Gender Based Violence-2

 Many incidents of gender based violence (GBV) between unmarried, co-habiting couples result from one member of the couple deciding to break away AND TAKE THE CHILD/REN to his/her new “love” partnership. Does Roman-Dutch law have a remedy for this? I don’t know, but I doubt that it does.

In Kalanga culture, and I am no expert in Kalanga culture, the stated problem does not arise, because unmarried people do not live together, and a child born out of wedlock belongs solely to its mother and her family. You may wonder then how the “biological” father’s interests are safeguarded concerning the child’s welfare and/or upbringing. This is where Kalanga culture really steps up to the plate. 

If it is NOT the woman’s first child, then nothing happens, because the woman is “gwimba”, meaning that she, together with her new offspring simply remains an unmarried member of her parents’ extended family. 

However if it IS the woman’s first child, a whole slew of cultural processes follows, the result of which is the elimination of gender based violence of any form. As soon as the “culprit” who caused the pregnancy is identified by the pregnant “mother-to-be”, and owns up to the pregnancy, which often happens after he sees the new born, he has to state whether he intends to marry the woman or not. 

1. If he intends to marry the woman, and the woman has no objection, then the two are considered “engaged” while marriage preparations commence immediately. If he is too poor to afford a decent marriage ceremony he and his fiancé simply elope, together with the new born. Then there follows a back and forth between the families until the “marriage” is officially recognised by both families. 

2. If the “culprit” intends to marry the woman, but the woman has no such intention, then the “culprit” is given the choice to “marry” his child if he so wishes or to forgo any relationship whatsoever with the child. A man “marries” his child by simply paying the same amount of malobolo (dowry) that he would have had to pay for the child’s mother. After “marrying” his child he is entitled to all parental rights, including taking his child away from his wife’s family to live with him. The woman ceases to have parental rights over the child, unless it is with permission of the child’s father. Some fathers leave the child with its mother for the first two or three years, which often causes problems because the child’s mother bonds with the child. Most fathers however take the child as soon as it is weaned from breast feeding.

As we all know, conflicts between marriage partners are often caused or exacerbated by community ownership of property by the two partners. Roman Dutch law (RDL) has well established remedies for this. However, like everything else under corrupt legal dispensations, RDL is not immune to politically motivated manipulations, the result of which is that one or the other marriage partner is swindled out of his/her share by political interests. 

Under most cultures that I am aware of property disputes between married couples seldom arise because the community in which the couple lives knows exactly what belongs to him and what belongs to her. As you can see, marriage is the bedrock of non-violence in relationships. Bar marriage, there is no relationship, or there shouldn’t be a relationship. Every culture has its own way of eliminating GBV in relationships. Some people are now advocating for pre-nuptial contracts as a way of stabilizing marriages, because the institution of marriage itself is now under attack from various quarters, including but not limited to LGBTQ+- (whatever). Well, maybe pre-nuptial contracts will make a difference, but are we going to descend to pre-f****ing contracts when marriage is finally eliminated between couples?