Cameroon: 20TH MAY CELEBRATIONS, FAKE OR REAL?

This question comes to my mind and that of every objective Cameroonian especially those from West of Mungo. Should 20 May be celebrated as a national day in Cameroon? What has become of 1 October which was the day the two Cameroons (East and West) finally became one following the 11 February 1961 plebiscite? Should 1 October not be a better day to be celebrated as a national day since it was the Reunification day that brings in mind the history and culture of the two Cameroons?

Bara Mark

A day which we could take stock of our activities and events and see how it could be improved upon. But what comes to mind? Anyone who dares to mention the above date is seen as the enemy of the state but history teaches us the facts and there is no way we can run away from history. Politicians and historians have just decided to twist our history in their favour distorting the real meaning and facts of 1 October 1961, the supposed national day.

A National Day should have a base of the history and culture of its people and so 1 October teaches us that it was the day that finally saw the 11 February 1961 plebiscite come into fruitful in what was known as the Federal Republic of Cameroon or better still the re-unification. Thus this day formed the basis of our history and is supposed to be the national day rather than 20 May, in which, the referendum on 20 May 1972 was considered as a fake one with a 99.9 percent Yes vote arbitrarily chosen by a particular leader (late president Amadou Ahidjo) at a particular time.

This was illegal because he rigged the Federal Constitution and abolished a state which voluntarily joined la Republique and went further to proclaimed May 20th a national day unilaterally in violation of article 47 of the Federal Constitution (which prohibited any action that would threaten the existence of the Federation) and so by this very act, 20 May should not be celebrated as a national day because it has no basis for the Anglophones.

A National Day should also be able to resonate with the peoples’ culture and past but what have we seen of late? The Assimilation, annexation and the distortion of history that touches the life and culture of the people of West Cameroon.
National Integration

Historians have made us to understand and believe that 20 May 1972 came as a result of National Integration after achieving Re-unification on 1 October 1961. The power-that-be at the time was just trying as much as possible to wipe away anything that brings to mind Southern Cameroons’ past and history and which of course we can’t hide from it.
What has national integration got to do with Re-unification? Which one should Cameroonians better celebrate Re-unification or national integration? What has been achieved by the people of West Cameroon since they joined their brothers of East Cameroon on the platform of national integration?

Does national integration mean the annexation, enslavement and occupation at the peaceful, democratic and loving people of West Cameroon where inhabitants have been reduced to a tribal nomenclature of Anglophones? Students and Cameroonians at large have been forced and fooled to believe that the real pillar of what is known today as Republic of Cameroon was laid down in 20 May 1972. This day was single handedly conceived by late president Amadou Ahidjo on the pretext of national integration which has been closely followed by his successor H.E Paul Biya.

But the truth shall always prevail and shall remain supreme since La Republique du Cameroun has never demonstrated the honestly that its annexation of West Cameroon has not only been an insult but a violent violation of dignity and respect for human rights for the people at West Cameroon. Historians and politicians have decided to toy with the destiny of the people of Southern Cameroon.

Conclusively let Cameroonians learn to celebrate the real meaning of their history and forget about this cock and bull story.. Let 11 February be celebrated as a plebiscite day; a day when Southern Cameroon voted to join East Cameroon and not the Youth day as postulated by the regime.

Let 1 October be celebrated by all Cameroonians as a National Day; a day when the agreement of 11th February 1961 plebiscite finally came into fruitful in what is known as Re-unification rather than witch-hunting anyone who dares celebrate it.
Cameroonians should learn to respect the real meaning of their historical independence dates as it happens in other countries.

And finally Anglophones would feel better and integrated in the nation if the so called regional balance is strictly followed and applied, when English language is not looked down at and when Anglophones are not considered as second class citizens and a host of others to boost what is known as national integration.

To which voice do we listen?

I recall when I looked after cows and sheep. They could understand the different sounds of my vice that invited them to eat or to go home. They recognized utterances that warned them of any danger. A stranger would not easily persuade them to those actions. He even stands the risk of being attacked if he sounds a suspect.

By Yemti Harry Ndienla

We live in a world of familiar and strange voices. They beckon us to one thing or another. Our family may be calling us to one thing and the church or society to another. The radio and television have a message for us. The media is constantly feeding us with information. People are at our door calling our attention to some happening. Prophets claim to have the last word that will give us happiness. Churches sound their bells loud. Religious sects do not give one a rest. We have not forgotten the inner voice of our conscience and the still voice of God. The attractions and voices are legion.

Sometimes these voices are confusing, contradictory, deceptive, misleading or too exacting or simply a kind of laissez-faire. To which voice do we listen? What is the criterion for knowing which voice is authentic? Which voice offers the best for life? What or who guarantees genuine happiness and well – being? That is our quest and prayer for Vocations to the priesthood and the religious life. Jesus presents us with five qualities of a good shepherd. Firstly, he enters through the door.

He does not break in like a thief. It denotes openness, sincerity, honesty and single-mindedness. He has no dubious intentions to rob his sheep or followers of their possessions. I have seen church leaders who use their flock to collect money and at the end they desert them and flee abroad. Any kind of fraud or distortion in the name of God is bad shepherding. There are crusaders and tricksters who deceive people for personal profit and glory. Beware of these brigands. Once they get what they want they would abandon you to despair.

Secondly, a good shepherd leads the way. He goes before his sheep so that they can follow his footsteps. Watch the people who take cows around. There is always one ahead. He shows them the way to pass and he takes the risks for the sake of his flock. As an example, the good leader tries to live like Christ and follow the way of the gospel. He lives by what he preaches. He avoids any scandal that might lead others to sin or astray
Thirdly a good shepherd knows his flock by name. Jesus says every hair in our head has been counted. It indicates intimate knowledge of each individual and the interest the shepherd has in what concerns him or her. The dignity and welfare of the sheep are well taken care of. Nobody gets lost in the crowd. He or she is accountable for.

Fourthly, the sheep recognize the voice of the good shepherd because he is close to them. He is available and ready to die for any of them. Devoted to their cause he comes to their rescue with a fatherly love and compassion. He makes himself one of them. He has a consoling and soothing voice that evokes empathy and a heart-rending appeal. There is mutual understanding and dialogue.

Finally, he makes his sheep live life to the full. He leads them to fine pasture by offering them the best. He dies to himself that his followers may live. No amount of sacrifice is enough until the sheep are well fed spiritually and materially.

Mother: The sign of stability in any home

By Yemti Harry Ndienla

After Christ and the Sacrament He left for us all, probably the most Catholic teaching of our faith is that of the Virgin Mary. Catholics believe that Mary is not only Mother of God, but also Mother of us all and Mother of the Church. Thus revered by all Catholics in a special way. This distinguishes Catholics from Protestant churches, which mostly do not recognize Mary in the same way.

As proof of our devotion to the Blessed Mother, We (Catholics) separate the month of May as a time when we most venerate the presence of Mary in our lives and the help she gives in our prayers.

One of the most beautiful aspects of all good mothers is their stable presence in the lives of their children. Children always turn to their mother when in need; the mother is the sign of stability in any home. The mother is at the heart of all family life and if the truth be told, mothers are revered by their children.

The same applies to the Virgin Mary. Her presence in our life of faith is permanent and when we cannot pray very well to her Son, she intercedes for us. We crowned Mary as Queen of all believers in Christ and the Catholic Church at mass on mothers day. This coronation recognizes the importance of the Mother. It was also a way for our parish and us all to wish all our mothers a very happy Mothers Day! You are all special, just as Mary is to all believers.

For your reflection:

On this Mothers Day, what is the greatest complement you can pay to your earthly mother?
How important to your faith is the relationship you have with the Virgin Mary?
When was the last time you prayed to the Blessed Mother?

ABORTION HAS DISASTROUS EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH - Chief Albert S. Ngwana

Since the agrarian revolution about 10,000 years ago, man has desired large families, for economic reasons, to cultivate big farms and become rich.
Governments have encouraged large populations for economic, military, security, and social reasons. To do this, individuals resorted to polygamy and large families. Governments enacted laws and encouraged individuals to have many children.

All governments in the “civilized world” have encouraged population growth. The motivations have varied. Governments have been influenced by economic arguments to bolster their work force, so ensuring that the working population was big enough to sustain dependants; they have been persuaded that national defense requires a large pool from which to recruit troops, and they have been seduced by the notion that national greatness is linked to population. The size of the population determined economic growth and military strength. As the population increased, economic activities and social needs multiplied. More farms were cultivated, more houses built, more roads constructed and bigger armies required to defend the population. With the rapid growth of the population commercial activities began and increased in the cities and towns. People grew rich. Population growth became an important factor in determining wealth and military strength. Consequently governments treated abortion, manslaughter, euthanasia and murder as serious criminal offences, punishable in some cases with the death penalty.

In 1873 the U.S. Congress enacted the “Comstock Law”, which regulated public access to birth control devices, medicines, or information for the next 60 years. It was illegal to distribute any device (condoms etc) medicine or information designed to prevent conception, this was applicable even to physicians. The most notorious policies introduced to boost births rates and population growth, were deployed by totalitarian regimes of far – left and right. Monthly pregnancy tests were conducted to see if women were performing their patriotic duty, and were provided more generous subsidized housing to larger families. Across the Communist block pro-birth policies were applied, including State Child - Care and subsidized goods for children and housing to further encourage reproduction. Fascist regimes went further to introduce tax on bachelors. In Nazi Germany the pro-birth program was ruthless. Information about contraception was suppressed. Unmarried adults faced tax penalties. State Loans were given at weddings, only to be written off when a couple produced children.

In this drive to increase population growth and achieve quick economic development, many atrocities were committed. The dignity of the human person was abused and had reached an epoch in which liberty and justice were denied and the dignity of man was trampled upon in many ways. Africa was drained by the slave trade, there was child/ labor, abuse of women and even genocide wars were used.
Then on the 10^th Dec. 1948, the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (111) adopted and proclaimed the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

The General Assemble proclaims: “THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

Article. 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

The first and most important fundamental human right, and the basis of all human rights, is the RIGHT TO LIFE. Without human beings we cannot talk of human rights.
ABORTION. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being after conception and before birth. Miscarriage (or spontaneous abortion) is the accidental death of a human being after conception and before birth. Science and religion agree that human life begins at conception, when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm. In abortion, a human being is deliberately deprived of his/her life. And that is nothing but murder. Abortion is an attack on life itself
The 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child by the United Nations states that the child “needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” A principle, which is in keeping with a previous declaration by the World Medical Association to, “maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception.”

The 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights states that “sentence of death shall not be carried out on pregnant women, and that the express intention of this article is inspired by consideration of the interest of the unborn child.”
Abortion is a crime against Natural Law, Abortion is a crime against Divine Positive Law (Thou shall not kill), Abortion is a crime punishable under Cameroon Penal Code, Abortion is a contravention of the UN Charter on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a right of every Human Being to life and to live, Abortion is an abuse of the Rights of the Child. Abortion is against African culture and customs. Abortion is a crime against humanity and cannot be justified.
Last year alone millions of children were killed by abortion, more than all the people killed during the two World Wars, more than the Afghanistan and Iran and Iraque wars put together. More people die by abortion every year than they died during the Slave Trade. More people die by abortion every year than they have died through genocide. More people are killed every day by abortion than by terrorism. More people die from abortion than they die from AIDS or Malaria.

Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every Human Being is protected. Abortion is the most despicable, callous, heinous and inhuman method of killing. The child is killed by the very persons who are supposed to protect the innocent, harmless child – their parents and doctors. Think of the barbaric and brutal method called “partial-birth abortion”, usually performed in an advance state of pregnancy. It allows a partial delivery before the baby is killed, in some cases using a small hammer or cudgel to crush the skull of the baby while still crying. Yes this is inhumanity of man to man, legalized by some 90 governments of the “civilized World”, signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Every Government in any country in the world has the right, freedom, liberty and duty to rule and carter for the good of its citizens as it thinks fit unless it is in a gross violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other international Conventions to which it is a signatory.
Last month Hilary Clinton the American Secretary of State appeared before the US House of Representatives in sworn testimony said the following.

1. Clinton praised Margaret Sanger, the racist and eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood Federation. She compared Sanger to Thomas Jefferson.
2. Clinton praised the UN Population Fund; the UN agency that helped set up and run the Chinese one child policy which is responsible for millions of horrible coercive abortions.
3. Clinton said the US would ratify the pro-abortion CEDAW treaty, meaning the last meaningful CEDAW holdout will now fall.
4. THE FULL FORCE OF THE US GOVERNMENT WILL BE USED TO GET GOVERNMENTS TO CHANGE THEIR LAWS ON ABORTION ALL OVER THE WORLD.

This is an insult to governments and countries all over the world. What right has the American government, to use its full force, to subvert, sabotage, and force Sovereign Governments and States all over the world to change their laws on abortion, to amend their Criminal Codes?
The Cameroon Penal Code on abortion is based on our culture, traditions and customs, our love for children, our believe in the sanctity of life, and our love and fear of God.
Last month at a United State ( US ) House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stated that there was a new administration in place with different values, beliefs and global agenda. Fine that is for the American people. The global agenda on abortion is not acceptable to Africa and the developing World.
We need our population for our economic development and growth. Africa is poor and underdevelopment because we are under populated.
The average density per sq. km in Europe is 115 people with an average GNP per capital of $23,660, while the average density per sq. km in Africa is 25 people with an average GNP per capita of $637.

Why on earth will Clinton want to force the Developing Countries to reduce their populations by killing their unborn children? Is Europe and America not satisfied with stopping our population growths by pumping trillions of contraceptives, condoms, pills and other abortifacients to the Developing World?. We need our population to grow if we must develop and industrialize and get out of poverty. Europe and America did this in the past, India and China are doing it now. Simplistic as it is, development is by people for people, where there are no people, there is no development.

Madam Hilary Clinton, we followed your work at Cairo +5, Beijing +5, when Mr. Clinton occupied the Oval Office, no body can doubt that you are among the most radical pro-abortion advocates in the world, but please note that the Obama/Clinton Position on Family Planning and Abortion Violates the Cairo Agreement.
Any person, who supports abortion, encourages abortion or who commits abortion, or any government which legalizes abortion, is worse than people who commit terrorism, unjust wars or are guilty of genocide. They have no moral right to condemn torture or any crimes against Human Rights.
If America must maintain its leading position in the world and command respect, it must drop its murderous agenda on depopulating the world, through abortion. We reject it and please keep off.

Deficit of political will in Cameroon! Was there any real lesson for Cameroon in South Africa’s general elections?

The lesson for Cameroon from the recent general elections in South Africa was not so much that they were free and fair but that the S.A. government had willed that elections be so. A similar will for credible elections has also recently been expressed in successful elections in other African countries. How is it that Cameroon is still unable to summon a similar will? Still, the absence of political will has permeated the entire fabric of the Biya regime, making Cameroon more and more of a shadow of its more successful early start in Africa.

The will is that human faculty that decides. It is a decision that gives purpose and prescribes a course of action. But having a will does not always mean using it, and doing so in a purposeful way. Where the will is withheld from where it was expected, its absence denies progress. It is common to hear it said that most of Cameroon’s problems arise from the absence of a political will, meaning Paul Biya’s unwillingness.
As soon as he got to work a fortnight ago, Samuel Fonkam Azu’u, ELECAM’s board chair went off to Pretoria, on invitation, to witness South Africa’s general elections that took place the same week.

The question on many lips as he left was what he had expected to learn from the elections which passed off so well. Not surprisingly Fonkam didn’t make a statement upon his return, given his publicised departure. That quiet return was only understandable. The real lesson from the recent and other elections in South Africa was not how transparent they were and have always been. The real lesson for Cameroon is the political will that decided that elections would at all times be transparent and reflect the voters’ will.
No doubt Fonkam Azu’u didn’t have to be personally present in Pretoria to learn that fact. Before the South African elections there were local elections in Senegal in which the ruling socialist party of Adoulaye Wade lost hands down. The government was defeated in almost all major towns, including Dakar the capital. Where did Senegal find the political will to organise transparent elections?

Even before then Ghana had had a credible election that led to a change of president. The new man happened to be an opposition candidate who won by a razor-thin margin. How did the Ghanaians summon the will to run a credible election?
The same question can be asked of Sierra Leone and Liberia who emerged from long years of civil war to summon the political will for clean and clear elections whose outcomes reflected the people’s will? After the controversy about the strong CPDM membership of ELECAM, sources close to the electoral organ say the members have expressed determination to do all in their power to have future elections in Cameroon transparent.
Isn’t that understandable; perhaps even encouraged by the government? Wasn’t that the same scenario before the flawed legislative elections of July 2007? With everything clearly not going well with the preparations Paul Biya encouraged Marafa, the MINATD chief directly responsible for the elections, to try with all his intelligence to fool western diplomats to believe that all was fine and that the elections would be free, fair and transparent.

Regime bashing

We know what became of the elections and particularly the western diplomats’ bashing of the regime over the ‘elections that were a lost opportunity for democratic advance’ in Cameroon.
The point about transparency in an election is that it is first and foremost a decision taken by the government, and in the case of Cameroon by Paul Biya. Until that will is expressed the rest counts for nothing. This is a fact that Fonkam Azu’u must reckon with.
No matter how over brimming may be his and his colleagues’ goodwill to work honestly, the truth of the matter is that they are already compromised; their hands are much too tied for them to act otherwise. What can they do to change Paul Biya’s unwillingness to have transparent elections?

Had the president lived up his promise to have transparent elections in Cameroon he would have created, as he also promised, an ‘independent election management organ’ as different from ELECAM. ELECAM is as such a counterfeit of the real thing.
The very structure and functioning of ELECAM point to the result expected of it. And to make assurance doubly sure Paul Biya further appointed members who did not only belong to the CPDM party but also owe it a debt of gratitude for their careers and other big favours rendered them in the past. If Paul Biya is as clear as crystal in what he wants, let him also acknowledge that no one is fooled. Not even the determination of ELECAM members to be honest makes sense to anyone.
The inescapable conclusion is that ELECAM is a translation of the absence of Paul Biya’s will to have credible elections in Cameroon. Isn’t it foolhardy and even dangerous for Fonkam Azu’u and his colleagues to think and even say that they can change things through the use of their goodwill? The reason for the president’s unwillingness to have credible elections is every Cameroonian’s knowledge. Paul Biya and his CPDM party will be the instant losers in any credible election in Cameroon. They have remained so long in power and done so poorly that the voter wants a change.

And isn’t it only fair game to have a change after 29 years (by 2011)?
The problem of the president’s unwillingness to change things for the better is not limited to elections. Paul Biya is unenthusiastic about reforming other key institutions such as freeing the courts which continue to be under government control.
It is also not understandable why Paul Biya is reluctant to clean the system of human rights abuse. Why does he refuse to free the national commission for human rights to fight the extensive abuse of citizens’ rights that are mostly perpetrated by law enforcement agents?
Furthermore, why does the president refuse to order the systematic emptying of prisons that are three-quarters full of detainees who have spent months and years uncharged or untried? How does that hinder Biya’s grip on power?

Ahmadou Ahidjo

And that is still not all about the lack of political will in Cameroon. Disturbingly, Paul Biya does not have a good record of socioeconomic development. This newspaper is by no means an admirer of Ahmadou Ahidjo. He established many of the prejudices and injustices that have since shaped the Cameroon of today.
Yet it must be admitted in fairness that in spite of his self-imposed limitations, he did his best. For almost all of his twenty-two years as president, Ahidjo kept the economy growing at a steady 7% of GDP.
He had many wrong priorities. He invested too much in developing a mammoth public sector at the very high cost of the private sector that he deliberately neglected because he feared that he would in the process benefit and strengthen Anglophones and the Bamileke of the West, which two groups had an early start in business.

Ahidjo did not build roads nor did he pay enough attention to primary and secondary education. His emphasis on food self-sufficiency was good but he would have put this in the hands of the private sector. All said, Ahidjo put Cameroon far ahead of other African countries, especially the Francophone ones, when it came to economic development. He called his economic model the contradictory name of ‘planned liberalism.’
Flattered by foreign press reviews and fellow Africans, Ahidjo even dreamed of an economic take-off (after Rostow’s stages of economic growth) when he organised a huge celebration in 1970 to honour ten years of independence.

When he retired in 1982 he handed over a healthy economy at 7% growth rate, a robust treasury and a negligible foreign debt. Under Paul Biya much of Ahijo’s initiatives were abandoned and un-replaced. Decline set in almost immediately followed by a steep recession that lasted about twelve years.

Economic growth has been much too feeble to pull the country out of the effects of the decade-long free fall of the economy. Growth rate, once at about 5% in the late 1990s, has since been falling steadily and presently stands at 3.2%. The reality of that rate is that Cameroon is in socioeconomic decline.
With the recession came poverty, the acceleration of unemployment, disease, crime and the galloping cost of living which further intensified misery.
Since 1997 the government acknowledged poverty as a national problem but has so far been unable to resolve it.
The answer to the fast shrinking economy and all those unhappy consequences would have been a bold stimulus package to give the economy the means of growth and expansion. That, we are sorry, is unlikely to come in the near future. For that to happen there must first be a strong will to move the economy in the right direction.

Shock therapy

Last year the government was unmoved by a nation-wide anti-government uprising by the masses against deplorable existence, what many still consider was shock therapy. The measures adopted were too few, too superficial and ineffective. It will probably require a greater shock to shake the government out of its lethargy.
The absence of political will seems to have permeated the entire Biya system. Even after long years of complaints about a grossly inefficient administrative system the government has refused to budge on the matter. It takes more than a year for a foreign company in Cameroon to begin business. The same absence of political will is at the origin of the absence of cohesion among the countries of the central African sub-region. The unwillingness to apply signed and ratified conventions makes CEMAC a wasted effort.

It takes a truck of goods from Douala port sixty days or more to travel to neighbouring Chad, twice as long as the freight time of the goods from Shanghai! At stake is the non-respect of conventions and corruption.
It may not appear obvious yet it is Paul Biya’s failed political will that is still fundamental to the decline of Cameroon’s football. A month ago Cameroonians suffered a rude shock when Togo beat the Indomitable Lions in the CAN/World Cup football series.
The unexpected defeat sparked fears that Cameroon might not again qualify for the 2010 World Cup which it failed to do in 2006, the first time in about two decades!

The defeat also served to bring home the painful reality, which had been much avoided in the past, that at last Cameroon’s football was clearly on the decline.

Not only is the government in a leaden slumber, its strict centralised and sluggish administrative structure denies any decision taking at any level other than at the very top. That makes the government unable to act in time on any situation. The result is that the government never anticipates or takes charge of any situation until the full damage has come home.

In the final analysis the lack of political will to modernise Cameroon in all key areas of socioeconomic development have held the country much too far behind on its development.
The early lead that Cameroon had over other African countries even with the faltering efforts of Ahmadou Ahidjo has been erased. At international conferences it is common to meet fellow Africans who remember Cameroon as the leader others looked up to, lament over the failure of Cameroon.
Why does Paul Biya deny Cameroon its necessary modernisation? Why would he define his political survival in so narrow and self-centred way that imperils the nation’s progress?

Source: The Herald

Violence Against Men on the Rise in Cameroon

Some Financially Powerful Women Here Would Not Tolerate Any Unhealthy Behavior from a Man

By yemti ndienla
Violence against men by women has become very common in our society. Women in some parts of Cameroon say violence on men is commonplace now with the emancipation of women. And that some financially powerful women would not tolerate any unhealthy behavior from a man who just feels big sometimes without anything to contribute to the running of the home.

They believe some men are increasingly becoming irresponsible. "We know that we are supposed to be submissive in order to be loved but once a man takes that as a weakness you cannot but fight back. And this is either by insulting, beating if you can or denying him some life's pleasures," says Tabi Ayuk.

However, in a recent study conducted by the Herald, women hold that it is only when a woman is provoked beyond a certain degree that she can be brutal to a man whom they hold is Biblically the head of the family irrespective of what he has.

Whatever the case there are many women who would not hesitate to beat up their husbands once they are wrong. Most of these women are financially independent and most often are the breadwinners in their families and would not understand why a woman who is being fed would behave funny. They would either resort to beating if they can or other sorts of demeaning treatments like denying food and other life's pleasures to their husbands as punishment. "You would not expect a woman who is not given food money to be hot about what the man would eat or a woman whose husband openly cheats on her to be happy to make love with him," says Mercy Ijang.

Besides, most women use their mouths to inflict pain on men. Since most women have realized they are physically weak "they use their mouths to do what even a hundred strokes of a cane would not do. Picture a woman who would not allow her husband to say a word during any conversation at home. This is violence," says Nkongho Bate.

Alice Mbande, urged other woman especially those married to men she described as irresponsible husband, not to pamper them even when they assume their functions as husband and father. Hear her, "you know there are men who would not give you a franc or gives you an insignificant amount of money but go out there to drink crates of beer and sponsor free women. To show your dissatisfaction you cannot but inflict pain on him either psychologically or physically, so that he shares your pain."

Though most women are patient, tolerant and recognize the God-given right of the man as the head of the family, others use violence on men to correct some of their unhealthy behaviors. No doubt some men have the habit of drinking excessively, cheating on their wives and doing things that are not dignifying to their wives. "Powerful women would not hesitate to beat sense into such a man with the intention to bring him back to order," says Sophie Taku.

On this score Nicole believes men are the cause of their problem. Hear her "It is true that women perpetrate violence on men but we must underline here that men are usually the cause. Once a man becomes irresponsible and cares less or little about his wife and children, you would not expect the woman to carry that entire burden and still be as submissive as she would be if the man were responsible,"