Back to Index

Entitlement and responsibility: Gender inequality and HIV/AIDS
Catherine Makoni
October 28, 2008

The account by Beatrice Tonhodzayi of the experiences of an HIV positive man raises a lot of issues which l feel should be discussed more than is done in the diary. I will start by saying upfront that in this critique l am taking a woman centred approach to the issues raised. In particular, I have always been concerned that in a lot of the discourse around infection within a marital relationship, there seems to be an inordinate amount of emphasis on people not seeking to blame their sexual partners, rather being exhorted to "just accept the result and move on".

What worries me in the account is that Tamuka does not appear to have fully taken responsibility for his actions in his relationship with his wife. It is always difficult for outsiders to say with any certainty who is responsible when HIV infection becomes an issue in a relationship. That is an issue for the two or three or five people involved in the relationship to say. That is not the focus of my discussion. However in so far as Tamuka seems to have admitted to being the one responsible for infecting his wife, l will take that as the position.

I am worried that Tamuka does seem to have grasped the full significance of his actions and certainly does not seem prepared to take full responsibility for his actions while he was married. He seems puzzled that his wife will not talk to him as she believes he is responsible for infecting her with HIV. One does not get the sense that he understands what the HIV positive diagnosis means for her. There is no indication that he has any empathy for his wife. He has not put himself in her shoes and sought to understand from her perspective what it must feel like dealing with this diagnosis. I am sure a lot of women who are similarly infected share the same bewilderment, anger and despair as Tamuka-s wife. This is because for a long time the message was and to an extent still is, abstinence or chastity until marriage and then faithfulness to your one husband. So assuming you have honoured this blue print for avoiding infection, it has to come as a shock when you discover that despite having followed this advice as given by your mother, your aunt, your teacher, your church, your community health worker and even that NGO that is so respected, you still find yourself infected. The icing on the cake is that if this happens to you, you should just accept this diagnosis and move on, because that is the nature of the marital bed.

For me the worst but most important point in Tamuka-s account is his statement that:

"Yes, l may have cheated a few times in this marriage but nothing out of the ordinary. I am definitely not the "Mr. Harare" that my wife, her friends and family are now portraying me to be. I am just a regular, ordinary man who strayed from the marital bed a few times."

This is where the crux of the matter is, is it not? His statement exposes the sense of entitlement that a lot of men have when it comes to cheating on their spouses and other intimate partners. Tamuka believes his infidelity is acceptable as it is "nothing out of the ordinary". After all he did it just a "few times". So to take his argument to its logical conclusion, it is okay to cheat "just a few times"? Is that what the "ordinary man" out there believes? That they are entitled to cheat because that is what "ordinary men" do? This begs the question, just how many times do you have to be unfaithful before you run the risk of getting infected with either an STI or HIV? Does one get a merit award if they cheat a few times as opposed to a lot of times? Is there a measure for cheating, where some acts of infidelity are more acceptable than others? It is interesting that the interviewer never challenged Tamuka-s statement above.

Isn-t this part of the problem sub-Saharan Africa has with HIV infection, when you have an intersection between gender inequality and the HI Virus? The problem is we have a society that views male infidelity as a normal expression of masculinity. This finds expression in some writers regurgitating without critiquing opinions that men allegedly express that they set up "small houses" because they will be dissatisfied with their wives at home. I will argue that a lot of men who cheat, do so because they can. They do it because like Tamuka, they believe that they are just being "men". It is an expression of the patriarchal power that they have. Unfortunately in an age of HIV and AIDS, these masculinities are toxic masculinities. That single sexual encounter can result in HIV infection. You can get infected whether or not you are a "Mr Harare".

Even without the spectre of HIV infection, infidelity in a relationship is a problem. It destroys the trust which is the basis of the relationship. With some relationships, it destroys the love that was there between the parties and leads to divorce. In most relationships, it results in the other party struggling with feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem. Anger, even hatred/dislike is common. Most couples need counselling and support to help them come to terms with the infidelity. I would imagine that this would be especially true in situations where HIV is an issue. Not only does the wronged party have to contend with the infidelity, they also have to contend with the fact that their partner/spouse-s infidelity has resulted in them getting infected with HIV. I can only imagine that the feelings of anger, hatred and betrayal would only be amplified in such cases.

The other problem with Tamuka-s account is that there is an unspoken expectation that his wife should just accept not just Tamuka-s infidelity, but also the infection and get over it. Tamuka sounds puzzled that his wife has not readily accepted his status and is not supporting him. He is concerned that they "don-t laugh together and (we) rarely talk to each other". He is surprised that she is making an issue of the "few times" that he strayed from the marital bed. The author of the piece weighs in with a reminder that "staying angry at your partner does not change your HIV status". That is well and good for Tamuka, but those who do counselling also know that anger is one stage that a person has to go through on the way to coming to terms with their diagnosis or grief. If Tamuka-s wife is angry, is she not entitled to be given what she has been through? Why should she be denied this important step in her healing process simply because Tamuka finds it uncomfortable? I am sure if someone were to ask Tamuka-s wife why she doesn-t laugh anymore, one might get a response that there is nothing funny about the situation the couple finds themselves in. What support has been availed to her to help her come to terms not just with his infidelity but also her positive status? His expression of remorse does not sound sincere. It certainly sounds like he knows that he should be remorseful but he really is not. If he were, he would accept full responsibility for his actions and not seek to make excuses that he was just being a man. There is no indication that he appreciates what he has to do in order to make amends.

I am concerned that when a statement such as that made by Tamuka goes unchallenged, we perpetuate those practices in our society that make both men and women vulnerable to infection. By emphasising the need for the woman in this case to forgive and forget, without validating her feelings of anger and betrayal, are we not being complicit in the continued subjugation of women and their continued infection in the marital bed? By not demanding that Tamuka takes full responsibility for his actions without seeking to explain them away or minimise them, are we not tacitly perpetuating the notion that it is normal and therefore acceptable for men to cheat on their spouses? I really would love to hear Tamuka-s wife-s story. I am sure it would educate a lot of us.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP