I tend to be prone to coincidences; whenever I ponder a topic, something usually happens the next day that teaches me more about said topic. When I learn about something for the first time, the next week I see that same thing all over the place. Maybe I’m quasi-psychic, or maybe it’s just my ignorance preventing me from seeing what I should be seeing until I learn about it. Either which way, I digress. This week’s “coincidence” was a discussion I had with my sister about discrimination against women in Nigeria, and the chauvinistic nature of our society. This discussion was impeccably juxtaposed with our discovery the following day - a Financial Times excerpt written by Chimamanda Adichie, on, you guessed it, being a woman in urban Nigeria.
The day we discovered the article (before we had read it) my sister and I saw a woman in an E/S-class Mercedes Benz and I went “Oya, who bought it for you?" (Tongue in cheek, of course). By sheer coincidence (or was it?) Adichie uses this very example in her article, decrying how women are seen as unable to earn a luxurious living on their own.
While the current state of affairs is unfortunate, the fact remains that there is no smoke without fire. Nigeria has been a patriarchal society for a long time, and the man has often done the bread winning. Several men who have attained vast wealth (notwithstanding how they came across it) often spend it on their spouses, or their girlfriends. Because of this, a high rolling chick is more often than not assumed to have another "source of income" - More so, if the girl is young - it raises eyebrows.
But here I must interject. Young women are not alone in this plight. Young, rich males raise eyebrows as well. While it may not always be openly mentioned (though sometimes it is), there exists a "chopping his father's money" stigma – a label attached to young men whose parents are of substantial means. The son is assumed to live off his father’s wealth, and is implicitly accused of not earning a dime in his entire life. This, to an extent, can be true. The structure of Nigeria makes it harder for young men to gain complete independence early. High costs of living alongside relatively low employment salaries mean that young men are dependent for a longer period of time than in other countries. While some delinquent sons exist, there are several young men working, and working hard, regardless of their parents’ wealth. But still, they are given the label of “carefree rich boy.”
On the flip side (yet again), albeit several young men are attributed this label, society accepts it as a norm, and turns a blind eye. The son is the heir after all, and all that money is his to claim in the long run, right? “So we might as well just treat him right”, society says. He gets the salutes, the “oga we dey hail oh!” and “we dey your side”. The daughter, on the other hand, is distanced, and does not merit the same respect the freeloader son does. She is just another girl who will soon marry a man and become his property. If she’s lucky, that man will be rich and only then will she become a “Madam!” (Note the exclamation mark.) She will still, however, be branded as a man’s acquisition. She will be a reflection of his wealth and authority - nothing more. (The mere fact that the phrase goes “chopping his father’s money “ is prejudiced in itself. Why is it not “his parents’ money”? )
Anyway, here are some points of call for me: Discrimination against women is global, and only recently did it wane in America. Perspectives are still heavily skewed worldwide in favour of men, but times are changing; countries across the globe are becoming more enlightened, and I believe Nigeria will soon follow suit. We tend to copy a lot of things, so here’s hoping we can emulate some beneficial culture as well.
In my opinion, discrimination in itself would always have existed in society. As long as there is division, there can be conflict and discrimination. If women were the higher power, mark my words there would be men writing these anti-oppression articles instead. Complaints of abuse would clutter newspaper editorials with stories of how “that woman stares at my butt at work”, or how female police officers waylay unfortunate men on the highway, inquiring as to whether they had “anything for the girls”. The internet would be awash with male forums and blogs telling of their gender’s enduring suffering, and men’s rights propaganda would litter the streets - assuming that women would let men speak out. For all we know, had they held the reins of power from the get-go, women would still be discriminating against men today, possibly with a stronger hush policy. We all know how adamant women can be, after all. Maybe it’s for the best things turned out the way they did.
All jokes aside, men lucked out genetically. Patriarchy began in ancient times, mostly because of the foundation of humanity, which was hunting and gathering. Men were more physically suited to these tasks, and ended up as the workers/breadwinners, while females took care of children and the households. With such a deep rooted foundation which spanned several millennia, it's not surprising that it has taken the world an equally long time to change its outlook. This prehistoric social structure is the very reason why some male supremacists, (if I may deem them such), argue that feminists are trying to defy natural law – something that has been encoded into our genes from the dawn of time. They believe that women are meant to be subservient and let men do the work.
While this perspective is highly skewed, I firmly believe in the latter part of the statement; that men should do the work. Let me qualify that; women should be cared for, while men work for them, especially (if not exclusively) in the case of marriage. I personally believe that men should work for their spouses. They must till the earth, sweat, and spoil their women with the rewards of their labour. Women are supposed to be cared for because they endure a pain men can never even fathom; childbirth. Women carry the living extension of a man’s being for nine months. Sure, the woman provided half the chromosomes, but she’s the one doing the heavy lifting for almost an entire year. And in Nigerian society, it is likely that the man will want her to do this four or five times. That’s four to five years of carrying a living being within her body. And it does not end there. Each child comes with it at least eighteen years of worry, high blood pressure and stress (it can be a lot more than eighteen years). From the cradle to high school to university, it is the mother that dotes over her child. When the child is sick, the mother is equally sick with anxiety. When the child leaves for school, she frets that her baby will come back with bumps and bruises. When the child matures and leaves for university, she frets that her child is leaving her and going into a world full of influences over which she has little or no control. The mother’s exertions scarcely go unnoticed, but often go unappreciated. The man may claim to worry about his child (and don’t get me wrong, he probably worries), but there is no way he can emulate a mother’s emotions - the feelings projected towards a being birthed from her very own body. Because of this, the married man must do her right. He must work his heart and soul out; ensuring that, save for the concern felt for her offspring, the wife/mother will have no other stress added upon her head. And if such stress inevitably arrives, he must give his all to lighten the load.
However, just because men should work for their women does not mean that females should be restrained in their efforts to make it on their own. Chimamanda’s gripe is especially with the attitude of society towards younger women who have no spouses, and hence no reason not to make the most of their careers and their lives. Young ladies are seen only as potential wives, not as women with potential. Even when they succeed in professional circles, they are ostracized. Strong women are categorized as bitchy, and successful ones in the corporate world are often characterized as being aggressive and manly.
If women don’t succeed, it’s because they are too subservient. If they succeed, they are either bitches (excuse my French), or have done” something” to get where they are. Women can’t seem to win either way in businesses - unless, of course, they start their own. In a patriarchy like Nigeria, such a thing will be an uphill task, and is almost impossible with strong backing from powerful males and females. I believe it is possible though, and I am hoping for more public support (financial and moral) in order to facilitate the ventures of young business women, who can then branch out from fashion, acting and modelling into any industry they wish. Believe you me, I am doing my part.
Till next time, I remain ever hopeful,
-Pat II
Link to Financial times excerpt: http://www.cp-africa.com/2010/12/12/chimamanda-writes-woman-urban-nigeria-financial-times/
No comments:
Post a Comment