Reconciling Feminism, culture, religion and Women Rights
Feminism is a social movement, which is predominantly, but not exclusively, associated with Western middle-class academia, it is a movement, according to its proponents that provide a critical understanding of various religious concepts, beliefs, and rituals, as well as of religion as a cultural institution that defines sanctions, and sometimes challenges gender roles and gender-inflected representations. It is an ideology that receives little or no attention in cultured and religious societies. Most people avoid discussing it or find it very difficult to arrive at compromising position especially since its proponents associate it with the rights of women, gender [in] equality, in our society. The idea is very sensitive that sometimes it causes heated debate between those advocating for women rights/feminists on one hand, and those who feel that women are adopting a wrong channel in advancing what they assume as their right.
In a mostly patriarchal society like ours, the issue of feminism is looked upon with suspicion, not only from men, but even women themselves. This is basically because the idea was an adaptation of women struggle which originated from the Seneca Fall Convention of 1848 in the United States of America where women protested against the ill-treatment and abuse of women by drunken husbands and achievement of their legitimate rights in marriage, control of property and earnings and equal pay with men for the same work.
Some scholars however attributed its rise with the rise of Marxism, one of the reason advance by this school of thought was that Marxism was a theory basically directed towards labour issues, consequently, the woman was an essential part in the rise of labour power and it was necessary to take her out of the house and to the labour market.
In reality this is not so, Feminism gained ground mostly in Western Europe and United States as a branch of Liberation Movements of 1960s and 70s in America. In 1970, a group of women staged a demonstration in New York to oppose what they termed as the way society determines role by sex. They stated their opposition to marriage; promote lesbianism and same sex marriages, etc. Today, women in the developing world have adopted the ideology and trying to introduce it to our society – a society that inherited good social values, respect for the family unit and sanctity of the marriage institution.
The concept was either misunderstood by the women promoting it or they deliberately mixed it with the struggle for women rights. The ideology is ambiguous, confusing not only to a person observing events from far, but even to the core women groups who are advocating for women rights. Talk to anyone of them, they will tell you; women are marginalised, the society does not respect women, women are maltreated, denied opportunities to live a purposeful life etc. But ask them how these can be tackled, it is then that you will come to know that they are just fighting a course that has no meaning even to themselves.
Those who have anything to say will attribute the problem to a mindset and a general perception which according to them the society has on the place of women in our society. I always ask myself this question; why do we always prefer to live on day-dreaming and continue advocating for lofty ideals that are hardly found anywhere in real world? With this kind of mindset, who suffers? Women of course.
Change in itself has a pattern and it is wrong and indeed very wrong to assume that you can change a society by condemning its long-aged cultural practices. Do we have to be told that there are things wrong with the way our society treats women? Or for how long can we continue to entertain preaching from a brain washed women who think that the only good way of life is one designed and packaged by a so-called free women of the Western world?
And when we want to talk of rights of women we quickly jumped to condemn an existing cultural practice, for example female circumcision, or the traditional role of a woman of taking care of children, early marriage etc. What message are we sending? Is that how to convince somebody to change from his bad practices to good ones, if at all the one you are presenting are better?
A typical example is a debate that ensued between me and a women rights activist, last week. In the first place she failed to differentiate between women rights activism and feminism. Most of them have this problem. I told her that feminism is like a religion, though most feminists are of the opinion that the two can work together, the question is how? Feminism completely rejects religious beliefs and in some instances questioned the authority of all revealed books. While religions especially our two religions advocate for instance to reflect on all issues presented in the Holy Books, the religions also warned against the questioning of revealed verses or having doubts in their authority.
Feminists attack the teaching of all revealed religions; from this point of view, the question of the equality of men and women is meaningless. Our religions make a clear distinction between ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’. To try changing that is like trying to discuss the equality of a rose and a jasmine. Each has its own perfume, colour, shape and beauty. Men and women are not the same. Each has particular features and characteristics. Women are not equal to men. But neither are men equal to women, and to try and make them the same is as ridiculous as trying to make the earth and the universe the same. Nature envisages their roles in society not as competing but as complimentary. Each has certain duties and functions in accordance with his or her nature and constitution.
But this is what most of them don’t want to hear. In fact, some might dismiss this as another point of view from an unrepentant male chauvinist, who sees nothing good from women. Why should I be so? I asked myself. I was born by a woman and I am very proud of her because it is because of my mum that I reach where I am today. My mother is a proud woman in my village, because she is an achiever. But who am I to measure achievement of a woman by the children she trained to be productive in the society?
A lady from one of the South- Western State of Nigeria once asked me; Why it is that all the women that were not caged in marital homes are successful here in Northern Nigeria? Before answering her question, I reframed it this way; why it is that despite being ‘free’ only a handful of women are ‘successful’ in Southern Nigeria? This is the kind of mindset most of the have. To them success is measured by material or worldly things a woman acquires.
This mindset can be attributed to lack of proper guidance, wrong kind of education and ego which most of them have. I read somewhere a very good analogy by a scholar on this issue of culture, feminism and religion. The scholar said, ‘take, for instance, the case of a clever merchant who is earning high profits by dint of his intelligence, hard-work and experience. But at the same time, if he is given to drink, gambling and leads a care-free life, will it not be misleading to regard that side of his life as contributing to his well-being and prosperity?’ It is very wrong to assume that because a woman decides to be a full house wife, stay at home and take care of her husband – cook for him and their children, train them, then she is a failure, as it is wrong to assume that only career women are successful. Each of the two categories is a choice that has to be respected.
All human cultures known to man throughout prehistoric and historic times make a definite clear-cut distinction between “masculinity” and “femininity” and patterned the social roles of men and women accordingly. The disintegration of the home and family, the loss of the authoritarian role of the father and sexual promiscuity have been directly responsible for the decline and fall of every nation where these evils become prevalent. And whether we accept it or not our failure as a nation can be attributed in one way or the other in the disintegration of the family unit, which every scholar of history will tell you, is responsible for the decline and failure of a nation.
And even in the West, where this idea originated, the idea is very recent, for instance read family chronicles of the famous German artist, Albrecht Durer (1471-1528) who, although a devout Christian, presents a picture of his own home life as very close to Islamic ideals. All who knew him testified that Durer led a honourable Christian life – a life that respects culture, moral, spiritual and family values. Despite the evil of feudalistic society and the abuses of the authority of the priesthood, medieval Europe enjoyed a social integration, stability, peace and harmony which is unknown to modern Europe and Durer represented a clear picture of what Europe was, before it was taken over by this Liberalist concept of freedom.
Liberalism which crept into Western Europe came with so many movements (including feminism, etc.) that erode what was known as fundamentals of family unit, upon which the society was built, establishing in its place a social order founded on materialism and greediness. A system with a deep attraction because it was shrouded with lofty ideals that have appeals for man greed, one need not to raise the level of human intelligence or make any sacrifice for its sake. One requires no altruism or endur­ance. One need only drift with the “times.” History bears witness to the fact that no social order has so persistently come to have its sway over humanity as it has done.
You will agree with me that there is no time that moral corruption and social decadence menaced mankind on such a universal scale as is the case now, but who cares? As An Nadawi rightly put it, ‘the adoption of feminist ideals degrades humans lower than the animals. For animals live by their instincts and cannot do anything opposed to their nature. Among animals, homosexuality is unknown. The male is only attracted to the female of its own species. The male animal never goes with lust to another male or a female to another female. Among animals, the maternal relationship is completely severed as soon as the young are able to look after themselves. In most species, the father takes no interest in its offspring. There is no such thing as modesty, chastity, marriage or filial ties among beasts. These concepts are unique with human beings. They are found in every culture at every stage of civilization and history.’
As I wrote somewhere, whenever these issues are raised they are usually painted such that even discussing them becomes a taboo. Men are afraid to discuss them because they are afraid not to be termed male chauvinist, religious scholars are afraid of being called religious bigots and so on. But for how long shall we continue to avoid these issues that are very fundamental to our lives. There is need for us to sit down and address these issues squarely. This is more than renting an office building in Abuja, Lagos or Kaduna or organising seminars, workshops which are attended by people who in the first place are not there to contribute into arriving at practical solutions, but are aiming for the monetary gain attached to it.
Therefore, as we try to advocate for the rights of women, we have to bear in mind that we also have a responsibility of protecting the sanctity of our families and the society in which we live. Before accepting any ideology or any ism for that matter, one need to unwrap it and check its contents, not only that, but he/she should also put it on scale vis-à-vis his/her cultural, religious and societal values. Feminism from its beginning to the end has nothing to do with advocating for women rights. The whole idea of feminism to me is a way to portray a woman as defined by morally bankrupt Hollywood, that sees a woman as nothing more than a mere sex object, created to satisfy man’s sexual lust.
Kabiru Danladi,
Lawanti Village, KM25,
Along Gombe-Bauchi Road,
Akko LGA,
Gombe State,
Nigeria.
Kblondon2003@yahoo.com
08054546764, 08035150369