Before I begin, let me just say that I do see Chimamanda as a somewhat positive personality, especially for Nigerian youth. She is the creative novelist who used her talents to propel herself into the realm of stardom and prominence. My critique is not against her so much as it is against her ideology, which strikes me as destructive.
There. I said it.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie recently published a “Feminist Manifesto” on Facebook, a casual essay written to one of her friends who had just given birth to a female child. Adichie was giving the mother guidelines on how to raise the perfect “feminist child.”
Feminism is a fluid concept. Anyone can interpret it as he or she chooses. Most feminists are extreme, and that extremism is usually spearheaded by their undying hatred for men. And that isn’t fair.
Adichie defines her own feminism as “ the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.” This is not a bad concept. It is actually correct and does not destroy any basic, fundamental law.
I agree that everyone, regardless of sex, color, race, or religious belief deserves equal rights in society.
I agree with Adichie in the quest to dismantle unnecessary stereotypes associated with gender roles, like telling a girl to do something for no other reason than the fact that she is female.
So the million-dollar question comes in- what is it that I disagree with? In this Manifesto, Adichie writes, “4. Beware the danger of what I call Feminism Lite. It is the idea of conditional female equality. Reject this entirely. It is a hollow, appeasing, and bankrupt idea. Being a feminist is like being pregnant. You either are or you are not. You either believe in the full equality of women, or you do not.”
She went on to explain, “Here are some examples of Feminism Lite: A woman should be ambitious, but not too much. A woman can be successful but she should also do her domestic duties and cook for her husband. A woman should have her own but she should not forget her true role as home keeper. Of course a woman should have a job but the man is still head of the family. Feminism Lite uses inane analogies like ‘he is the head and you are the neck.’ Or ‘he is driving but you are in the front seat.’ More troubling is the idea,
“ in Feminism Lite, that men are naturally superior but should be expected to ‘treat women well.’
No. No. No.
There must be more than male benevolence as the basis for a woman’s wellbeing. Feminism Lite uses the language of ‘allowing.’
Theresa May is the British Prime Minister and here is how a progressive British newspaper described her husband: ‘Philip May is known in politics as a man who has taken a back seat and allowed his wife, Theresa, to shine.
‘Allowed’.
Now let us reverse it.
Theresa May has allowed her husband to shine.
Does it make sense?
If Philip May were Prime Minister, perhaps we might hear that his wife has ‘supported’ him from the background, or that she is ‘behind’ him, but we would never hear that she had ‘allowed’ him to shine.
Allow is a troubling word.
Allow is about power.
“Members of the society of Feminism Lite will often say, “Leave the woman alone to do what she wants as long as her husband allows. A husband is not a headmaster. A wife is not a schoolgirl. Permission and being allowed, when used one sided – and it is nearly only used that way – should never be the language of an equal marriage.”
In this excerpt, Adichie completely writes off the domestic duties of a wife as “Feminism Lite.”
Now, as much as I agree with the rest of her manifesto, I do find this line of thought destructive to the core, fundamental and traditional marriage structure.
I am not saying that wives should be relegated to servants in their own homes but in a situation whereby the husband is the breadwinner of the family and he comes home late, exhausted after a long day at work, will this idea still be upheld?
I believe in the division of labor. If the woman happens to be the breadwinner of the family, and the man happens to have more time on his hands (or works at home) then, of course, he should already have enough love and understanding towards his wife to help out with some or most of these duties.
But to outrightly claim that successful wives should turn blind eyes to the welfare of their husbands because “they are independent” and don’t “need” them strikes me as arrogant, irresponsible and shallow.
Married couples are supposed to be one. When we begin to look down on one another, we degrade that love and respect that was once there. It becomes a competition to see who is the most important spouse.
Why should it be like that?
A house divided against itself will eventually fall. Instead of arguing to usurp authority to whom it was given, let us be humble and calculative. It never hurt anyone. It actually fixes everything.
But going about this religiously won’t make a difference these days, considering most feminists have virtually no regard for God.
Husbands and wives will never be equal to me.
Men and women, brothers and sisters, yes…married couples….no.
According to psychology, men are generally more mentally equipped to run a household than the female. This is because men are more technical, practical, and pragmatic.
Women are generally more creative, emotional, and flexible. Two people can not head one household. It has never worked. One must be subordinate.
We can’t have two presidents. That is why we have one president and one vice president.
I am not saying that women are not fit to run establishments. I think the world would be a better place if some of the most corrupt and dangerous nations were run by women. There would be a change indeed. But once we come to the institution of marriage, let us call a spade a spade.In this pursuit of equal rights, let’s not lose our trousers…pun intended.