That's horrible. I wish I could read between the lines of that article:

Correspondents say men in conservative rural communities in southern Africa sometimes harass women for wearing trousers and short skirts.

Something tells me that "harass" may not, exactly, be a strong enough word. Just guessing. This doesn't seem very isolated.

and this is also insane:
"I was shocked when I learnt of the incident, because I wear pants myself and am not ashamed to do so. It is also not forbidden by our party, [said] Theresa Nzuza, [a member of] the Inkatha Freedom Party.

Notice that she doesn't say "it is ludicrous for ANYONE to forbid this." Which suggests that it is possible pants-wearing COULD be forbidden... by a political party. Which is fucking nuts.

And of course there's this:
after [they assaulted a woman and burned down her only house] a community meeting [of men] decided to ban women in the area wearing trousers.

How is this possible? How can this even be legal?

Oh my god.

We've come a long way, baby.

Yeah fucking right.

This part vaguely suggests there's more to this story than women's freedom to wear pants. It sounds more like a case of a woman perhaps passing as male to work:

The incident happened in an area of Umlazi called T section which is a hostelry for men.

"Only men are supposed to stay there - emanating from the apartheid era when people were segregated in terms of areas.

"It's a place where men live from the rural areas so that they can be nearer their work environment."

Social anthropologist Prof Anand Singh told the paper the incident was a conflict of values.

A conflict of values, right...between people who want to control and abuse women and, well, women.

Patriarchy has a conflict of values with women the way a chainsaw has a conflict of values with a tree.

Social anthropologist Prof Anand Singh told the paper the incident was a conflict of values.

A conflict of values, right...between people who want to control and abuse women and, well, women.

Patriarchy has a conflict of values with women the way a chainsaw has a conflict of values with a tree.

I never understood why in some places skirts/dresses are viewed as strictly female garb and pants as strictly male.

Anatomically speaking, you'd think it'd be the other way around--skirts allowing more, er, breathing room for male dangly bits, and all.

Now I'm curious...I may have to research this.

Vervain, it is pretty silly. The sarong, for example, is worn in southeast asia by both men and women. And given how hot it is there, everyone could use a little breeze between the legs! :)

So, once again, gender-role-mandated BS is *not* universal, contrary to what the misogynists of the world want to believe.