“Can we afford to wait any longer for protection under law?” - this question is central to the July 1979 editorial, “Men vs. Women: The Marriage Bill in Parliament.” This editorial summarizes a third round of debates surrounding a proposed set of marriage and divorce regulations. Originating from a 1967 Commission to establish uniform marriage law, the bill sought to formalize existing traditions and establish new protections for women. According to historian Lynn M. Thomas, legislation aimed at expanding women’s rights represented a flashpoint for conflict in the post-colonial era. The male-dominated parliament, backed by a flurry of anger within traditional Kenyan publications, criticized the bill for being “un-African,” “copied from English law,” and “giving too many rights to women,” among other concerns presented in the editorial. These criticisms were unfounded, as the commission specifically sought to construct a law “founded on the African way of life,” with provisions for legal polygamy, unlike prior colonial marriage laws.

This debate exists within long patterns of formalized control of Kenyan women. Claude Meillassoux contends that in the labor-intensive agricultural communities characteristic of pre-colonial Kenya, “central to the organization of society was the control of the means of reproduction, especially regarding women and children, in contrast to capitalism’s central attention to the means of production.” This analysis continued to inform dominant attitudes towards a women’s role and responsibilities well into the postcolonial era, as roughly 90% of the population lived in rural areas in 1970. Although “Men vs. Women” presents a detailed argument for the merits of the Marriage Bill, the legislation was once again rejected. As Lynn Thomas notes, the outright dismissal of women’s rights and defiant tone prevalent in legislative proceedings reflect what Achille Mbembe calls a “phallocratic system” of postcolonial governments, which necessitate “the unconditional subordination of women to the principle of male pleasure.” The grotesque nature of these debates was not lost on the growing Kenyan feminist movement. Audrey Wipper states that within the ruling party, the same men who “loudly espoused democratic, egalitarian principles in their indictment of the authoritarian colonial system were seen… in their private lives to nurture authoritarian relationships with women.” “Men vs. Women,” along with countless other editorials across Viva’s history, reflects this growing discontent among Kenyan feminists.