In July, two cases involving Zimbabwean families forced us to confront difficult questions about
violence, masculinity and the value placed on women and children. In the United Kingdom, a British citizen of Zimbabwean heritage is alleged to have murdered his wife and their daughters. Days later, Zimbabweans learnt of another case in Eastview, Harare, where a man allegedly attacked his wife and caused a fire in which their two young children died.
Both cases remain before the law and must be discussed without prejudging the accused. But neither should be hidden behind descriptions such as “domestic dispute”, “family tragedy” or “crime of passion”. Such phrases can make violence sound like a private disagreement that simply went too far.
These cases sit within a wider crisis of violence against women and children. They expose beliefs that a man’s anger deserves explanation, a woman’s conduct must be investigated, and betrayal or rejection can somehow reduce responsibility.
This article does not seek to determine what happened inside these homes. That responsibility lies with investigators and the courts. It asks why society explains violence by examining women’s behaviour.
When love is confused with ownership
The Bedfordshire murders are not the first case in which a Zimbabwean woman living abroad has been killed by a male partner. Previous reports from the United Kingdom record other such deaths. Each case has its own facts, but together they should make us examine cultural beliefs that travel across borders.
Migration does not automatically remove ideas about male authority and women’s submission.
Women have long been taught that a successful marriage depends on their ability to submit, endure and preserve the home. A “good wife” is expected to manage her husband’s emotions, avoid embarrassing him and remain even at enormous personal cost.
Men may be taught that heading a family gives them authority over everyone within it. A wife’s
independence becomes disrespect, her refusal becomes disobedience and her decision to leave becomes humiliation. Lobola, which should unite families, can also be misrepresented as a transaction giving a husband ownership of his wife. Once a woman is treated as property, her freedom becomes conditional on a man’s approval.
These beliefs do not make every man violent. But they create an environment in which control is
mistaken for love, jealousy for protection and obedience for respect. Children may also be treated as possessions or instruments through which one partner hurts the other, instead of people with rights and futures of their own.
We keep asking the wrong questions
Before courts established the facts of the Bedfordshire and Eastview cases, some social-media users began manufacturing explanations. Perhaps, they suggested, the children were not biologically related
to their father. Perhaps the wife had been unfaithful. Perhaps he had discovered something so painful that it pushed him beyond his limits.
These claims lacked evidence. More importantly, even if infidelity or disputed paternity were involved, when did either become a licence to take another person’s life?
If every betrayed wife killed her husband or children, would society explain her actions as heartbreak? Would people search for evidence that her husband had provoked her, or immediately demand accountability?
The search for something the woman might have done shows how deeply victim blaming is embedded in society. The alleged perpetrator’s actions become secondary while the woman’s
character and choices are placed on trial.
This is how violence is softened. It becomes a “reaction”. Control becomes love. The alleged perpetrator is repositioned as a victim of betrayal or rejection while the woman faces public judgment.
We see the same transfer of responsibility whenever an abused woman is asked:
Why did she stay?
Why did she return?
Why did she ignore the red flags?
These questions imply that if she had recognised the danger or left quickly enough, she could have
prevented the abuse. But the more important question is:
Why did he harm her?
Why did he consider intimidation acceptable? Why did he interpret independence as a threat? Why did others ignore controlling behaviour?Why are boys and men not consistently taught to handle rejection, separation and betrayal without violence?
The same pattern appears after sexual violence: society questions a woman’s clothing and choices
instead of asking why someone violated her.
Asking why women stay also ignores abusive relationships’ realities. A woman may remain because of fear, financial dependence, concern for her children, isolation, threats or pressure from family, community or church. She may know that leaving could place her in greater danger. Regardless of why she stays, responsibility rests with the person who harms her.
Mental health cannot become an excuse
Another explanation regularly introduced after men harm their families is mental health.
Men’s mental health matters. Men should be able to acknowledge distress and seek help without being told to “man up”. Zimbabwe needs accessible services and healthier ways for men to process pressure, anger, grief and rejection. But mental health cannot become a blanket explanation for male violence.
Women also experience depression, trauma, financial pressure, infidelity and rejection. They do not receive the same permission to turn those experiences into violence.
Mental-health difficulties may be relevant to an individual case, but they do not erase accountability. We should not stigmatise people with mental-health conditions by implying that mental illness naturally leads to violence.
Support for men’s mental health and accountability for male violence are not competing ideas. We need both.
Peace must exist inside the home
Violence against women is a global human-rights and public-health emergency. The World Health
Organisation estimates that almost one in three women—approximately 840 million globally—has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by someone else.
In one recent 12-month period, approximately 316 million women aged 15 and older experienced physical or sexual intimate-partner violence. At its most extreme, violence rooted in gender inequality and control can culminate in femicide—the gender-related killing of a woman or girl. UN Women estimates that approximately 50 000 women and girls were killed by intimate partners or family members in 2024—about 137 every day.
This wider context does not determine the legal classification or motive in the cases prompting this discussion. Zimbabwe is not removed from this crisis. UN Women data indicates that approximately 19% of partnered Zimbabwean women aged 15 to 49 experienced physical or sexual intimate-partner violence within a 12-month period.
This crisis also relates to the Women, Peace and Security agenda. United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1325 is commonly associated with armed conflict and peacebuilding, but its principles of prevention and protection should challenge us to consider what security means for women. Zimbabwe’s 2023–2027 National Action Plan addresses security nationally and within communities. Peace cannot mean only the absence of war when many women remain unsafe at home.
The Maputo Protocol affirms women’s rights to life, dignity, integrity and security. It requires states to address violence in public and private and transform beliefs founded on male superiority. Prevention requires confronting beliefs that make violence imaginable. Men must challenge friends who speak of wives as property, reject jokes normalising abuse and stop treating jealousy and control as love.
Families and churches must stop pressuring women to remain in dangerous relationships to preserve the appearance of marriage. Police, courts, health services and communities must take threats and controlling behaviour seriously.
No allegation of infidelity, disputed paternity, rejection, financial pressure or mental distress gives anyone the right to play God.
A woman does not surrender ownership of her body or life when she enters a relationship. Children are not possessions or instruments of revenge.
Let us stop asking why women stay long enough to be harmed. Let us ask why men harm women—and what each of us is doing to stop them.
~as published in The Zimbabwe Independent (July 31-August 6)





