Feminism and 'Womanism' - The Misnomer

Nearly fourteen moonsets and moonrises ago, the Poetry comradeship I bear allegiance to – The Lantern Meet of Poets – inaugurated a series of fortnightly debates, christened ‘The Lantern Meet Forum’, by taking a stab at the dynamite-packed keg of ‘Feminism’.

While I have, in my past few contributions to this blog, broached said subject in some bare-knuckled and contentious exposes – I hadn’t as yet explored a particular angle of the quite broad and inexhaustible spectrum of discourse that feminism, like several other post-modernist sociological phenomena, seems to always ignite.

The unexplored angle I allude to is this –

Is feminism necessarily a women’s empowerment movement?
If so – why is it that women themselves, in several cases, seem to be at the very forefront of anti-feminism movements?

This is of course rather ironical, because the discussion was centered on a TED lecture that’d a while back been delivered by celebrated Nigerian Author and Feminist, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, titled – ‘Why we should all be Feminists!’

This lecture and its title, which seem to be directed at men, to an extent imply that all women are feminists by default or have somehow embraced feminism, and it now falls upon men to follow suit lest they get ‘left behind’ in what Chimamanda sees as an unstoppable march to the glorious future of gender equality.

Miss Lillian Ngabirano, one of those present, accused Miss Chimamanda of revealing her situational ignorance, as well as academic arrogance, in presuming to speak for people she evidently knows little or close to nothing about, when the latter makes sweeping remarks on the condition of the 'African woman' and how the traditional roles of motherhood and wife-hood oppress her.

The debate started off with a number of attempts to define feminism – which ended up being as numerous and schismatic as could be.

Vehement opponents of feminism’s arrogant and often dismissive stance to the ‘hallowed’ place of women in traditional societal roles was led by Ojakol Raymond, who went as far as calling feminists a cabal of lesbians intent on destroying the (African) family.

Justification for this extreme position was traced back to the American Civil Rights’ Movement, where modern feminism seems to have begun.

It was explained that as the American black-man campaigned for an equal place in society in the 50s; the white establishment’s response – in an attempt to divert the focus of this advocacy and dilute the black community’s strength; invented ‘feminism’ as a red-herring; swinging it in the face of black-women to convince them that they were oppressed by their men – and thus needed to take up arms against their men, rather than side with them in joint-advocacy for the black community’s rights.

One can therefore see that after this dichotomy was inserted - there was no way the black family could stay together.
African-American women, instead of offering support to their husbands in the broader struggle against white hegemony, began rebelling against men in their own homes.

They set themselves up as obstacles, rather than partners.

The cumulative effect of this internal ‘war’ in the black family was to divert attention from civil rights to black-women’s rights; weakening and eventually crippling the whole community’s struggle for the recognition of its humanity.

I seek to make a simple point here – to illustrate the power of words to construct a notion; but also to mislead us in construing that notion if the words are epistemologically incongruous with the notion they represent.

A simple example would be teaching a young child that a dog is an animal that barks and exposing him to a barking sound; then pointing at a pig and saying to him – ‘‘That’s the dog …’’

This child will spend their entire life waiting for the pig to bark, and if it doesn’t – they’ll try to rationalize it by deeming that pig mute; and moving on to another pig and waiting for it to bark too.

Where does it all end, you may ask?

Well – I’m not too sure it ever ends – because the human mind is often a one-way street that displays fierce loyalty to traditional concepts, violently opposing any new ones that try to offset them.

As expected – the usual appeals to emotion and 'suffering' were mined by the team of young women who’d set themselves up as feminism’s implacable apologists.

Hawa Kimbugwe, Fahima Kimbugwe and Brenda Nakalema very eloquently made the case for the world’s millions of ‘suffering’ girl children who are denied schooling, leadership opportunities, fair pay, employment, et-ce-tera - on account of their gender.

For a while – the debate also revolved around sexual offenses like rape, and the impunity associated with them.
The primary argument was that a woman may be held complicit in her own rape, on account of her negligence or indecency.

Of course, feminism’s valiant defenders failed to satisfactorily point out how feminism as an attitude would tackle this impunity; when Wobusobozi Amooti Kangere  put it to them that any other crime; be it theft or murder, once reported to the police is always subject to ‘suspicion’ before an evidential burden can be fulfilled.

He saw no reason why rape (which in this day and age, by the way, does also befall men) should have to be treated in isolation.

Before I lose track and recount the entire debate - long, impassioned and sinuous as it turned out - which isn’t this article’s objective; let me return to, and conclude with two of my personal misgivings on the issues raised therein, by either side;

First is a qualm for the feminist camp, which I mentioned before –

If feminism postures itself to be the panacea to all of womanhood's problems – why is it not unanimously embraced by all women, and in many cases is vigorously opposed by them?

Perhaps ‘Feminism’ isn’t necessarily synonymous with ‘Womanism’?

Perhaps feminists are so bent-upon modelling this stereotypical, yet mythical bogey of an embattled 'African female' - back permanently arched over a peak-less mountain of greasy pots and pans, daily facing the rising African sun with a boulder-load of firewood perched on her willowy neck, and the setting sun with a sure promise of a thorough nightly beating at her husband's hands.

Secondly – for those who oppose feminism on the pretext of it being a destructive force towards the (African) family unit – are you really sure women are content and happy in these traditional roles that you celebrate so much?

Do women really derive their greatest joy from having and raising children, making husbands’ dinners and changing babies' diapers?

Or do they, in their heart of hearts, also want to pursue careers away from the drudgery and tedium of wailing babies and house chores; and work at ''eight-hour'' jobs like their men?

Isn’t it possible that (African) housewives – who happen to be feminism’s prime target - are not as happy as we presume in rural-Africa’s sooty kitchens where feminists claim they acquire lung cancer from constant exposure to carbon monoxide?

Perhaps they’ve been indoctrinated so much in their upbringing and socialization that Africa's women feel incomplete and 'un-womanly' without their traditional housekeeping roles, even when these roles are inherently oppressive.

Perhaps?