Everyone now seems to have an opinion about feminism. It seems fashionable to talk about it. It doesn’t even matter if you know anything about it or not. I want to join the fray, not necessarily to start any arguments, but hopefully to answer some questions. So y’all please indulge me. Fair warning, this is long. And it’s only the first part which deliberates on emancipation. I’ll save my thoughts on equality for another day.

If I don’t speak with reference to recent history, or in the easily recognizable jargon of the trade; and if I don’t acknowledge the relevance of founders and key players – feminist icons like The Suffragettes, Simone de Beauvoir and Gloria Steinem – it’s not out of ignorance or a lack of respect, but because I consider feminism to be contextual and organic in nature. It grows out of the ground on which we stand, and doesn't necessarily require a precursor to exist in any given place, (even if a precursor can be a catalyst). It is reactionary just like any other movement that resists oppression. And the oppression which it resists is the deliberate disenfranchisement of women (by constitution, common law or culture) on account of their gender alone. Feminism seeks to give acknowledgement to the full human value of women, by permitting the uninhibited expression of their content (intellect & desires) within unbiased limits of the law, and to validate a woman’s right to an independent social standing. The premise of feminism is that all human beings are equally human and should be allowed equal human rights. This does not mean that all human beings are equal. In fact, our inequalities as human beings go far beyond gender. There's race, height, weight, complexion, IQ, the list is practically endless. But we don't (and shouldn’t)apportion rights to people by considering any of these differences; even when certain physical attributes can have significant ramifications on a person’s performance and ability to contribute as a citizen of the world. In the end, what matters is that we are all human beings, and equal in our humanness. And as human beings, we should have human rights. Not men's rights and women's rights. Not black people’s rights and white people’s rights. Not tall people’s rights and short people’s rights. Not strong people’s rights and weak people’s rights. That's really all there is to the mantra of equal rights and gender equality which feminism disseminates.

I don’t believe that, as a feminist, I ought to belong to a world club, subscribing to a definitive code of practice; that feminism must be copied ‘correctly’ or even copied at all, from anywhere. I believe that the prevailing conditions of a place are enough to inspire a reaction if it is warranted; and that the prevailing conditions would uniquely shape that reaction to suit the specificity of the stimulus. It’s the wearer of the shoe that knows exactly where it pinches and would adjust his toes accordingly. Unifying feminism, under one large umbrella of a particular creed, would only breed confusion and it would not solve any of the problems which necessitated its inception in the first place; because every region deals with very unique issues of misogyny which feminism seeks to address. And these issues of misogyny are dynamic and so feminist reactions must be equally dynamic. Standardized feminism would be akin to creating a new world religion that would only enslave people to a specific dogma instead of emancipating them. Feminism isn't a religion or a political party, it is a natural instinct to survive and thrive in one's own environment. Therefore, to be a feminist as a woman, I only need to value my own integrity as a human being. And to be a feminist as a man, I would have to have equal regard for others as I do for myself.

Most men think that feminism is redundant in Nigeria (but if that were the case it wouldn’t even be discussed or find the legs to stand on); they say that women have nothing to complain about anymore since they already drive cars, vote, own property, run for office and don’t walk around under a sheet in the scorching heat. But can they really know? I don’t suppose I could (or would) tell someone else how to feel about things when I am not the one directly immersed in the situation. It would be arrogant and insensitive of me to do that. Men, no matter how powerful their sense of imagination, would never know what it’s like to be a woman in Nigeria until they spend some time in a woman’s skin. I imagine that they would be in for a surprise because I don't believe that their ignorance about the endemic misogyny of our society is willful. I don't believe that they are malicious in their intent when they ask women to shut their mouths about feminism. I believe that they just don’t know. Not really. So, I imagine that it would surprise them to wake up one morning to find themselves relegated to a position where they would be required to shrink their egos, and step into miniature boxes that only allowed them to be tightly censored versions of themselves; and where their respect and visibility depended on another human being.

We don’t just fight legislations (God knows those battles are easier to win), we fight an endemic social bias. That is where the misogyny of our culture lies. We are a society that legally permits the participation of women in public affairs, but we are also largely a society that doesn’t believe a woman can excel on the merit of her own intellect. A woman in a position of esteem is viewed suspiciously like a floating object – a magic trick. It deserves a closer look because, surely, that object must be balancing on structural support (Which essentially is a man). And that’s why no one is impressed enough, by that floating object, to give it the respect it deserves. People tend to invent imaginative background stories: if her husband or father is not connected enough to get her into that position, she must be fucking someone who is. And sometimes, for a woman, it’s more respectable to have visible structure than to allow people to speculate on her sexual activities. It is ultimately demeaning. This type of mindset cannot simply be eradicated by making laws; we can only wait for it to fade with time and exposure to a new way of living. But in the time before that happens, women are justified to be indignant.

We still consider female participation in public office an indulgence. One position is a chance given (not to Mrs Okeke alone) but to all women to prove themselves worthy of holding such positions. One man fails himself; but a woman fails for all women. And that is why names like Patricia Etteh, Stella Oduah, Allison Madueke and Maryam Sanda stand out as caveats; reasons cited to stifle the emancipation and the advancement of women. It doesn’t matter that for every corrupt woman politician there are easily ten corrupt male politicians. Or that Maryam Sanda stands in the company of men whose names we never even bothered to learn: Edwin Vincent, Sakiru Bello, James Uguru, Dominic Iyayi Ogar, Okon Ubem and Omolaja Shodipo – all perpetrators of heinous crimes, with victims equally real and deserving of the justice that Bilyaminu Bello deserves. It is clear that the popularity of this particular story in the news is due to the social caliber of the individual involved, but that hasn’t stopped people from making this an anti-feminist campaign (even here on Nairaland) – beware the revolution of the feminazi. This is an unwarranted generalization and it greatly undermines the relevance of feminism in our society. I would even go so far as to say that women are being bullied from all directions.

But the misogyny of our culture cannot be overlooked so easily.

In Africa, female disenfranchisement begins at birth. All too often, a woman’s place in her husband’s home is only secure after she provides him with a male child, someone to ‘carry on his name’. Because women are not qualified to keep a name, they are branded by their fathers or husbands, and that in itself speaks to the objectification and ownership of women (a practice that culminates in the exchange of a bride price upon the head of a woman). If, however, a woman has daughters (it doesn’t matter how many), she never balance well for chair be dat. She continuously gets harassed by impatient or worried family members, who would even go as far as finding a substitute wife for her husband – a woman who has ‘boys in her womb’. People conveniently forget science, and blame the woman for the sex selection of the child. So the point is that, boys are considered to be more valuable than girls, right of the bat, in African culture. And this notion often translates into the over-pampering of boys. We indulge them, massage their egos and fill them with a sense of entitlement. And girls are groomed to make ‘acceptable’ sidekicks. We teach them that a woman can only be complete as long as she is tethered to a man – any man.

So, even when we send girls to school and teach them to achieve personal goals, they must also transition successfully from their fathers’ houses to their husbands’ houses, or become social outcasts. We stigmatize women who fall between these two stools. If, for instance, Chimamanda Adichie does something praiseworthy, we first have to examine if her achievements are valid by asking ourselves if she has dutifully submitted herself to a husband in marriage before we can clap our hands for her. But Rita Dominic, Genevieve and Linda Ikeji, who are unmarried, are somehow still languishing in limbo awaiting society’s approval; still incomplete and un-established in spite of their giant strides in their chosen industry. And this type of social discrimination seems to be more important than ever these days, since women are becoming increasingly independent. Back in the day, a girl would marry, naïve and incapable, at sixteen; and all she could do was depend on a husband for her sustenance, and everything, including her raison d'etre; she would accept a life of total submission to him with gratitude and never challenge the boundaries of the small sphere of her existence. But now, when women have access to the tools to survive independently - education and life skills, when they have begun to have ambitions for themselves beyond the home, marriage ceases to be a necessity for financial security, and instead becomes a matter of personal choice. But still, society does not trust that enough women would chose to be married for the pure joys of companionship and procreation, so it stigmatizes single women and, thus, propagates marriage as a stamp of social approval.

A man can be whatever he wants, but a woman must fit in within the boundaries of a man’s expectations. Because she is the one who needs him to ratify her standing in social context. That’s the crux of the imbalance of social power. He can therefore dictate the margins of her existence and she must decide if she would rather be suppressed or ostracized. Case in point: the clamor for feminist ideals; some women would rather not be associated with feminism at all for the simple fact that it makes them less attractive to men and endangers them to singlehood. Some men even threaten feminists that they won't be rewarded with husbands if they didn't abandon their foolish cause. And women are aware that they risk being ostracized by embracing feminism, but the light at the end of the tunnel is that we would all get to that point where women are no longer validated by men in society. A point where women can make independent choices for themselves and not worry about how ‘sellable’ or attractive it makes them to men, as though women were derivative human beings.

Fitting in with men’s expectations has caused some women, over time, to bend in unnatural ways. Women are held to higher moral standards than men, not because they are naturally more virtuous, or biologically more capable, but because men are in the position to impose those standards that women have to conform to (if they wanted to be taken off the shelf). Female virginity, for instance, is still a requirement amongst many African men, while male virginity isn’t even a thing anymore. In an effort to present themselves as required, pure and sacred on a platter of divine offering, girls conceal and suppress ugly histories of sexual abuse, or even just a healthy appetite for sex (a God-given libido). Girls are shamed for their sexuality and even mutilated to control it, until her only reason for engaging in sex is to help achieve the male orgasm. A derivative human being. And although the cutting of the clitoris has been widely abolished in Nigeria, the fundamentals remain: that women ought to be sexually coy and repressed. If it isn’t being achieved with a razor blade, it’s being done by slut-shaming girls who explore their sexuality.

And girls, who are abused every so often, do not speak up for fear that the whole community would become privy to their ‘defilement’. And that would diminish their worth to a man, which is ultimately the worth of a woman in general in the African context. And if girls are discouraged from speaking up about these acts of violence, they only enable the perpetrators and encourage the cycle of abuse. Again, a girl must decide whether she would rather be suppressed or ostracized. And a lot of times, a mother makes that decision for her daughter who is not even ten years old. She chooses what she considers to be the easier path: to swallow your demons and fit in with society. It is true that boys are often victims of abuse as well, but they are not the ones tossed aside like rotten food over it. They are not the ones that have to deal with the conflict of needing to portray outward virtue when the knowledge of internal corruption plagues the mind.

The dictates of men go even further: a woman must like to cook and do domestic work, must not talk back to a man, must not be smarter than a man, does not need as much money as a man, must fit into specific standards of beauty, and with every requirement, they set limitations, amputating parts of a person designed by the same God, in order to create a new and entirely different being: A man’s woman. The danger of this approach is that the pressure of subjugation is external and does not conform to the internal desires of the person. And ultimately, tension is created. It’s battle of man versus God. Or, to avoid confusion, since people only see God from a variety of highly subjective perspectives, I should say: Man versus Nature. When women no longer require to be validated by anything other than their own integrity; when they are autonomous and self-determining in society, then they can dare to break out of the tiny boxes which men have determined for them for so long. They would no longer be compelled to fit in with a woman's definition according to a man. Of which most elements stem from wishful thinking rather than a keen observation of her true nature. And instead, women would be free to define themselves for themselves and accept only the limits that their nature (and not legislation or culture) imposes upon them. They can be products of their own desires.


Many men fear that if women were allowed to be products of their own desires, they would depict the image of ‘girls gone wild’. And that is probably because pro-feminist icons like Madonna have expressed such total lack of restraint in public to sell their brand. But they only feel the need to be so provocative about making the statement “I own myself, I can be myself, and Bleep you” because people still largely doubt that this is true. But feminism is not really about exhibiting a lack of decorum, it is about asserting one’s self; and the manner in which a person chooses to do so is a reflection of their personal morality. A person can be immoral as a feminist or non-feminist; it’s ridiculous to qualify the demand for female social emancipation immoral simply because some feminists are baring their privates on stage. A woman’s desires would still lead many women into traditional family lives, and this is not an un-feminist position at all. And if you’re asking what the hassle is about, imagine you were sitting in a room with the door locked and the key thrown away. And now imagine you were sitting in that same room with the door standing wide open. Choice, even if it is just an illusion, makes some positions more acceptable (attractive even) to one’s mind. It relieves pressure and gives us room to breathe.

I agree with almost your entire write up except one part. The Maryam Sanda issue was not used as a rallying cry against feminism until some leading feminists like Nkechi Bianze started portraying her murderous action as the beginning of a "Women revolution" against cheating husbands. It was this callous and frankly stupid declarations by supposedly enlightened feminists that led to the backlash from a lot of people.

Zanas:
I agree with almost your entire write up except one part. The Maryam Sanda issue was not used as a rallying cry against feminism until some leading feminists like Nkechi Bianze started portraying her murderous action as the beginning of a "Women revolution" against cheating husbands. It was this callous and frankly stupid declarations by supposedly enlightened feminists that led to the backlash from a lot of people.

That nkechi bianze can talk rubbish sometimes.

Hi Misswrite. If you are interested in monetizing your writing talents in a very lucrative way, please send an email to taiwozen45@yahoo.com. I have a job offer for you that could earn you substantial income.