Femicide in South Africa is framed as a structural failure that prevents women from participating freely in ordinary activities, a recent commentary said, after the killing of Elizabeth “Tsontso” Moselakgomo while she was out running.
Argument: violence is embedded in relationships and society
The column argued that women in South Africa often have to negotiate their safety before leaving home. It said many women do not merely live their lives; they must explain, defend and protect themselves against crimes they did not invite and do not deserve.
Drawing on national research, the piece noted that intimate partners accounted for 60.1% of femicides in 2020/21, a figure the authors used to underscore how deeply violence against women is woven into intimate relationships.
"What freedom do women in South Africa have? One cannot help but ask: Are women being punished merely for existing?" the column said.
Causes and consequences highlighted
The commentary described the root causes as structural and cultural, pointing to a patriarchal system that normalises male entitlement and privileges male authority over women’s autonomy. It asked what kinds of anger, entitlement or trauma allow perpetrators to view other human beings as objects to control or punish.
It further warned that these are not simply isolated acts by troubled individuals but reflect broader socialisation and power imbalances.
- Intimate partners were reported to be responsible for 60.1% of femicides in 2020/21, according to the commentary’s reference to national research.
- The killing of Elizabeth “Tsontso” Moselakgomo while she was running was cited as an example of everyday vulnerability faced by women.
- The piece framed femicide as a symptom of entrenched patriarchal norms that reduce women’s freedom.
What the numbers show
While the column focused on structural causes and moral questions, it leaned on the Medical Research Council's national femicide research to provide empirical weight.
| Measure | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Femicide attributed to intimate partners (2020/21) | 60.1% |
Implications for policy and society
The commentary called for urgent societal and institutional responses, arguing that law enforcement, criminal justice, social services and community norms all play a role in preventing gender-based killings. It suggested that without confronting the patriarchal attitudes embedded in relationships and institutions, women will remain at risk.
Experts and advocates have repeatedly urged coordinated action: better policing and prosecution of gender-based crimes, targeted support for women at risk, community interventions that challenge norms of male dominance, and investment in research and prevention programmes. The column emphasised the need for deeper socialisation to change attitudes that condone or excuse violence against women.
What is still developing
The column posed ethical and psychological questions about perpetrators’ motives and did not offer new primary data beyond referencing the national study. It described the killing of Moselakgomo as emblematic but did not provide new investigative findings on that case; law enforcement developments, charges or court processes were not detailed in the commentary.
More information from criminal investigations, official femicide statistics from government agencies and statements from victim-support organisations would be required to map immediate responses and progress against the problem.
The commentary ends with a stark reminder: until societal attitudes and institutional responses change, women’s ability to move freely and safely in public spaces will remain compromised.
