S. A. David: "We Should Not Be Feminists."

I do not like the f-word- feminism. It harbours a lot of nonsense, negative nonsense, even though countless well-meaning intellectuals are trying every humanly-possible approach to debunk the negative notion it already carries.
I wish the word “equality” would become old-fashioned, go in to extinction and then be deleted from every dictionary on earth, and perhaps in heaven. It robs us of our innocence and purity. It rubbishes that clean white slate in every soul, that spotless lamb in every human.
I am looking forward to the future when we will stop the usage of the word “sexuality”. It reduces us to sexual beings. It is better we are human beings, or better still, angelic beings. Angels are sexless. Infact, they do not have sexuality or related words in their lexicon.
I seriously anticipate that day when lexicographers of all tongue and tribe would convene at a global conference to erase the word “gender” from every dictionary- Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hausa, Igala, Igbo, Italian, Urhobo, Yoruba and all languages. It takes us to the state of nature where chaos is orderliness.And just after then, I would entreat all “men and women of God” to ask God to not recognize these words in heaven, to order his angels to cease the usage if they use it, to delete them from glossolalia, and any person who employs usage of these words- whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or Satanist- such person’s prayers should not go beyond the shortest shrub.
I do not like so many words. Perhaps, a third of the dictionary’s words. But I am not going to expend my energies on all but feminism and a very minuscule amount on equality.
Feminism is enmeshed in idealism. It prospers very well in the great land of “Utopia”. It is very real in fiction, in books, in movies and in our thoughts. We enjoy movies that empower women to send their cheating husbands packing from their matrimonial homes. We enjoy movies where a woman becomes pope or, even better or worse still, a twenty-nine year old lady emerges United States’ president. Perhaps, we also like it when a woman is the head of the home- she goes to work and leaves housekeeping and children in the hands of her house husband. (Tufiakwa!)
Very funny, because in real life it is the other way round. There has never been a female priest even though some women now call themselves priest. What are we going to call them? Reverend Father Mary? As if the office of the nun where we call them sister or mother is not enough for them.
Movies and books try to sell so many things into our subconscious , into our minds which we are suppose to guard with all diligence. A woman-cop knocks down a man-criminal. Or a woman-lawyer defeats a man-opponent. Or a woman-brigadier commands a men-brigade. This is what every woman or some women actually want and it is not a bad thing.
I would belabour the fact that I do not like the f-word “feminism”. The word first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872 as ‘les feministes’. It showed up in Great Britain in the early 1890s and in 1910, it entered the United States. Since it entered the world, it had birthed over-abundant literature- fiction and non-fiction- with diverse views that gets one confused and convinced simultaneously.
From Jeremy Bentham to Jane Austen, feminism has flourished. It was all about the rights of women. They needed to vote and be voted for. They needed to go to school and get education as the men did. They needed to have a role in the decision-making process of the suitor who had come to seek their hands in marriage. They needed to begin 'enjoying' what the men 'seemed' to 'enjoy'.
Now, I begin to wonder, “Is it women’s rights or human rights?" I think the women-feminists had become selfish, fighting only for their rights. What about the “weak” men who suffered oppression from a ‘husband-beater’?
Who is a feminist? It is a question with an obvious answer capable of generating unending threads. Yes, many threads because feminism has been reduced to “subjectivism”. How Ms Jane sees it is not how Mrs. Vivian appraises it.
What does the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary have to say?
The OALD puts it this way- “a feminist is a person who supports the belief that women should have equal rights and opportunities as men”.
Here, I think, lexicographers have contributed immensely to the problems of the world. Reason for this thought: it takes just words to just create just anything; and it has done so for “feminism” by tricking us to believe that women at one time, and even now, are still being oppressed in archaic and contemporary forms. And yes it is true that women have faced varying forms of oppression that called for somebody to be the voice of the ‘oppressed woman’ in a world spanning out of control. But this does not justify this “ancient-segregation”.
Yes, ancient segregation. These feminists have made it look like only women were and are being bedevilled by the predicament (the f-predicament). And I am not taking sides with what the “voices” spoke against. In traditional Africa, culture and tradition have deprived the woman of her future and education respectively. The woman has been dehumanized and perceived as a slave. She has been subjected to circumcision, forced into an under-age marriage and precluded from fulfilling her dreams which would have alleviated a predicament of her generation. And worse is the “curse of widowhood” as if being a widow is a crime and status that the woman enjoys.
I do not yield my fist of support to these inhumanities which were, and perhaps still done, to women; and neither do I endorse feminism. Why? Feminism dwells and will continue to inhabit the realm of controversy.
More "dangerous" is the new phase of feminism having survived and outgrown its previous evolution stages of just “speaking” against female circumcision, denial of girl-child education and the deliberate affliction of the travails of widowhood on the woman. It has entered its “superiority stage”. Women-feminists are not just seeking freedom from oppression because they are no longer oppressed. They want superiority. They are of the opinion that “they can do it”. And yes they can but they should not. Take a look at one woman-feminist's lines: "If I were a boy, I'll put my self first, And make the rules as I go..."
They should not seek equality- they should be careful what they wish for. They should be responsible- respond to their abilities. They are blessed with the ability of supporting the human race which consists of the man and the woman. They are responsible for sustaining their hour-glass shape as the men are responsible for maintaining their broad chests.
The human race- the man and the woman- should take into cognizance one thing and that is human rights which are inherent to all humans irrespective of nationality, place of residence, sex, religion, colour, ethnicity or any other status of which the lexicographers deceive us about.
We should not be feminists. We should not be “masculinists”. We should just be humans who understand the abilities given to us and seek to respond to these unique abilities in a manner that God himself would not hesitate to relocate his throne to earth.
I love to belabour: There is only one race which is the human race, so we should just be humans; women should not seek to have penises, and the men should be contented with their unleavened breasts.