So I've been following this #PepperDemMinistries for the last week.
And boy do I feel old. I used to LOVE these vitriolic arguments and relished jumping into yet another mud fight, eyes blazing and teeth bared, hoping to draw first blood. So it took me a while to organize my thoughts on things. For starters, it's difficult to have 'a take' on anything branded #feminist or #feminism because there would always be something you say that someone will 'call out' as evidence of your misogyny (Which means hate of women, by the way) and thus be branded as #mansplaining. Sort of like being the few guys fighting in the trenches in that sector of the women's side of a trench war a la World War 1. No matter how sincerely you stand for the cause, you will NEVER be above suspicion of espionage or sabotage. Ironically, because y'know... you are a man.
It's also why a lot of men would quietly cheer on one side or have an opinion but remain silent. Lest they be ripped limb from limb in the public domain of Social media.
It seems you are never above suspicion when you a man on the 'women's side' of the argument
It's also why a lot of men would quietly cheer on one side or have an opinion but remain silent. Lest they be ripped limb from limb in the public domain of Social media.
It seems you are never above suspicion when you a man on the 'women's side' of the argument
Now with that proviso out of the way,
I guess we can deconstruct. What's most interesting about this analogy - The trench war with a few men dotted among the women's side is that it is both apt and a misnomer.
Let me explain,
The narrative of entrenched warfare, where no side gives ground except after much blood is spilt is the idea of trench-warfare and 'entrenching'.
And yet,
Is this what feminism is? Not necessarily. Actually No. Feminism is a view that women are equal to men and therefore should be treated as such. It's equality; not just equity. Certainly not superiority either.
*Hence the misnomer.
And yet,
One cannot lose sight of the context. In more 'liberal' parts of the world, sexism is a lot more subtle, and hence more insidious. It's harder to blame someone for something you cannot prove when all you have to read is a pattern of actions that seem to be informed by clear bias and prejudice - Like racism. The stats are clear - and yet, the perpetrators of this bias are aware enough of the fact that their prejudice cannot stand up in the face of the apparently open and liberal law of the land, so they present their prejudice in a way that cannot be called out.
So i say 'liberal' because it's actually a tougher war to win.
Here in Ghana, like in other more 'conservative' cultures, sexism is more overt. sexual harassment at work may not be often rapey but is certainly more overt, and men openly declare women's 'place' being as secondary. Neatly tied up in a pretty bow passed off as religion. The very same 'sub-culture' that veils everything in the covering of faut-morality. Under these circumstances, any form of resistance by the subjugated would be more violent, more forceful and filled with deeper resentment.
*Hence trench war is apt.
Fun fact: Did you know that when the Russians fought the Germans in WWII, they had a lot of females conscripted as snipers and statistically, women actually make better stone-cold killers in that capacity than men? There are countless reasons why, from women being better at multi-tasking and hence not getting sloppy in the hunt, women being able to compartmentalize their emotions etc. But you see, until we have a truly level playing field to see what indeed women are psychologically or physically better at, these would remain data points in the face of our unwavering preconceptions of what women can and cannot do.
So back to this new push for feminism by the#PepperDem movement. I suppose like any conflict, one can see the more measured 'officers' who are aware of PR and logical fallacies; and thus present watertight arguments to win clear and clean victories.
Then you have the 'footsoldiers', men and women who perhaps would not have taken up the cause themselves, but now that it is underway, without fully grasping the nuances of it, are louder and more black and white in its defense than the architects themselves, yet aren't restrained by a unified plan. In war, these would be that unit of soldiers contented with reverse-prejudice, looting and shooting POWs.
Another way to see it is with the fight for the emancipation of slaves in the Americas. There were a lot of violent rebellions by the slaves that made the whites fear them; and entrench ever more in their position that these 'other' should - never - ever be free, lest they murder them in their sleep (or enslave them). It also caused them to cook up phoney research proving psychologically why the place of the 'other' was to be subservient to their side.
See any similarities?
Any informed strategist would immediately realize you cannot conduct a winning battle from the position of weakness. Like marching toe to toe against Redcoats while armed with spears and wooden shields. It's a no-brainer. Woman are often numerically superior to men, but here we are talking about minority in that men control the system. A stronger force can simply weather a frontal attack and no amount of crying, screaming or heroic attempts would remove them. We are not appealing to reason here. Why would the winning side suddenly grow a conscience when it’s... y’know, winning? We are overcoming prejudice. Which is why warfare is always unemotional, about deception, flanking attacks and guerrilla/ asymmetrical warfare - Realist strategies that acknowledges the opponent’s strengths, avoids them rather than egoistically and fruitlessly engage them and thus, by so doing, renders any superiority impotent.
I’m just putting this out there.
Void of this, you have the battle of attrition. Drawn out, a whole lot messier a conflict, and ensures victory becomes murkier.
However, like with any conflict, you cannot hold back the ones who are just as entitled to their fight for freedom as anyone else, can you? And were it not for those violent, unrestrained skirmishes, the topic of emancipation would never have gotten to the point where it would have been considered an untenable state for both sides...
