Some people want to keep their privileges of the past at the expense of an open, opportunity society in the future

The time around National Women's Day has caused me to reflect on the distinctions that still exist between women and men. For decades, I have been telling other women the same thing: you have the power to shape your own life and to stop things from happening to you. Whatever wrongs are happening to you are what you allow to happen.

Of course, sometimes we are not strong enough to prevent everything happening to us. This was the sad truth for my sister, who was raped and murdered. But in this patriarchal society, we owe it to ourselves to fight - even to the point where people claim that you have lost your femininity.

I have believed this all my life. And I have lived it as well. I knew that the struggle against racial discrimination was also a struggle for gender equality and that the only way women would achieve parity would be to never give up fighting.

When you are fighting against hundreds of years of learned patriarchal behaviour, your work is cut out for you. But because of this constant battle, women sometimes get portrayed differently. I have experienced this throughout my career.

When we were negotiating the new constitution at the CODESA, we had some very powerful personalities in the room. I remember Joe Slovo and Cyril Ramaphosa constantly shouting and banging their hands on the desks in front of them. They were called things like ‘decisive;' and ‘strong leaders.'

There's definitely a tolerant and sometimes indulgent narrative of ‘men of action' who have such drive and focus to do their jobs that they will let nothing and no one stand in their way.

Given this, I am disappointed but not surprised by the way I have been portrayed in the media of late. It is not the first time: at the CODESA, as the only woman heading a delegation, when I acted like Joe or Cyril, I was called ‘aggressive.' But the rules to succeed in politics do not change whether you are a man or woman.

Recently, however, I have been called ‘intolerant' and am supposed to have an ‘iron-grip.' I apparently run ‘roughshod' over people and thereby allegedly compromise the integrity of due process and apparently make flawed decisions.

I know these caricatures. You can say what you like about me; you can whisper behind my back; you can start however many rumours you like but know this: I will not stop the work I have been entrusted to do because some nameless cowards try and reduce me to some kind of stereotype.

I have a job to do and a mandate to fulfil from 61% of the city's population.

In the latest attempt to portray me in a certain negative light, I have tried to dissect the motivations behind the accusations thrown at me and understand my accusers that way. Sadly, in a real indictment of the quality of journalism, the supposed ‘issues' that act as justifications are so misrepresented it is hard to know who has more malice: the ‘nameless sources' or the journalists who dutifully report whatever they have been told and thereby compromise journalistic ethics.

Two issues have received a great deal of attention recently. The first is the matter of the proposal around planning delegations.

I am surprised that a number of individuals and civic groupings have rushed to criticise draft proposals under consideration that seek to streamline the system of delegations that relate to planning in the city. They have ignored the fact that these are merely proposals under consideration. They have not been finalised, nor formally bought to any structure of Council.

In all likelihood the initial proposal might be changed after proper engagement in the structures of the City. Ultimately, it will seek to achieve the desired balance between reducing red tape, so as to encourage development, growth and jobs with the need for local input and public participation. We are compelled in law to carry out public participation and we will always comply.

We will only consider what is possible in terms of the law and our commitment to the rule of law and due process. This will see Subcouncils and the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management (SPELUM) Committee continue to play an important and appropriate role in planning matters, with the necessary appeal and other functions also in place as is prescribed in the delegations conferred on them by Council.

The second matter is the one around the Council's recommendation to move the urban edge in the Philippi Horticultural Area (PHA). Regarding this issue, there have been allegations that we have not followed proper process and are compromising the poor and the lives of farmers.

Here is the reality: in the area under scrutiny, large parts are not farmed while some parts are. Those that are farmed are farmed by people who want to sell their land. Largely, they want to sell because they do not want to farm anymore because of security threats and imminent developments in the same region of Philippi. They know that, with urban creep and surrounding developments, the long-term viability of farming in that portion of the PHA is doubtful. They want to move.

The City's response seeks to accommodate irreversible urban and development trends and preserve a necessary portion of the PHA for farming. We can either accept that we need a new solution to the PHA or we can ignore reality and pretend that our formal zoning schemes are enough. Frankly, we have a duty to try and get ahead of the curve and head-off urban creep while working to come up with a sustainability plan for the PHA for the first time.

We made this case through the processes of Council in an open and transparent manner, following the law and proper administrative procedure. Our recommendation now rests with the MEC.

These facts are well known by everyone in the City. What then can the motive be of the ‘nameless sources' in portraying me as something just short of a hysteric? And then I remember another truth as old as the different treatment between men and women: some people are resistant to change. They talk about improving people's lives and addressing the imbalances of the past but when push comes to shove, they are desperate to retain the Apartheid spatial status quo.

And so to these critics I say this: I can take constructive criticism. But I have also defied the odds of braver critics than you, ones I fought face-to-face and I have done so as a woman who has proudly worked hard for everything I have.

Cape Town is a great city that can be greater still if it addresses the imbalances of the past and creates opportunity for everyone, whether you are rich or poor, as is the philosophy of this government.

Together with a formidable team in my office, we will continue to do everything we can to make that society a reality. It is the dream of our future - and we won't stop now just because some people want to keep their privileges of the past at the expense of an open, opportunity society in the future.

This article by Patricia de Lille first appeared in Cape Town This Week, the online newsletter of the Mayor of Cape Town.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter