read the most interesting bits. I read only the odd item in the Sports and Business sections, and I flip through the magazine supplements where these exist, although I used to read City Pulse cover to cover when Gail Smith was at its helm.
But back to The Weekender, then. This paper had become my firm favourite in its coverage of politics and the creative arts in intelligent and engaging ways. The writing was so good, I read 98% of the paper most weekends.
Its closing has led to quite a bit of talk, some of which I have absolutely no time for. But here are some interesting bits:
Issa Sikiti da Silva had this to say about why the paper really had to close, with a few smart experts also throwing in their two cents’ worth.
Justice Malala had an additional thing or two to say about why the paper’s closing is sad for more than its staff and regular readers.
And finally, this is what some readers shared about the demise of the paper:
… and many, many more.
I will miss it, and Rehana Rossouw deserves the warmest congratulations for running an outstanding paper as well as for penning a weekly column that I could not wait to read every Saturday. I will miss Ms Rossouw’s wit, humour and wordsmith magic and am hoping that there is a book coming out of her very soon, to temporarily soothe the ache of not having her as a regular voice.
Last week, and the weekend before, headlines of first the Sunday Independent and then The Star screamed out information about the SA president’s multiple sexual partners. The Star article quoted his wife in a telephone conversation saying she did not know what the reporters were talking about when questions were posed to her about her husband’s alleged infidelities.
I have a quandary when it comes to SA and sex. It has nothing to do with the nonsense about people’s lives being private when they have a direct bearing on our society. No, it is that we need to question the deadly culture of promiscuity in SA. It also does not matter that journalists may or may not take some pleasure in embarassing person x or person y.
Anybody’s schadenfreude is their business, and this applies to journalists too. Politicians should understand this more than anybody else.
But back to promiscuity on the sly or openly. Public officials will have our eyes set on them. It is our duty to mind their business. They may be entitled to dignity like the rest of us, but sexual politics matter — whether you’re president or peasant. Pretending they don’t is exactly what keeps us in the quagmire that is SA’s gender politics.
Much more importantly, as Gail Smith reminds us, “privacy is a function of class”. [Since she moved to the City Press mainbody, my weekend reading is a lot more interesting – what with Rehana Rossouw’s column (and editorship) of The Weekender as well. Yes, the fabulous Ms Smith is a friend of mine. I was reading her work with relish long before we met. But you don’t have to believe me. Read her for yourself.]
In my book, promiscuity matters full stop. Now, before you rush off calling me a prude, I recognise that not everybody wants to be in a monogamous relationship. When relationships are open and flexibly walled (or completely unwalled), there is a different kind of challenge: safety from sharing a myriad of nasty infections.
That aside, isn’t it irresponsible to have multiple lovers in the age of AIDS? How do you keep track and control of “how many women you’ve put inside of me”, to borrow from a poem by Lebogang Mashile? Isn’t it dodgy to have secret unsafe sex “as a loyal cadre” of a party that claims to uphold gender equity as a priority? Should people in leadership positions not be open to scrutiny given that they have to uphold and “take leadership” on a whole range of politics, including health and safety? Or is that just the problem? Is the State president is simply following (or sharing in) his Party President’s promiscuity?
I was going to have a long post on this, but some other commentators have already said much of what bothered me. So, I’m going to quote from two, and suggest that after you finish reading me, you read their complete posts as well (in a separate window, or tab, please:)
Rossouw’s column had me in stitches this weekend. Called, “The custom of dangerous liaisons”, she wrote
And because our constitution says we shouldn’t discriminate on
the basis of sexual preference, we should extend the recognition
of customary liaisons to everyone.
It follows then that if polygamy is allowed, polyandry should be
too. Any South African woman wanting two, or 15, husbands
should be free to marry them.
The only problem with polygamy is that it clashes terribly with
our political leaders’ commitment to eradicating AIDS.
What do we expect from polygamous males? That they should not
court other women? That they should not impregnate them while
lobola is being negotiated?
And the best part:
Here’s an idea: there’s another age-old South African custom
called thigh sex. Our leaders could insist on their right to practise
that. Then we won’t have to read about them having yet another
baby with yet another woman. And we might listen to their
messages about AIDS and follow their example — and stop dying.
Indeed. The SA double standards on horrifying gender and sexual orientation are horrific. But read Rossouw’s full piece here:
On another platform, Anton Harber’s The Harbinger declared:
If the President is caught between three women in this way,
complicating his personal life and raising questions about the
position of First Lady, it seems to me that this does go to his
character and values. It is a fine line, but I thought the Indie
stayed within the line. It falls into that category of story that
public figures must live with: choose a life in the media eye, and
choose to mess about with multiple and apparently conflictual
relationships, and you better have a thick skin.
That’s all I am going to say on the matter. For the time being, that is. I want to see Smith’s piece in the paper this weekend. Check here the Monday after.