#UnMuteKhayaAngel?

My name is Eddie, I am a 32 year old unemployed graduate. I don't beat myself up about it too much because I am surrounded by some caring and self-reliant strong women in my life. I am quite intelligent and good looking too, though I do not put too much value on either of these qualities since I can hardly turn either of them into rands.

I have an 8 year-old daughter whose mom is solely responsible for, though I love her with all my heart and hope that some day soon I will be able to be provide for her and be the daddy she deserves. I also have a girlfriend, the woman I hope to be able to do right by and build a life with, I love her so much. She is now 8 months pregnant and will very soon be delivering us a baby girl. Baby Smilo, we call her, after her mom's beautiful character.

Yesterday, the 27th of May 2019, my girlfriend sends me a 30 seconds video of a certain female radio personality making a statement about what I would caption "money and relationships" as it relates to girlfriend allowances (umdizo) and then she told me the lady in the video got fired from  her radio job for making that video. Apparently she brought the radio station into disrepute.

This got me thinking: why would such a big radio station dismiss anyone for expressing their personal views? How is she saying "if you are not willing to give your money, don't bother getting into a relationship" enough to get her fired from her job?
Could it be that she is  essentially saying relationships and love affairs are not for the stingy nor for those without money to share?
It could be argued that the lady here is speaking against financial stingyness in relationships; misers need to keep out of the dating scene. Which in my opinion is not such a terrible thing to say. I know a lot of people who feel that way; if relationships are about 'give and take' money cannot be excluded from the giving and taking and misers are known to be only about the taking. In this sense, the lady is becoming a voice for the marginalised who are drained of their energies in relationships and not compensated in anyway by their partners whom they spend money to look good for; smell good for; they spend money to communicate and also to keep alive for the benefit of these lovers who can afford to show appreciation but choose not to because they have better things to spend their monies on. These are the women Khaya Angel, the woman on the video, is offering up her voice too, and they too deserve to be heard.
The rights and interests of women have been ignored for too long in this patriarchal system that governs our communities and this has allowed men to take advantage of women. This is why the dismissal of Khaya Angel might be contrued as a move to silence yet another woman speaking out for the interests of a marginalised group that we all seem to be disregarding. It happened before with Masechaba by the same SABC on Metro FM when she attempted to offer up her voice for the then abused Babes Wodumo. Men make the rules and woman are expected to tow the line, it seems.

But let us try and look at this another way. Ligwalagwala FM, under SABC has decided to terminate Khaya's contract for her behaviour in a video that is deemed to be bringing the station into disrepute.
It is important to take the contents(all inclusive) of this video into careful consideration before making your personal judgement of whether SABC is justified in the decision they have taken:

1.) Khaya appears to be in an SABC studio while making the video, presumably Ligwalagwala FM. An SABC logo appears on the background and another Ligwalagwala FM personality, Lungile Mhango appears to be walking behing her on the background.
2.) She is setting up relationship bounderies and making financially discriminatory remarks against those looking for love without funds.

Now with that in mind, let us consider why this gorvenment entity would want to "silence" this woman for this statement:

We are living in a time of "Slay Queens" and "Blessers"; a time when young girls aspire to own long weaves of foreign hair and long artificial nails and marr their faces with skin powders that look as light as the palms of their hands; just so they can be able to attract blessers who are as old as their fathers, and sometimes grandfathers, as long as they can afford to take care of them financially. We are living in a time where relationships have been reduced to financial transactions and women are reduced to commodities dispensable to anyone who can afford them. This is obviously a result of the patriarchal system which considered women as children who are incapable of any high cognitive function and thus limiting the woman's influence and participation in the economic life.
Realising this injustice, the government and all of its agancies are trying to correct and redress this shortfall by creating more economic opportunities for women and eliminate the mentality that the only way a woman can get her hands into cash is by getting her hands into a man.

The culture of Slay Queens has been responsible for the derailing of this masterplan and has seen a lot of young girls, filled with a lot of self-doubt and a lack of confidence, trade off their books and school uniform for a weave and some long nails. I would be remiss if I fail to mention how this culture of dependency has been responsible for a lot of violence against women and children, which the government also has a lot of programs to try and combat.
We have heard many cases of women and children abuse where the abused woman would be asked why she would not leave an abusive relationship and she would say "because who would feed my kids and financially provide for me if I leave?" This points out to the toxicity of Khaya's statement: if a woman goes into a relationship for the purpose of finding someone who will care for her financially, she will be so dependant on the partner that it would be very difficult for her to leave even when the relationship turns abusive. Is Khaya not aware of this? Have we not heard cases of children raped by their stepfathers or even their actual fathers but their mothers will not report them to the police for fear of starving while the man remains locked up in prison?
I would like to think, as a father of two daughters, that the reason why SABC chooses to dissocciates its brand from such utterances is that they do not wish to be seen as promoting a culture of female dependency; a culture that promotes female helplessness in keeping with the backward stereotypes about women.

History teaches us that women are capable of standing up, not only for womens' rights but for the rights of all humanity just like they did in 1956 as they marched agaist the pass laws in South Africa, a day marked in the SA calender as the National Womens day.
Even though I feel launching a march against the SABC decision would make for a great statement against the perceived muting of a woman, I also feel it would be counter progressive to what women as a collective are moving towards in this time. It is against the women agenda of the 21st century.
I personally pride myself for being the father of way too many daughters (my brother's daughter whom I am raising, a Chess protege; my late sister's brilliant gymnast; my 8 year old academic genius and the character on the way) because I believe that the 21st Century belongs to the female and I wish to be there as a bystander cheering my ladies on or stand guard as a security to ward off trouble.

I know I mentioned Masechaba being dismissed for lending a voice to the voiceless but I am aware that Masechaba's cause was more noble than Khaya's. Masechaba used her plartform to speak up against violence against a woman. Though it was out of turn and apparently an ambush for the Babes who thought she was only there to promote her new music, it was still more noble than a statement promoting dependency and subordination. It would have been progressive to see a women-led march aimed at reinstating Masechaba.
I am sure I speak for all the broke guys when I say "If Khaya had her way, we would remain single forever and would probably have to take up arms and challenge the mandate to offer equal opportunities to women through affirmitive action."

So my girlfriend sent me this video then she shared a poster she picked up from a WhatsApp status asking what I thought of it. The poster was about a planned marched aimed to force the SABC to reinstate Khaya Angel. This was meant to be my response to it. I really hope it is in the good side of history.

As always, your comments are appreciated

<script data-ad-client="ca-pub-1945240122822914" async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>