There is something like gender equality – Part 1

PHOTO: Europeanmovement.eu

PHOTO: Europeanmovement.eu

Should we redefine the terminology ‘feminism’ to exclude gender equality? Feminism is a term I feel so very passionate about especially because of its history and the fact that my favourite persons: Virginia Woolf, the Bronte Sisters, Susan B. Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie amongst others have popularised it. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines feminism as the “belief and aim that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men; the struggle to achieve this aim.”

The Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Thesaurus defines it as “the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state.” Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in her TED Talk defined a feminist as ‘someone who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.’ In the Senica Falls Convention 1884, where the Women’s Right Movement was born, Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the opening paragraph of her Declaration of Rights and Sentiments which was fashioned after the United States Declaration of Independence stated: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let fact be submitted to a candid world.”

I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself and there I take my stand

I have always believed that feminism is akin to human rights, fairness and basically equality and have also come to the understanding that many persons see feminism as a form of rebellion by cantankerous females who hate men and want to usurp their positions. These persons confuse feminism with Misandrism especially because Misandrists identify with feminism. I am certain that this confusion influenced Pat Robertson’s infamous quote: ‘The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” Radicals and extremists exist in every philosophy, concept and ideology and the feminists’ movement would not be an exception. This, therefore, should not in any way sabotage the full meaning of feminism and what it stands for because its key message is gender equality. And like I read somewhere a portion does not equal a whole no matter how loud the portion is.

On one eventful morning, I had a long, enlightening and thought provoking conversation with a clergyman in my office who deserves more than just a worthy mention. He is a sweet, gentle and admirable man, whose attitude intrigues me. On numerous occasions I have seen him step aside to allow a lady regardless of her age, ascend or descend the narrow stairwells in my office. It is uncommon to see middle aged men act so respectably towards women in manner and approach in this part of the world. His point driven arguments were always constructive with gentle intonations that hardly provoked bristled retorts. I never had the pleasure of engaging in a long conversation with him besides pleasantries until that morning.

After I had ensconced myself in the office, he walked in beaming adorningly. It seemed as if I had turned suddenly different from the person he always saw. This new and warm reception clearly embarrassed me in a flattering way. In quick time he made the object of his visit known. He had heard there was a “Chimamanda” in the office. That was an agreeable metaphor. I love to be associated with the renowned writer. She can do no wrong in my eye even though my submissions to her workshop have been constantly rejected, year in, year out. Now the conversation flew here and there about the kind of things I like to write and then back to Chimamanda. Truth is, no one can have a literary conversation with me without knowing I am a Chimamanda Aficionado. So naturally, her feminist status came on board.

Women have been looked down upon for centuries. Even more so, that the education of the female child is undervalued in some part of society. Women are also often regarded as incomplete without a man.

Before this conversation, I was unaware of the clergyman’s distaste of the term feminism. I saw clearly, the irritation on his face when he stated how much he disliked the word. I was curious as to why and tried pointing out to the best of my ability that we had the radicals and extremists as it is quite normal in every concept or ideology on earth and the fact that the feminism to which I was referring to was synonymous with gender equality. To buttress my point I roughly quoted the definition given by Chimamanda in her famous TED talk. But to my wonder, he shook his head and said there was nothing like gender equality and would rather use the word ‘uniqueness’ instead of gender equality and feminism. He added that the Bible does not support feminism.

For a moment I was confused. He had a problem with the word and made a valid and obvious point about the two sexes being different with specific unique roles and biological characteristics. It was on this premise that he concluded that there was nothing like gender equality. He however added that if feminism entailed teaching women how to play their roles properly as women in the society then he could embrace that word. I expressed my disapproval of the subservient roles women have been forced to take upon themselves by society and the accepted wisdom that these roles include being ‘beneath’ the men. I shared an account to prop my feminism perspective.

On a hot afternoon as I walked out of a DSTV office, I was stopped by the call of a self-confident young man, who by the looks of it was a young adult. He was sitting quite comfortably, with legs spread apart on a white, plastic chair in front of a door beside the DSTV office. It was his persistent, raspy ‘hello’ that forced me into turning around to behold him. He looked at me expectantly as I stood observing him. When he continued sitting I became quite puzzled as to his intentions for stopping me because for a moment I thought the reason he called was to woo me. Now I became irritated because he wasn’t doing anything besides wasting my time and changing his facial expressions, which I must add reminded me of Blackberry emoticons. I raised my eyebrows and my hands to show that I had run out of patience. He beckoned me with his eyes to approach him. Now, this young man was dressed well enough to be taken for a lucid person. If I didn’t know better I would have thought him to be retarded. I had seen enough to conclude that he was one of the typically misinformed men who approached ladies as if they were properties waiting to just receive an acknowledgement of ownership and not one of the numerous insane men that parade the city of Port Harcourt.

Now seeing he was well dressed, I was more convinced of his sanity. I must add that all these theatrics took place in less than ten minutes. I squinted disapprovingly showing my utter disgust and saw his ego dropped as he dragged himself up muttering these words; “I am a man oh, and it’s a man that would pay your bride price.” The message was apparent enough. He was a man and I did him grave injustice by expecting the smallest courtesy. Now I told the clergyman this story, trying, of course, to explain what was wrong and the actions by feminists to correct this wrong mentality. I asked what he thought of the scenario and the young man.

He said that any man who treats a woman in such manner was irresponsible. What I perceived from his response was that the man’s action wasn’t a problem of gender, it was mere irresponsibility and it should not be a basis for agitation by these rebellious feminists who attack men and try to switch roles. I could not help but disagree. The real problem is society’s unwillingness to address the issue of gender inequality; we do not want to talk about gender inequality, we do not want to mention feminism, we do not mind giving it another name, we could call the problems women encounter for being females another thing and the unfair treatment and attitude of men towards women irresponsible, but we should not call it a problem of gender or gender inequality.

I was tempted to accept that feminists were making a fuss out of this whole irresponsibility of ignorant men. Saying they were irresponsible was convenient. But if we just sit back and accept that this attitude is just another offshoot of irresponsibility then we wouldn’t be true to ourselves, we would be sweeping the dirt under the carpet. On more than one occasion during my conversations with young, smart men, I have caught them casually saying ‘a man should be able to ‘control’ his woman.’ I have registered my dislike for this statement. I have a problem with the word “control” because if I were to turn around that statement to say, “a woman should be able to control her man’, my mother would be accused of not training me well. Is the word ‘control’ conscripted for the exclusive use of men? If those guys had rather said, “a man should be able to wield a reasonable amount of influence on his woman or a man should be able to make his woman listen to him”, that would have been appropriate for me.

Sometime ago, a female colleague slapped a male colleague who according to her insulted her father during an altercation. I strongly objected to her chosen method of defending her father’s honour on the grounds of office and professional ethics. There were so many diverse reactions by concerned citizens, many of whom shared my opinion but the opinion of a select few amused me. For them it wasn’t so much that she slapped a colleague but rather that she raised her hand on a “man”. That was what the commotion was about really.
• To be Continued
• Mbunabo is a writer and lives in Port Harcourt.Email: jennifermbunabo@yahoo.com.
Twitter: @mbunabo J



5 Comments
  • Misandrism.
    Hmmm, this is the first time I am hearing that phrase.I happen to not believe nor practice feminism either but I am all for educating the girl child and women empowerment.

    I can’t support feminism because the definition keeps changing. Being a woman with 5 sisters, I have had my share of injustices and so i support women empowerment. I am also wise enough to know that the battle cannot be won without the men and so I can’t embrace feminism, I am a believer and a follower of Jesus Christ.

    I do also happen to know that the women who followed Jesus were empowered women but by no means lesbians. They were godly and empowered women. So i support women empowerment but not feminism.

  • Basil Ogbanufe

    I don’t think gender equality can be possible. The biological and physical structure of both genders are different for different purposes. But it’s obvious the relationship between the genders need a lot of tooling. Men need women just as women need men, and together our world will continue to get better.

  • Huey Emma

    Feminism or gender equality is not an advocacy for women to become “men”. Those who have a problem with the ideology have raised salient points (esp. along religious lines) as do those who fall in line. All feminism/gender equality drives at is a shift in paradigm as per the line of thoughts our society (which of course has conspicuous elements of patriarchy) has inbred in us. Achieving a completely feminist society may be implausible (we are not robots obviously) but we have to try.

    • Basil Ogbanufe

      Try what is implausible or a paradigm shift? You must understand that the family unit on which society is founded places the man as head and leader. The question now is, what and where is the origin of the family?

  • nnanta

    The much I love my wife and daughter, I will never agree that they should partake in what is the exclusive reserve for men; go to war [Physical combat with the intent to kill].the only exception is in self deffence !

Related