My issue with the feminist movement is that it is founded on an unfounded argument that men believe they are better humans with more capabilities than women and women need to do everything to prove that they are better than men. There is no denying the statistics but the perceived discrimination is not a planned act with evil intent as most feminists would like the world to think. I believe our current roles in society were negotiated with compromises from both ends.
I read a post from fellow writer Kwoh Elonge and he made some valid points when he gave many examples of cases where women are discriminated against. Again, the 'discrimination' against women with regards to things like education, inheritance, mourning rites, etc did not come into place as a means of intentionally marginalizing women. It was more of something demanded by the realities of the times back then. I do believe many norms and traditions need to change across the board, not only those related to women and their perceived marginalization. That said, I think the change with regards to women’s issues comes slowly because the feminists’ modus operandi is more of an attack on men rather than what it should be:- a call to review our customs and traditions in the face of the new realities presented by the modern world. Bill Gates, when he visited Saudi Arabia, told the arabs they are not using their best card (their women).
Let's talk about inheritance for a second because it is one of the things my colleague talked about. I am sure in many custom or traditions, one of the mans male children is a rightful heir to his property. Today, a man can decide to will his property to just about anybody he wants. Some people can get angry, but he can. In my tradition, my father's sister's son is heir to my father's property. That was the only foolproof DNA test available at the time vis a vis - a man's sister is always his blood but the man's wife, back then, could present a son to the man as his son even if the son was fathered by another man. Here we see that women in my tradition are even the deciding factor when it comes to inheritances.
At the same time, in another part of the same country where there was also an absence of DNA testing, they didn't think of what my village people thought of. So it was a matter of perspectives. Now you can argue about why not let the daughter of the man's sister inherit the property, why only the boys; which is a fair argument except when you accept the scientific facts that man has evolved from a wild beast. When there was no language, many things were negotiated by sheer force, even after there was language force was still used when the human mind was not developed enough to utilize diplomacy.
Now If you want to argue that a man's physiology is not different from that of a woman which makes it easier for a man to develop more muscle power than a woman, I have to say you are not even ready to be intellectually honest enough to have this debate. That leads me to generational wealth which we lack as Africans in general. Generational wealth is wealth (property, skills, and other assets) transferred from parents to their offspring and on. I’m driving at the point that male inheritance was on the assumption that a man is more likely to have the force to protect the property. Added to the fact that women could marry out of the family and take a new name also made it hard for them to be given the right of inheritance because it could likely weaken a family going forward; unless you want to argue that women are morally incorruptible which again will be intellectual dishonesty. The custom in my village passed the DNA test but transferred the generational wealth. So you gave your wealth to your your sisters son who bears another mans name and all you have is the belief that blood is thicker than water so your nephew will always take his mom’s side. Again, perspectives.
Any-Ha!
True Story by a Chinese author:-
“I remember an old woman who lived in our street when I was a child. We children called her Auntie Wong. Though elderly, she was a lively and energetic person. Like the other women of her age, she dressed in the old style and pulled her hair back in a neat bun, ornamenting it with a jade and silver stick pin. But unlike the other old women, Auntie Wong moved purposefully when she walked. She did not hobble slowly on tiny, broken and disfigured feet. In Auntie Wong's youth it had been the custom to break the bones of young girls' feet and then bind them tightly with the toes bent under so they would heal into tiny, deformed feet. It was ingrained into people's thinking that these misshapen feet were a necessary component of female beauty. Besides being thought of as beautiful in and of themselves, bound feet caused a woman's hips to sway in what was considered a most irresistible manner. But sensuality really had nothing to do with it. A woman's hips swayed because she could not walk straight. But Auntie Wong's mother had been a woman of enormous courage. She forbade anyone to bind her child's feet. She physically restrained the members of her outraged family from performing the ritual. For the remainder of her life, she stood as a shield between her daughter and those who would cripple her. When Auntie Wong's mother died, Auntie Wong was thirteen years old and her feet were already much too large to bind. From the vantage point of twentieth century America it is easy to minimize the enormity of Auntie Wong's mother's courage. Foot binding is to us such an obviously barbaric and pointless practice that it seems common sense would prohibit it. However, in Auntie Wong's world, only servants and peasant women had unbound feet.”
Think about the last line of that story again. “Only servants and peasant women had unbound feet.” So for the people of that time, the people who were lower in society were rather saved from such a horrendous custom. If you were told about foot binding and asked to guess if it was done to people of higher class or to peasants, I am sure you would have said to peasants. Which brings us back the discussion of perspectives. Foot binding was a thing of beauty then. Think about it again.
My friend Kwoh Elonge also touched on some mourning rites that required a woman to sleep by her dead husband for a number of days before he was buried. While I don’t know the details I am sure if we dig deep into the custom and its origin, we will see that it was founded on a belief that the woman by sleeping by her dead husband ensured something ‘positive’ for the family not punishment for women. For a long time, it was a tradition for us to cut our hair to zero when someone in the family passed. Today, it is not a thing. No law was passed for that to stop. In fact, when it was still very much a thing, I lost my uncle and my aunt who enjoyed her long hair refused to cut her hair. Villagers grumbled and talked, but no one did anything to her. I am also one to believe that nature came with all its answers. A deep look into this customs that are said to marginalize women and you will notice that a good number of them were there to ‘protect’ women and a good number were there because it was believed a woman possesses more power spiritual than a man. Take a look at the role of the queen termite in the termitarium. She has the most unglamorous life; basically sitting in one spot her whole life but yet she is the most important and the most protected of all in the colony.
In my family, my own parents negotiated their roles in building their family. My dad worked more and my mom raised us. It worked. If my mom wanted to realize her ‘full potential,’ I actually believe she could run a Fortune 500 company and do a good job. Now if my dad wasn’t willing to be the stay at home dad and they both ending up working long hours, I am sure they would have raised terrible kids. I am saying that without saying all couples who work high level jobs and long hours raise bad children. So my parents agreed that mom will do X for the family and dad will do Y. They never measured the weight each person was carrying.
Aunty Wong’s mother said no-one is going to bind my daughters feet and fought everyone who tried. Realize she did not fight to end the custom. She said, I will not be part of it because at the time many other women thought it was a thing of beauty and probably opposed her decision, just like many women today still want to have men give up their seat and open doors for them. Modern feminism seems to purport that all women must want the same thing and women who don’t want to be ‘equal’ to men are black legs. It also without saying seeks to create an opponent because it believes it is a fight and there can’t be a fight without an opponent.
We cannot solve many of the issues particular to women if we continue to tackle them like the solutions have to come from men gathering themselves to give up some of their ‘power.’ We have to solve the problems from their origins and the origin of those problems is not a backroom secret plan by men to oppress women.
- Tino Foy