You cannot be a woman and not have been devastated after reading the public apology that Naledi Chirwahad to make a week ago for not having been able to attend a parliamentary sitting on account of her four-month-old daughter being ill.

Chirwa, a member of parliament with the EFF, missed a parliamentary sitting and while she told the party, she did not inform the designated whip in the EFF caucus. For this reason, she was fined R10,000, to buy two gazebos for the EFF.

She also had to make a public apology. In the apology, Chirwa said that because of her commitment to the work of the EFF, she went on maternity leave the day before she gave birth and returned to work two months before her maternity leave ended.

She said that her daughter is being looked after by her mother to enable Chirwa to do political work towards the elections. Chirwa’s apology reads like the strong and powerful words of a revolutionary who is prepared to self-immolate.

Because of this, some EFF members initially attempted to frame the situation as a demonstration of extraordinary commitment to the “revolution”. They would later label it as “attention-seeking ” and “ill-discipline” after EFF leader, Julius Malema, threw scorn at it, saying it contained “inappropriate insinuations” and calling it “rubbish” that was detracting from the work of members of the organisation.

This inflammatory language set parameters for the verbal assault Chirwa has continued to suffer on social media. Her letter is neither revolutionary nor rubbish. What it really is, is a painful illustration of the kinds of unthinkable sacrifices women are forced to make to remain relevant in the productive space.

It is not unique to her – it is the story of many women who are expected to raise children as if they don’t work and work as if they don’t have children to raise. For a mother to have to leave her four-month-old child to ensure victory for a political party and for that mother to be fined for missing just one day of work when she gave up months during her pregnancy and maternity leave for that party, speaks to the depths to which the work of the “revolution” is thankless for women.

Chirwa has accepted the punishment the EFF meted out and has challenged many feminists who sought to not treat her as a helpless victim. Her demand for the recognition of her agency is not incorrect.

But agency is not exercised in a vacuum. It is exercised in a heteronormative patriarchal society in which women ensure layered forms of violence. This violence is often legitimised in arguments such as those posed by EFF supporters that this situation is fundamentally about entrenching “accountability”.

But this is not an issue of accountability. Accountability would have been Chirwa explaining herself internally. After all, this is an HR issue more than it is a political issue.

Chirwa’s absence from parliament for that sitting did not alter the course of history. It has no material consequence for the country. This is an issue of patriarchy reminding women that it has the ability to humiliate, shame, dehumanise and de-civilise them.

It is an issue of patriarchy reminding women they are expected to set themselves, and their children, on fire to keep men warmly in seats of power. The fact that this played itself out during Women’s History Month and just days before International Women’s Day is not ironic.

It is symbolic of how the struggle for women’s emancipation is deferred to the individuals and institutions that protect and reward patriarchy.