For me, some of the issues raised in the trial go beyond African patriarchy vs Western feminism. It is the problem posed by- on the one hand the desperate need by the justice system to be seen to be doing something about rape, while at the same time the harm done to men's lives by being falsely accused of this heinous crime. Here in the UK, they are passing a law where it seems a woman only has to change her mind about the one-night stand and the law comes down on you as a rapist.

I am puzzled by the fact that Zuma knew the woman was HIV positive, and yet he had sex with her anyway- consentual or otherwise. Perhaps this is part of South Africa's excessive political-correctness- HIV+ people need love too?

As for this feminist assault on our patriarchy, I think that the debate should be allowed, for it will show how absurd the arguements posed by this bunch are. I remember on television, and the feminist started by complaining about the Shona proverb which translates as "There can't be two roosters in the run". She complained why the rooster had to be male, to be reminded that a rooster is always a male. Then she griped about having to use her husband's surname, only to be reminded that the concept is European to begin with. Besides, the name she wanted to use was a man's, her father's! And so on it went, and in the end, many of the feminists (we call them "Beijing", after the Conference")
withdrew from the discussion.

Even here in England, some of the staunchest proponents of the feminist movement are retracting, going back to concepts that we Africans have held for a long time- men and women are equal but very different.