THERE are moments in a nation’s history when the decline is not only measured in GDP contraction, currency erosion, or fiscal indiscipline, but in something far more intimate and unsettling: the psychological unravelling of its men.
Zimbabwe appears to be living through such a moment. What we are witnessing is not merely economic hardship; it is the symbolic castration in the Zimbabwean economy, a quiet but devastating stripping away of male agency, purpose and social function.
For decades, Zimbabwean masculinity was socially anchored in provision, protection, leadership and moral authority within the family and the community.
Culturally and religiously, men were expected to be hunters rather than dependents, initiators rather than recipients, builders rather than spectators. Yet the post-2000 economic implosion has systematically dismantled these roles.
Hyperinflation, deindustrialisation, company closures, land reform disruptions and chronic unemployment did not just destroy balance sheets; they hollowed out the masculine psyche.
Today, a large proportion of Zimbabwean men no longer occupy meaningful economic positions. The White collar jobs that once conferred dignity, routine and identity have disappeared.
Factories lie idle, offices downsized, and professional pathways blocked. In their place has emerged a precarious survival economy dominated by informal trading, betting streams and transactional hustling. The man as provider has been replaced by the man as supplicant.
This shift is linguistically visible. The widespread lingo of “mbinga, mdhara, and maBoss” is not harmless street slang; it is sociological evidence.
- Village Rhapsody: Govt must ensure that devolution works
- Village Rhapsody: Govt must ensure that devolution works
- Currency crisis hits capital markets
- Worthless Zim dollar notes clog banks
Keep Reading
These terms signal dependency hierarchies among men, where survival is increasingly mediated through proximity to another man’s resources, political access, or perceived power.
The new aspiration is no longer self-sufficiency but attachment. Masculinity has become relationally parasitic rather than economically productive.
Younger generations born after the 2000s have grown up without witnessing functional family role structures. The cultural script of father as provider, moral anchor and authority figure has faded into abstraction. Religion once reinforced these roles through doctrines of stewardship, responsibility and sacrificial leadership. Now, both cultural and religious frameworks struggle to compete with an economy that rewards dependency and punishes autonomy.
The psychological toll is severe. Men who cannot provide experience chronic shame, identity diffusion and learned helplessness.
Depression, substance abuse and escapism flourish quietly. Socially, beer halls and nightclubs proliferate while marriage rates decline, and divorce rates rise.
The once-taboo concept of “small houses” has been normalised, not as moral progress but as symptomatic adaptation to instability and fractured commitment. When economic security collapses, relational ethics soon follow.
Politically, the emasculation is even more visible. Zimbabwean politics has become a theatre of male dependency and submission.
Men ride on other men for deals.
Loyalty replaces competence. Factionalism thrives, not around ideas, but around access. There is minimal genuine opposition; instead, there is scrambling, partitioning, and backbiting for favour from the dominant political centre. Men fight to be seen near the main leader, not to challenge policy or propose alternatives.
Public dissent is silenced, and silence is sanctified with religious language. Phrases such as “God is in it” or “leave it to God” are deployed to mask fear, inaction and complicity. Spiritually, men increasingly outsource responsibility to miracles.
Churches multiply at an astonishing rate, promising divine intervention where civic courage is absent. Faith becomes a refuge from accountability rather than a catalyst for moral leadership.
The irony is striking. There is widespread rhetoric about the need for new leadership, fresh ideas and generational renewal. Yet when the moment for action arises, men retreat.
They hide behind female voices, allowing women to carry the burden of activism, protest and moral clarity, while men calculate survival strategies. One hears whispered theories of “infiltrate silently”, “pretend to like the party, and just know who to vote for”.
These are strategies of fear, not conviction. They reflect political castration, not strategic sophistication.
Economically, the consequences are stark. Fewer men occupy professional roles. Entrepreneurship is often survivalist rather than innovative.
Betting, gambling and speculative hustles substitute for structured work. The social contract between effort and reward has collapsed, leaving men disoriented and disengaged. When effort no longer guarantees dignity, withdrawal becomes rational.
Social norms adjust accordingly. Society now tolerates behaviours once considered markers of moral decline. Commitment is optional.
Responsibility is negotiable. Masculinity is redefined not by provision or protection, but by proximity to someone else’s resources. Accepting gifts from other men becomes a survival strategy rather than a source of shame. Dependency is normalised. This reality raises uncomfortable questions that Zimbabweans must confront honestly. Is the erosion of male agency primarily the result of structural unemployment and economic collapse?
Is it driven by mass migration that hollowed out local labour markets and role models? Or is there an emerging culture of learned laziness, where adaptation has mutated into resignation? Are men victims, accomplices, or both? Equally uncomfortable is the gender discourse. Women’s empowerment is rightly celebrated and long overdue. However, empowerment does not require the disempowerment of men.
A society where men are economically redundant and psychologically absent does not become balanced; it becomes unstable. Families fracture not because women are empowered, but because men are disengaged. Children grow up without coherent models of partnership, responsibility and shared leadership.
What happened to men being the hunters and women being gatherers? What happened to complementary roles rooted in mutual dependence rather than competition? What happened to masculine accountability in public life, economic participation and moral courage?
Zimbabwe’s crisis is not simply fiscal or political; it is existential. An economy that strips men of purpose while offering no alternative pathways produces not progress, but paralysis.
Reversing this trend requires more than policy reform. It demands cultural introspection, political courage, economic inclusion, and a re-imagining of masculinity that is productive rather than dependent, principled rather than submissive.
Until then, Zimbabwe will continue to suffer a quiet, humiliating phenomenon: the castration of hidden behind “women empowerment?”
Mahagwe is a hospitality entrepreneur in Zimbabwe, a Zimbabwe registered systemic family counsellor, mental health researcher and a deputy manager in the health and social care sector in the United Kingdom. These weekly New Horison articles published in the Zimbabwe Independent are coordinated by Lovemore Kadenge, an independent consultant, managing consultant of Zawale Consultants (Private) Limited, past president of the Zimbabwe Economics Society (ZES) and past president of the Chartered Governance & Accountancy in Zimbabwe (CGI). — [email protected] or Mobile +263 772 382 852.
