Maybe we should ban Marriage!

Everything BAD that happens to our daughters is perpetrated either in marriage or in the name of Marriage. FGM, Domestic violence against women,...!

Martha Karua is not a woman!

As far as presidential elections are concerned, she is not and will not be a female presidential candidate.She is of the same "gender" with Uhuru Kenyatta and Peter Kenneth: Kikuyu(or "Mt. Kenya Mafia"). Her being a lady is immaterial and that's why I am proposing other potential female candidates such as Ngilu,Millie,Shebesh, Shaban...

By the way, and for your information, if any of those three gets so popular as to be real Presidential contenders in 2012, a certain "project 42 minus 1" will be resuscitated and kenya will be headed '07/ 'o8 way!

Madam President 2012, Kenya? NO!

Not that we are not ready for a lady as president,but this happens to be a bad time for one. I'll explain.

The presidency under the new constitution is, for all practical purposes and intents, merely a ceremonial shell. All the executive powers previously enjoyed by the president in the old constitution have been severely Checked. In fact, the president will even be required to ask permission from Parliament in order to scratch his/her behind! This in itself isn't bad.

The presidency has also been divorced from parliament such that parliament can fire the president at will with minimum repercussions, if any,to parliament.

However, knowing Kenyans, they will continue to blame everything that goes wrong,including their marital problems on the president. I mean, if MPs didn't read the constitution...?

Put a Madam president at statehouse and I can guarantee you she will be fired faster than she can say "...help me God". And you can take this to the bank. It will be worse because the Madam president will be fired together with her gender, especially if Bony Khalwale... and this is a story for another day.

However, after the first five years(2017), ladies will be good to go.

PROJECT QUEENSVILLE 2012(MDG3),REVISED EDITION

HI,LADY

For starters, I am assuming that you are an intelligent/bright/educated/wise/ enlightened lady. You wouldn't have gotten here if otherwise!

I am sure that you know that ladies fought for the right to vote and hold political office (full suffrage rights). In most countries these rights started trickling in in the late 1800 and early 1900.

Unfortunately, the more things change, the more they remain the same! Picture this: before 1906, men voted for men, therefore, all elective seats were held by men. After 1906 ladies and men continued voting for men and, therefore, elective positions continue to be dominated by men (even in the US of A)!

This is mainly due to the fact that some ladies believe that ‘leaders’ is a Greek word meaning ‘men’. This, in effect, means that they can't vote for lady candidates, thereby exposing ladies to the indignity of having to beg for a third of elective seats!

This project Queensville 2012 MDG3's aim is to turn ladies into real Queens who WIN half (1/2) of all the elective positions ( MPs, Governors, Senators) in 2012, with pride and dignity! This will, in effect, create a GENDER FOUNTAIN from which gender equity will flow to the rest of the society through Gender Friendly legislation.

How can you help? Three ways:
1) Vote ONLY for lady candidates in 2012 general elections for the above posts.
2) Tell all your lady acquaintances (friends and enemies) to vote ONLY for lady candidates.


By the bye,Voting for a lady is one of the most powerful ways of convincing your daughter that she is( and ladies in general are)STRONG and capable of being LEADERS!

In the unlikely event that we don't end up with about 50% representation of ladies in elective positions, I will be the first person to advocate for the ladies to be denied the right to vote and hold office! After all men do not require ladies' votes in order to vote for men!!

GENDER ISSUES IN AUSTRALIA ELECTIONS

Australia goes to the polls soon. The ladies in Australia happen to enjoy full suffrage rights since 1890s. However, this right has been much abused such that apart from the Premiership, Australian women have nothing to show for their suffrage rights as far as gender composition of elected bodies is concerned.

In fact, the fact of Australia having a lady Prime Minister seems pretty much a function of default rather than design.

Given that Ladies make up more or less half the number of registered voters in Australia, the prevailing gender representation in elective positions is untenable. It's time the number of elected female leaders reflected the gender balance of the registered voters.

This can be done by ladies voting only for lady candidates in elections...unless, of course, LADY LEADER is an oxymoron!

In the likely event of this not happening and the gender imbalances remain, then I think it's time Australian ladies forfeited their suffrage rights and left men to lord over them. After all, men do not need the input of women to elect men!

Senators, Governors 2012

Kenyans are a funny lot. They vote for a new constitutional dispensation and then they refuse to change in line with the new constitution! The new constitution is “a new wineskin” but the attitude of most Kenyans is still in the old constitution mode.

This essentially means that we are putting old wine (Kenyans and their mentality) into a new wineskin (a new constitutional dispensation), and hopping the wine will mature with age or something...

If you listen to most Kenyans' potential candidates for the seats of Governors and Senators, you will get the following qualifications: Male, old( double retired) monied! The more things change the more the remain the same...

Male is a term normally interchangeable with leadership in many Kenyans Mind irrespective of Gender.

Old is normally confused with appropriate experience and wisdom

Money is a crucial ingredient in politics as Kenyans are generally corrupt and one needs lots of money to bribe them to vote for you.

By the bye, if you even dream of not voting for ladies in the above positions in 2012, I'll just quote a certain gentleman for you “basi, wewe ni kubaff, m...”! Alternatively, I'll just assume you are corrupt (sugar, shuka...) and report you to one prof.PLO...

RWANDA elections Vs female representation

Rwanda goes to the polls sometime in August.Currently,ladies in Rwanda constitute about 56% of all the elected leaders.This is about to change.

If you've been keen enough,you must have heard a few well coordinated bombings in the capital city Kigali in the past few months.

These bombings are an attempt to scare away ladies voters from voting for lady candidates by introducing an 'atmosphere of threat'.The person behind this is hoping that true to type, lady voters will gravitate towards male candidates for "protection"! You think that this is just a conspiracy theory and it wont happen,right? Ask the Americans: it works like a charm,all the time too!

I am not a betting guy(probably because I don't have the money for it!)but if I were, I'd bet my Last pence on the female representation in Rwanda plummeting to below 30% after the August general elections!

Of Kenyan Ladies' representation in the DRAFT constitution

Many ladies in Kenya are all for the draft constitution in the mistaken belief that once it passes, they will laugh all the way to the bank-sorry, to parliament!

I appreciate the fact that from nothing to 47 seats is some milestone,but to me 13.5% is nowhere near enough.In addition, the 2/3rds rule in the draft is just "the spirit of the law" devoid of "the letter of the law".

"The letter of the Law" would have dictated that there be specific steps to ensure the attainment of 33% representation. As things stand now, new constitution or not, I don't see how the legislation to get at least a third of the seats being occupied by the ladies (especially in parliament) will ever happen, especially in the backdrop of previous attempts by some guys to sue the COE for giving "too many seats" to ladies in the draft.

If we leave everything to the new constitution, the best the ladies would get in 2012 would be just that:13.5%! And you can take this to the bank!

The men voters will be hard pressed to vote for a lady candidates after they realize that there are exclusive county seats where they (men) are not even allowed to contest!To me the 47 county seats provision for the ladies in the draft constitution is basically a poison chalice!

Of ladies' suffrage rights

All societies in the world literally depend on the ladies for survival, especially in the raising of the children. Ladies actually reign supreme at the family level (ask any man about the value of his mom!). However, at the larger society level, ladies still allow themselves to be treated as second rate citizens or ‘filler material’- and especially in elections!

Did U know that after much struggle, New Zealand became the first country in the world to grant women the rights to vote (suffrage) in 1893, but women were not allowed to run for office until 1919? Finland became the first country in the world to grant women full suffrage (right to vote and run for office) in 1906.USA gave full suffrage rights to ladies on 1920.

In other words before 1893, ladies were not considered Human enough to have rights. Unfortunately, a century after the ladies fought for, and got the right to vote and run for office, they are still begging for a third (1/3) of the elective positions!

Well, it doesn't help matters that some ladies are like a certain “mama pima” (name withheld), who believes that “leaders” is a Greek word that means “men” or that Lady leader is an oxymoron!

Of Britain Elections and lady voters as "filler material"

Britain goes to the polls on the 6th of May 2010. And as usual, the ladies and gentlemen of British citizenry will have equal suffrage rights (to vote as well as run for office).

The million Pound question is: supposing I was in a position to, and I go right ahead and revoke the woman’s suffrage rights right now, would it make any difference to the eventual outcome of the elections? I’ll hazard a guess and say NO. At least, not in any fundamental way!

Men would still win the elective positions, albeit with fewer votes. For the life of me, I still can’t figure out the significant difference between a man winning a seat with one million votes, or winning the seat with a half of a vote provided it’s proven beyond an iota of doubt that the individual won fair and square.

In other words, British ladies are “Filler materials” - adding bulk devoid of any quality- in the political process. Maybe they should go back to the kitchen. And they can sue me!

All I am intimating here is that British Ladies constitute one hell of a disappointing role model for the rest of the developing world as far as gender and politics issues are concerned. This is especially so given that they know from practical experience that ladies can and do make good, if not perfect, leaders. I am talking of the “Iron Lady”, Margaret Thatcher!

Ladies in the rest of the world expect -and deserve- better from the British ladies. Unless, of course, they have joined the rest of their less enlightened ladies who:

A) Have a “weakness mentality” I.e. They know (then again, may be not!) that they are as strong as their male counterparts but they believe that “leaders” is the Greek word for “men”.
b) take reject votes (after men have already taken the better votes) in which case try as they may, their votes cannot elect a lady as the reject votes will not count anyway, being rejects and all…

"Out of shape" female voter rights

Ever wondered how on God’s good earth it gets so hard to pass a female- friendly bill in parliament despite the fact that ladies are the majority voters. It is simply because their voting rights are so unhealthy and out of shape.

Instead of the ladies “exercising” their voting rights, they allow these rights to be “taken for a ride”. The voting rights develop no “muscle” to even shift a comma in a bill or legislation.

There are a few bills from FIDA pending in parliament. These bills, if and when debated by the male dominated parliament, will result in watered down versions. they will suffer the same fate suffered by the sex-offenders bill proposed by one Njoki Ndung’u.

Julius Malema on president Zuma's rape case

Julius Malema , ANC’s youth leader commented that Zuma’s rape victim had actually enjoyed the experience. And for that piece of B.S. the courts, on the 15th march 2010, let him off lightly, with a small fine.

The million dollar question is :do some people have mothers sisters and daughters? How would he have felt if it had happened to one of them?

The courts should also have been a lot harsher. The comments amounted to raping the victim a second time, if you ask me. Then again, that case touches on the high and mighty, and the rest of the miserable lot can take a ride into the Indian Ocean and take a dive!

Gender India

On the 9th day of march 2010, India passed a bill that would guarantee 1/3 of all elective positions for the ladies..

This is all fair to women assuming that:
a) Ladies in India are outnumbered by men at the ratio of 1:3
b) Ladies in India do not have the right to vote
c) A lady’s vote in India is 1/3 of the length of an ordinary man’s vote
d) The ladies in India are equal to men numerically; that the ladies’ votes are equal in length to their male counterparts’; and that they actually vote. However, they have a “weakness mentality” and believe that politics is only for “strong people” (read men), and they, therefore, vote for men.

Terrorism vs female representation in elective positions

Matters war and defence have traditionally been a preserve for the male members of the society.Any threat to a community's survival is invariably met by calls for men of valour to take up arms and defend the society. This is one atavism that has remained, and been brought to bear in the modern political environment.

Indeed, there exists a causative relationship between a) the level of threat- real or perceived- during the electioneering period and b) the percentage of women representation in elective positions in a society..

The US of A leads the pack of those societies ruled through terror, followed closely by India. These two countries happen to have the lowest percentages as far as women representation in elective positions is concerned.

In Kenya there are two contrasting case studies that exemplify the same. First case study involves the Kikuyu community, also fondly referred to as “the Mount Kenya Mafia” in order to encompass the neighboring communities who invariably vote as a block. In 2007 general elections they were perceived to be PNU members in the 2007 general election, and were pitted against almost all the other communities who were rooting for ODM. The politicians harped on this perceived external threat urging the voters to vote ‘wisely’. Faced with this “external threat”, voters gravitated towards male candidates, pretty much like “calling on the men of valor to defend the society”. This contributed to the paucity of female MPs from this region..

The second case study involves the kalenjin of the rift valley. They were the driving engine behind the ODM party in terms of numbers. They were not under any external threat perceived or otherwise. It would not take rocket science to figure out that this kind of environment produced the surprising number of female MPs from a region not known for having female Mps.

Incidentally, terror or perceived threats of violence tends to have a more profound impact on the mind of the victim than violence itself. A society where threat of violence hangs over like cloud lives more scared lives compared to a society where extensive violence has been meted out on it. This might explain the case of Rwanda, which has a 56% percentage representation of women in parliament. After going through the genocide of the 90’s, threats of violence or terror would basically look like a walk in the park.

However, after 15 years of relative peace, threats to violence or terror tactics might just work. The coordinated bombing incidences in the capital Kigali in recent weeks, just a few months from an election slated for later in the year, doesn’t bode well for lady MPs and those aspiring for the same. The bombing incidences might be directed towards some other agenda but they coming hot on the heels of a certain lady declaring her presidential candidature in the coming polls, they are qute suspect.

Gender Equality and Politics: The relationship

The ladies in Kenya constitute over 50%+1 of the registered voters. However, their representation in parliament barely scratches a 10%! Given that the value or weight of a vote is the same regardless of the gender of the holder of such a vote,what happens to our ladies' votes is a puzzle no one is bothering to solve.

Unfortunately, nobody ever tells our ladies that their representation in parliament is the sole criteria that the government uses to allocate senior government post, and not the actual population.A good example is the elections coordinators recently appointed by the IIEC. Overall, women constitute about 14% of all the constituency coordinators,a reflection of the overall representation of women in the 10th parliament!

We shall shout MDG3 until we go blue in the face, but we will always end up with 10% representation of ladies in parliament, and a similar percentage in top government position. It's high time we got equal representation of women and men in elective positions.

Towards this goal, I am carrying out 'project Queensville 2012'. This is a project primarily aimed at ensuring that half(50%) of all Parliamentary positions will be held by the ladies after the 2012 general election. This will, in effect, create a GENDER FOUNTAIN from which gender equity will flow to the rest of the society.

I plan on reaching about 5 million ladies before the General Elections slated for 2012. The message to all these ladies: VOTE exclusively for lady candidates in the 2012 general elections! This applies to all the elective positions up for grabs in 2012.

By my reckoning,the only reason some ladies don't vote for fellow ladies is because they have a "weakness mentality". Such ladies believe they are weak and they,therefore, cant get their minds round the idea that their fellow females could be capable of being leaders. They end up voting for men because to their minds,leadership means men!


Nota bene: if you have ever voted for a lady candidate,or that 2012 will be your first time just consider yourself officially a "Queen of spades" i.e an intelligent & strong lady!

Open letter to COE/PSCC on "1/3 of any gender rule"

THE gender affirmative action provisions in the drafts (COE& PSCC) will, in the fullness of time, prove to be a hindrance rather than a thoroughfare for the ladies on their way to the Canaan of gender equality and equity.

For starters, the sum total of all the proposed “seats” for the ladies amount to a pitiful 20% of all the elective positions up for grabs in any general election. This leaves a whooping 80% of the seats up to interpretation as to their ‘ownership’, and which a wiser male chauvinist than Njoka-_yes, Him of the maendeleo ya wanaume fame- could “interpret” to mean that they are left exclusively for the men!

Assuming that this constitution is being prepared to serve the country for generations, is it wise to put a specific provision (about 30% of all the elective seats for the ladies)? .This smirks of calculated move to put in place a bullet- proof glass ceiling for the ladies disguised as a boon!

This is also an admission of a “weakness mentality” in the ladies; that whatever they try and no matter their individual achievements, there will always be a point above which they won’t reach or pass as a group. Placing 30 %( 1/3) as the best the ladies can get in the constitution, and effectively "casting the position in stone”, is rather un-ambitious given that the ladies constitute over 50%+ 1 of the population in Kenya.

Secondly, the senate as proposed by the PSCC is actually not as bad it sounds. It is worse. It’s much like a poodle masquerading as German shepherd. Collectively, the whole of the senate does not have the muscle to shift even a comma in a legislation (bill), let alone pass it. The senate is just a “chamaa”, with the odd man to chair the various useless committees!

The senate as proposed by the COE is better. But getting the requisite numbers of ladies to staff it will be a miracle bordering on the impossible.

Thirdly grouping women with the marginalized, the minority or the disabled is not only unfortunate, but it greatly erodes on their dignity. It’s hard to overstate the significant role of the ladies in the society, so one would be hard pressed to consider them disabled. They constitute over 50% +1 of the registered voters in Kenya considering them or marginalized or minority borders on the insane.

The real problem behind the discrepancy between the actual women voters and their eventual representation in parliament is basically a function of the “weakness mentality’ in ladies. This state of mind transcends boundaries, religions, races and even level of education, as I have explained in ‘thequeensinourlives.blogspot.com’. I am in the process of solving this through “project Queensville 2012”

The fourth point concerns the devil in the details of how the requisite numbers of the ladies will be elected to satisfy the constitution’s provisions. It is well and good to state that “no more than two thirds of the members shall be of the same gender” in a party manifesto or an MOU as the said parties are not legally bound to stick to it. But, it’s a whole different kettle of fish to state the same in a constitution. What will happen if the current state of affairs obtain (parliament: over 80% male). Will we ‘fire’ some elected MPs as it will be inconsistent with the constitution or will the whole election exercise be made null and void and a fresh one prepared? Even better,will we end up amending the new constitution?

Most of the ladies will be sourced from the counties, probably in the misguided belief that it’s easier to elect female councilors than female MPs. Given the current ratio of female to male councilors, I would be hard-pressed to concur with that kind of an assumption.

This will turn out to be the weakest link in the whole of the gender provisions in the draft, and a Potential quicksand for the whole of the new constitution. Unless of course, someone comes up with a way of placing a foundation below that beautiful castle that is gender provisions. And if you do, please let me know. It just might make my project that much easier to conclude!

Ephraim Njuguna Ngugi

0722106732

Obama's nasty anniversary present

On the 20th of January 2010, Obama and his fellow Democrats were handed a resounding defeat in the race for a Massachusetts’s senate seat. This was all thanks to the all pervasive ‘weakness mentality’ in and about women in the society.

This particular senate seat was crucial for both the Democrats as well as the Republicans. A win for the Democrats would have given them a majority that would ensure that their bills, including the Health care Bill, sail through without ‘sweet –talking’ the Republicans.

The win for the Republicans gave them the muscle to forestall any Democrats’ bills, if they so wish.

Democrats considered this particular senate seat ‘a safe seat’ for various reasons. The seat had been held by the famous Kennedy’s (democrats) since the ‘70s and the number of registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans 3:1 in Massachusetts. Having ‘won big’ in ‘08, the Democrats were hoping that the tendancy of the people to associate themselves with winners would work in their favor. Democrats also counted on the fact that since in any normal society women outnumber men, Martha would have an ‘undue advantage’.

The democrats went right ahead and carried out a lackluster campaign in the belief that the senate seat was already “in the bag”.

They didn’t factor in two major factors:

(a) The 'high stake' health care bill debate which was producing more heat than light.
(b) The “weakness mentality” in and about women

I stand by my assertion that any time in campaigns when the stakes are high, men and women tend to gravitate towards a ‘strong choice’ (read man) as a safe bet.
The health care bill debate had long ago evolved from a simple straight-forward issue of legislation to the highly emotive realm of a ‘campaign’, replete with labels such as socialism, capitalism, weakness, etc. A bill about giving fellow Americans access to health care became just an unnamed “IT”

I n the senate race campaigns, Martha was just going to the senate to ‘pass ‘it’’. But Scott was going to the senate so that he could ‘kill ‘it’’.

“Killing it” coupled with terms such as ‘a strong America,’
“Say no socialism’ etc had all the ingredients of “maleness” in it. It wouldn’t take rocket science to figure out where all the women’s votes were headed. It mattered none that most of the ladies who voted for Scot wouldn’t have an issue with the whole issue of providing the over 30 million Americans with health care. They just wanted somebody ‘strong’ to go the senate to ‘kill ‘it’’ (not the health care bill!) for them.
Martha’s goose was cooked as soon as the campaign and the debate on “it” merged. Incidentally negative labels such as “socialist” ‘weak’ stick easier on women any day.
I posit here that in the mid-term US elections slated for later this year, not one woman candidate will succeed. Unless of course, their spin-doctors carry out a massive campaign strategy akin to “project Queensville 2012”.!

Hillary Clinton vs Obama '08

It might be a moot point here to state that Hillary Clinton could have defeated Obama to clinch the democratic ticket, and eventually triumphed over the republican nominee thereby ending up in the White House as the president of the US of A.

All this could be true today, but for two crucial factors:
(a) The weakness ‘’mentality’’ in the ladies
(b) September 11th coupled with the economic melt down.

Once September 11th and the catastrophic world economic collapse happened, Hillary’s goose was cooked. It mattered little that the majority of voters in the USA are actually women .In fact it’s precisely this feminine numerical strength that put paid her white house ambitions.
Most ladies are ‘anti-Obama’, so to speak, always chanting to themselves ‘no we can’t’. They believe in their hearts of heart that they are ‘weak’. This ‘feeling’ exists irrespective of class, level of education or race. This 'weakness mentality' breeds jealousy (a kind of mental defense mechanism), which gets expressed as hate. This explains why women hate each other’s guts with a passion.
Confronted with situations where the ‘stakes are high’, ladies will choose a man over a woman any day. My hypothesis here is that the lady will reason with herself:
‘’This thing is too big I couldn’t possibly ‘cut it’. She is just a lady like me so she probably can’t either’.
By the time the lady gets to the ballot box, ‘probably’ has turned into ‘certainty’ and the rest, as they say, is history.

The stakes were pretty high in the Democratic Party nominations where they risked losing to the Republican nominee. With the country under perpetual threat from the al qaida coupled with the economic crises, stakes couldn’t be higher. In the minds of many (men included) the choice was clear: a ‘strong hand’ (read man) was required at the helm.
I stand here, and not to be corrected, that in any future US elections (presidential) where a lady is a candidate, the whole campaign will hinge upon defense threats to the country. And until the ladies wake up to the realization that a chief executive (president) will not literally take up arms (.22, .45 or AK47) and defend the country, the presidents will EVER be male.