women could be risk takers at the same level as men. The liberation struggle was also highlighted as having played an important factor in shaping women’s risk perception and making women take as much risk as men. According to exponents of this view, there was no stratification of male and female freedom fighters during the war; they were equal and all carried the same guns and went through the same training in the same bushes. Due to this, women in Zimbabwe are active in the risky forms of citizen expression, just like the men. Another factor mediating gendered risk taking was the issue of patriarchy whereby women’s groups are fighting for space for expression of women’s concerns against male privilege and the argument that historically, men have disadvantaged women across all facets of civic life. Men have also let women down. Women are trying to fight for their space. From the domestic sphere to the public sphere, there are women that feel they have had enough of male leaders and male leadership. This view holds that women are the spine of the family unit and they bear the brunt of the domestic chores, the poverty and they also have to contend with male domination of household property. Inevitably, a mass of women disgruntled by androcentrism has risen to claim space for women’s views to be heard and addressed hence women are taking risks politically, at the levels that are similar to men’s risk taking. These views and explanations buttressed women’s risk taking trends as claimed by the paper. 5.3 Residence According to respondents the majority of people in Zimbabwe are disgruntled by the current state of affairs. People’s perceptions of the causes of disgruntlement are multifaceted and this has is intricately linked to the people’s perceptions of the alternatives that are there and the alternatives that they have or think they have access to, in dealing with their disgruntlement. This inevitably, has an indelible impact in their risk taking behaviour. If people residing in “affluent” surburbs feel aggrieved by the government, they are less likely to go on the streets and loot shops. Rather, they are likely to talk about it on twitter, facebook or talk about in whatsapp groups and their professional networks. This does not necessarily mean they are risk averse. Instead, this calls for analyses of the opportunities they have to congregate with like-minded individuals, other individuals that also feel collectively aggrieved and then going about to start demonstrations and protests. This also calls for analyses of what participation in demonstrations and protests means to these affluent people and what are their reasons for choosing to express their voice in other ways. This calls for re-definition of risk and risk perception so that the paper and future analyses do not omit critical views and factors that shape risk taking behaviour. 5.4 Redefine risk, risk conception and risk aversion According to the generality of participants, the paper used some very useful concepts and questions to frame risk and to construct the index on risk taking. Some respondents concurred with the overall risk taking trends in the paper and added that “Zimbabweans are just voters, not citizens. The study on risk aversion becomes should be just a portion of the studies on citizen engagement with the State”. From this viewpoint, Zimbabweans only exercise their citizenship insofar as voting in elections is concerned but do not exercise any other rights and entitlements they have as citizens. The paper used the four main questions of: • Freedom to say what you think; • Freedom to join any organisation; • Freedom to vote; • Careful about what you say. 15