Patriarchy’s Con: Women’s Labour Matters, Women’s Rights Don’t
These ambiguous rules hurt the head of logic
The mandate of my African society was that as the first daughter of my mother and her second child, it was my responsibility to: babysit the younger siblings.
I cleaned, swept, cooked, did laundry, fetched water, bathed my younger ones, and took care of everything my parents demanded from as early as 10 years of age. As my senior sibling is male, I was the first in line for these responsibilities.
I lucked out, though. My mother did not place such burdens on me.
Yes, learning to cook for the family by the time you are nine and 10, tidying up the whole house, and playing part-time nanny for my younger siblings might make many Westerners uncomfortable, but my mother was usually close, and there were always people employed to help out.
With the wisdom of hindsight, however, I have since realized that I am among the lucky ones among the many women I have met.
My friend was held back from getting promoted to a higher class three times by her mother so that she would remain in the same school block as her younger siblings.
This is three years of her life, so she will play babysitter for her younger siblings until they can move to the same school block as her, and then she will continue from there.
A second friend of mine, the first child of four and older than the youngest by five years, was always responsible for the well-being of all four.
Her brothers broke something or hurt themself while their parents were away, she would be flogged for being irresponsible, even if it was the sibling she was a year older than.
He was a boy, of course, and according to her parents, boys played too much and struggled with focusing on tasks as well as girls can so he couldn’t be as responsible as his one-year-old older sister.
A male friend told me how his father gave his 16-year-old daughter as a wife to a man of almost 40 because his father needed to settle some bills and was desperate for the bride price the man would pay.
In today’s dollar-to (Nigerian) naira exchange, the girl’s bride price was 20 dollars.
Stories upon stories of women whose childhoods were partially or completely sacrificed for the comfort of their usually male or younger siblings. It seems parents and society seem to say to the girl-child:
From the womb, you are the gender responsible for preserving all of humanity.
This would have been a glorious responsibility if the same parents and society did not also say to the girl-child:
You have all of the responsibilities but none of the repayment for it. We are just entitled to it because we are female.
How do we justify cultures and families where education is denied the girl-child when it comes down to which child — male or female, can be afforded an education?
How do we justify cultures and families where the woman is disinherited solely based on gender? Yet, if she succeeds through her efforts, the same family and society feel entitled to her assets because she is their child.
Who determines that the woman is the right healthcare provider for the old and dying in their family, the right nurturer of the children who continue the generation, and yet the same card disinherits her from receiving generational wealth?
Said wealth goes to the men who did not provide any value-added help to either the old or the young.
So, which is it — is the woman valuable because of her gender or is she valueless because of her gender?
This is the typical case of laws for thee and not for me. For this essay, I will be calling it the Rule of Ambiguity. It is simple enough— we are entitled to everything we can extract from you, you should accept that and also accept that we control your life.
Here is an example: The girlchild matures faster than the boychild.
Question 1: How are the faster-maturing ones, not the ones whose families and cultures advocate for their education and are in charge of the family’s wealth, if any?
Question 2: Why are those who mature faster not completely in charge of their mature bodies?
In the case of the second question, in most of the African continent, not even a rape justifies an abortion, and if America, the beacon of human rights, is to be believed, right now in 2024, women are not to be trusted to make decisions that primarily affect their bodies.
This should hurt the head of anyone.
If women are valued, should they not decide what happens to their bodies? If women are valueless, why should anyone care what they do with their bodies?
This is the effectiveness of the power of ambiguity. When it comes to women, their rights and values are determined by what the (male) guardians in that family or society dictate.
The one who makes the rules can have a hundred different goalposts, even for the same challenge. The rules can’t be bent, though. If a (male) guardian has a high status in society, the rules need not apply.
Say the (male) guardians determine that women above fifteen years of age cannot have an abortion. The rule changes for a (male) guardian whose fifteen-year-old daughter gets pregnant but remains for those who are not affluent enough to seek the same exceptions.
Or say a married man commits adultery. In many societies, this is to be expected, and forgiveness is something that must be given by the wife to the husband.
This ambiguity comes from the (male) guardian’s determination that a woman can control her sexual urges while the man cannot.
As an example of the above, according to Taliban leader Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada, a man is present for adultery to occur, but only the female adulteress will be publicly stoned to death for adultery.
The verdict suggests that the woman is responsible for it. The man involved is too immature for consent and too weak to have escaped the clutches of the woman.
Does the above seem logical? If women are responsible even for adultery, should power not be theirs, too?
The penalty, after all, does suggest that the woman is the more powerful of the duo. In a roundabout way, should the more powerful one not decide penalties?
Alas, it seems women are valued the way cattle are—for their labour.
Then, like cattle, they must be controlled; otherwise, they can run wild without men putting a nose ring to drive them around and properly manage them. Trying to understand and solve the disparity between the (mis)treatment of women in families and societies may, then, be akin to a cattle owner negotiating with their cattle.
Does the meaning of emotional or rational change when gender is involved?
It seems so because, in a world where men can yell, fight, and bloody themselves on the streets, they retain the title of the rational half of humanity.
The gender that drives better interrupts people less and is more in touch with their emotions, like it’s a bad thing, is illogical, and deserves the hand-holding ambiguity provided to empower the other half.
I recently read on Reddit about a 22-year-old girl whose 27-year-old boyfriend lives with his mother. The couple had a wonderful relationship until the mother needed to travel for a week.
During the mother’s absence, the girl visited her boyfriend as usual.
The problem arose when the boyfriend would get belligerent towards his girlfriend because she was not picking up after him or making him his meals. When the girl asked why he did not communicate his expectations, her boyfriend said:
“It was just common sense” for her to do them.
And why it was her duty to take care of him? What will he be doing for himself? She was informed that she was nitpicking. Even the absent mother of her boyfriend assumed that she would be taking care of her son.
It was just common sense, after all.
Is it common sense to you, Dear Reader? If your answer is yes, then I believe the Rules of Ambiguity make sense to you, too.
If your answer is no, then just as in families and societies where the (mis)treatment of women boils down to the Rules of ambiguity, it just isn’t common sense.
Thank You For Reading.
Have you subscribed to my email list? Please do! I would also appreciate a cup of coffee. Thank you.
