Text in TshiVenḓa with abstracts in TshiVenḓa and English / The purpose of this study was to contextually describe and analyse how male authors of Tshivenḓa drama books have in their dialogue portrayed female characters in the manner that it may tend to educate or encourage the public to criticize and abuse them in communities and society. In Tshivenḓa literature therefore, some male authors of drama books have tended to misrepresent the characterisation of women. It is presumed that the ways in which women are portrayed in some Tshivenḓa dramas by male authors, tend to normatively educate, socially reproduce and sustain the abuse of women within communities and society in which they live. In most of these drams, male authors have written their bias, contextually depicted women unfairly shown and criticised them in different sorts of ways. The researcher applied the Ethnography of communication, Social constructionism, Feminism and Critical discourse analysis theories. These theories enabled her to understand that language in the hands of authors can be used to reproduce power, dominance, control and power abuse. This led her to focus on related literature which proved that indeed the problem exists. Methodically this is a qualitative descriptive study in which the documentation ‘Document Analysis’ dialogue of seven purposefully selected drama books were considered and data collected. It used Neuman’s (1996) Analytic Comparison which applies the method of agreement and method of difference. When the data was analysed, there emerged themes which carry findings. In brief, the results of this study inter alia show that some male authors of selected Tshivenḓa drama books, described women as weak, poor decision-makers and powerless in communities and society at large. On the other, in the characterisation of men, they show them as social architectures of how women should be seen as depicted, thereby dominated and mistreated objects. It also found that Tshivenḓa culture was misrepresented and incorrectly applied to criticise, dominate, discriminate and justify the abuse of women by husbands and relatives, mainly in-laws. The results also suggest that within the context, male authors socially subject our children (both boys and girls as reader of such books), to indoctrination and social education as unequal partners in society in which they live. / Tshipikwa tshihulwane tsha ino ngudo ho vha u ṱalutshedza na u saukanya nḓila dzine vhaṅwali vha vhanna vha ḓirama dza Tshivenḓa vha shumisa ngadzo nyambedzano u bveledza vhaanewa vha vhafumakadzi uri hu ṱuṱuwedzwe vhadzulapo u vha sasaladza na u vha sathula hune vha ḓiwana vhe hone zwitshavhani. Kha maṅwalwa a Tshivenḓa, vhaṅwe vhaṅwali vha bugu dza ḓirama vha anzela u sa bveledza vhaanewa vha vhafumakadzi nga nḓila i si yone. Zwi dzhiiwa uri nḓila dzine vhafumakadzi vha bveledzwa ngadzo kha ḓirama dza Tshivenḓa dze dza ṅwalwa nga vhanna dzi na u funḓedza, u bveledza na u engedza tshengedzo ya vhafumakadzi hune vha dzula hone na vhukati ha zwitshavha. Kha ḓirama nnzhi, vhaṅwali vha vhanna vha ṅwala vho sendamisa kubveledzele, vha bveledza vhafumakadzi nga nḓila ine vha sathulea lwo kalulaho. Muṱoḓisisi o shumisa thyiori dzo fhambanaho sa ya Nyambedzano ‘Ethnography of communication, ya Vhufhaṱavhuvha ‘Social constructionism, ya Vhulwelambofholowo ha vhafumakadzi ‘Feminism’, na ya Tsaukanyo yo dzhenelelaho ya mafhungo ‘Critical discourse analysis.’ Thyiori hedzi, dzo thusa muṱoḓisisi u pfesesa uri luambo zwanḓani zwa uṅwali lu a kona u shumiswa u bveledza maanḓda, u tsikeledza, u vhusa na u shumisa maanḓa nga nḓila i si yone. Hezwi zwo mu thusa u lumbama kha maṅwalwa o teaho ane khao hei thaidzo ya vha khagala. Ri tshi ya kha Ngona ya ṱhoḓisiso, muṱoḓisisi o shumisa nḓila ya Khwalithethivi he a wana mafhungo nga nḓila ya u sengulusa zwo ṅnwalwaho zwa nyamedzano kha bugu dza sumbe dze a nanguludza zwo bva kha ene muṋe. Ho shumiswa nḓila ya Neuman (1996) ya Tsenguluso yo ṱanḓavhuwaho ‘Analytic comparison’ ine ya shumisa nḓila ya thendelano ‘method of agreement’ na ya phambano ‘method of difference’. Musi mafhungo o no saukanywa, ho bvelela thero dzo hwalaho mawanwa a ṱhoḓisiso. Nga u pfufhifhadza, mawanwa a hei ngudo, o sumba uri vhaṅwe vhaṅwali vha vhanna vha ḓirama dzo nangiwaho vha bveledza vhafumakadzi vhe vhathu vha si na vhuimo, vha sa koni u dzhia tsheo nga vhone vhaṋe nahone vha si na maanḓa hune vha wanala hone na kha zwitshavha. Kha ḽiṅwe sia, musi vha tshi ḓibveledza, vhaṅwali vha vhanna vha tou ḓitakula sa vhomasithesela vhane vha tea u vha na vhukoni ha u bveledza vhafumakadzi, u ralo vha kona-ha u vha ṱana vhe vhane vha tsikeledzwa na u shengedzwa. Zwo ḓo wanala uri na musi zwi tshi ḓa kha mvelele, hunzhi yo shumiswa nga nḓila i si yone saizwi i tshi vho shumiswa u sathula, u tsikeledza, u ṱalula na u khwaṱhisa u shengedzwa ha vhafumakadzi nga vhanna vhavho na mashaka, nga maanḓa vha vhuhadzi sa vhomazwale. Mawanwa a dovha a sumbedza uri zwo ralo, vhaṅwali vha vhanna vha fhaṱa muya kha vhana vhashu (vhatukana na vhasidzana sa vhavhali vha idzi bugu) wa u tou dzivhela na u funza avho vhana uri vhutshiloni hu na vhadzulapo vha vhuimo vhu sa lingani zwitshavhani ngeno zwi si zwone. / African Languages / D. Litt. et Phil. (African Languages)