Billion-shilling fund for marginalised men an idea whose time has finally arrived

Male MPs want a fund worth several billions of shillings inaugurated for the sole purpose of uplifting men who live on the margins of society. They say this is to leverage menfolk, much the same way women and youth have benefited from specific funds targeting their ilk.

This, for all intents and purposes, is an off-shoot lobbies that have emerged in the past to promote boy-child issues, and more recently, violence against men. I want to fully associate with this campaign for a number of reasons.

First, the principle behind this initiative is pretty sound; since there is equality before the law, so what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Secondly, years of affirmative action which primarily targets women and the marginalised, man’s place in the work-place has generally been eroded, and many are likely to earn less than their female counterparts.

On the political front, women have recently been rewarded with extra slots in Parliament and county assemblies, which means it’s just a matter of time before they outnumber men in the legislature.

But the main motivation for throwing my lot with the menfolk is because their purported financial muscle has largely been imaginary. Here’s why: As womenfolk meet for their chamas and raise actual money that they use to buy pots and pans, and as has been happening of late, land and houses, men while their time in pubs meeting male acquaintances who purport to have a shamba  that’s up for sale, a negotiation that takes years without conclusion.

And when such men are asked what became of such deals, a dismissive wave of the hand, followed by a grunt that the land in question was abandoned as it had no title deed, is all they have to say. Quite the contrary, a woman who is not paid by her chama as scheduled will communicate her outrage to the entire fraternity and scandalise the defaulters who have no choice but to pay up.

Man brutalised

Alternately, failure to honour a chama obligation means life-long enmity that few women are willing to risk.

The other reason for supporting the men-only fund is to insulate them from the embarrassment of having to explain themselves when they have financial emergencies only unique to men.

For instance, if a man is brutalised by his woman and needs a CT-scan to confirm his skull was not broken, it is humiliating to have to go through the motions of the fight, especially if the man was on the receiving end.

Women, on the other hand, have forums where they can open up to their female friends and explain what happened to them without fear of being judged. The other financial emergencies that are men-specific relate to issues of blackmail from secret lovers. There are those who will feign pregnancies and demand instant cash, or even demand to move houses when the month is in a bad corner.

The reason I have not broached development agenda for men is simple: many harbour illusions of entrepreneurship but very few are truly interested. Most want their women to start businesses and ride on their success. The only business men are interested in are butcheries and pubs, but that’s only because they have a personal interest in the merchandise.

A more plausible approach, therefore, would be to make a provision for bar and butchery development in every constituency, perhaps under CDF and male politicians will rest their case – as long their concubines are not prohibited from running the show.