Ad
Ad
Ad
Tag

Slider

Browsing

History has given us a vintage view of different types of feminism over the years down to this modern era’s feminism. Let’s start with a quote from Rebecca West on feminism.

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”

Rebecca West

We shall take these words by Rebecca West, one of the greatest underappreciated writers of the time, as a rough definition of feminism, if you take a doormat to be a non-talking abused female. But in what way the female is abused has never been and is still not a universally agreed matter. This was the cause of the rifts in the modern school of feminist thought that prominently originated in the eighteenth century. These rifts still exist today, and so with these different opinions arose different types of feminism, each with its own explanation, agenda, and solution. Without trying to oversimplify a rather nuanced subject I will now attempt to explore these divisions in a very concise and structured manner, and using a historical approach.

Read Now: Is nudist culture feminism or extremism?

Different types of feminism

Liberal feminism

Among the earliest feminist movement, this philosophy concerned itself with gender inequality coming from the presumed disappointing intellect of the female that denied her education, employment, and social advancement and also promoted the image of the ideal woman as the homebound partner suitable only for keeping house. This had resulted in the inability of a woman to attain material comfort without the necessity of a restrictive marriage. Many women had to turn to prostitution which became the fourth largest feminine occupation in Victorian England, and these prostitutes, products of a society power-structured on the basis of gender, were regularly hunted out, manhandled, and arrested indiscriminately by a male-controlled government on account of the rising sexually contagious diseases in communities without a consideration that their male clienteles might have well been the carriers.

Among The Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act which had sought after protecting the rights of these prostitutes, the liberal feminists wielded handy political and legal instruments to pursue other reforms on employment, education and marital laws. For the ideal home woman image had also fostered domestic violence, emotional abuse, skewed sexual morals in favour of the man, lack of ability of the female to own property of any sorts after marriage, or to have custody of her children after divorce.

A major figure here is Mary Wollstonecraft, the mother of the female writer that gave the world the classic “I, Frankenstein.” She and others long after her fought to release women from the kitchens and into schools and higher educational institutions. The success of the movement had shown that women could at their ease take on scholarly interests just as could men, and it saw women flourish who came to believe that their potentials as women in society were clamped by these pre-conceived gender roles. Classic examples of these are Beecher Stowe, who would go on to be delightfully charged with having written a worthy contender for the Greatest American Novel; Marie Curie, the noble lady that died discovering radioactivity; and Mary Ann Evans, the wordsmith who had to use a man’s name in order to ensure appropriate critiquing of her works.

Read Now: What does it mean to be a feminist in Nigeria?

Socialist feminism

The crowning achievement of Liberal Feminism was to have been the giving of the vote to women and their enrolment into parliament. But these electoral and political reforms did not automatically translate into social or economic success. Women were paid less than men in workplaces and in parliament, there were still little opportunities for social advancement as the issue of pregnancy, maternity leaves, low psychological threshold were often cited as among many rationales for women’s low wages or forbiddance to higher echelons of office in industry. It was during this time also that Socialism gained rage. Marxist Socialism as a revolutionary concept charged the working class to upend the current exploitative capitalists to achieve a classless society in which everyone, including workers and industrialists, was equal and had the same amount of rights as the other.

Feminism hopped on this ideology and proclaimed that women were still subjugated because of the capitalist politico-economic system that exploited women who exercised both free labor of home-duty and poorly renumerated long-hours labor of semi-skilled factory work, while the male capitalists were eating fat from their underpaid labor, and so from that higher economic ground men could constantly dominate them in other social spheres. Compared to other class contradictions the Marxist feminists held the social and economic subjugation of women as the most fundamental oppression and a situation that had to be altered only by the means of a socialist feminist revolution.  

Radical feminism

While some leaned on socialism, asserting the masculine gender, the upper class of the capitalist society, as an oppressive force to be leveled down, others saw feminine subjugation as a fact of humanity that long preceded the coming of capitalism. The ancient civilizations of the Bronze Age, said these radicals, had cultures that were intolerant of females and their desired placements in society, as for example the Chinese women of the 1000 B.C. Zhou were foot-bound until they could no longer walk and were thus admonished to stay at home to serve their husbands.

Examples like these had caused the radicals to believe that the only way to fully win women’s rights was to completely overhaul more than five thousand years of orchestrated oppression. And this condition was naturally blamed on the fact that it was the woman who bore the brunt of reproduction and naturally had more stake in a child who had dwelled in her womb for almost a year.

So they had advocated family planning and birth control policies, fought for the promulgation of abortion law, and even went as far as fielding the plausibility of some futuristic technology that would make breeding possible outside the female reproductive organ. It is the ultimate hope of the radical feminist to make the world genderless so that political, social, and economic rights are not awarded on the consideration of what sexual organs one possesses.

Cultural Feminism

For those who had thought the proffered solutions of Radical feminism very unorthodox and infeasible but had come to share their beliefs, especially of how reproduction defined gender, they came to an understanding of role of society in constructing gender roles and norms, and how these norms had come to be politicized and helped to maintain the male-female power dynamic. This movement became prominent after the two world wars when the belief in the purpose of humanity had taken a forlorn tone after the catastrophe that splurged in their wake.

Women began generally to lash out against the prescribed traditional norms of homely and gentile spirit attached to a woman, and to wear loose clothing that accentuated the shape of their body, took up smoking which was previously a masculine pastime. They also spoke against the laxity with which society viewed male promiscuity while reinforcing the role of the faithful wife or the virgin female youth.

Individual feminism

This movement began to bloom with the Millennials, and went in line with the dogma of their rugged independence. They preached for the female to accept responsibility for her actions and her life. They preached the respect for all sexual choices, the legalization of sex work, the sexual liberation of women, and freedom to take up more than one sexual partner if they so desire, without having to be rebuked for it. Today, it still rides with “Fourth Wave feminism” which has begun to speak out against rape, sexual harassment, and body-shaming.

Many people, especially those living in low-resource countries, want the opportunity to study abroad. When I was in high school, the most common countries people wanted to study in were the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. These countries have world-renowned institutions and are also English-speaking. The occasional adventurous student would look into France or Germany, but for the most part, these three countries topped the charts.

However, when it comes to studying in the U.S., people aren’t asking themselves all the right questions. By the time they get here, they are left in a difficult rut to come out from. So today, I will be sharing with you some questions that you should be asking to figure out if studying in the U.S. is right for you. Please note that these questions can be applied to studying abroad in general.

What course do I want to study?

Many U.S. universities offer a wide range of courses. One thing I love about the education system is the ability to change your course after being admitted. The flexibility in course selection is amazing. However, many professional courses are not offered at an undergraduate level. What do I mean? Courses such as medicine, law, physical therapy, etc are post-graduate level courses. You already have to complete a first degree (usually within the U.S.) before pursuing them. This means that a lot of resources will be dedicated to pursuing such degrees. Other professions such as therapists require at least a graduate level degree to even be licensed. If you want to pursue any of such degrees straight up, you may need to reconsider coming to the U.S.

Read Now: What’s happiness to you?

Where do I want to end up after school?

This goes hand in hand with choosing your course. A degree may apply in the U.S, but may not be applicable in your home country. Take for example, physician assistants. This is a well-recognized profession in the United States, but many countries do not accredit them. If staying in the U.S is not part of your long-term goal, you need to be careful about studying a course that wouldn’t be applicable in the country you wish to live.

Read Now: What to do after NYSC ?

Am I looking for a path to citizenship?

Some international students come to the U.S. with the intention of going back home after their studies, while others do not. If your plan is to live and work in the U.S., you need to start familiarizing yourself with the various paths to citizenship. Certain fields such as engineering and healthcare have better chances with H1B visas (a type of work permit which has at the time of writing been halted by President Trump). As well, immigration in the U.S. is constantly changing depending on the presidency. If remaining in your country of study is very important to you, I would suggest starting now to research various options. I would also suggest looking up more countries with friendly immigration policies for international students.

Do I have a family and other dependents?

If you are the breadwinner of your family, this is very important. International students are only allowed to work on campus, not more than 20 hours a week. It is very difficult to sustain a family on such an income. Depending on the type of visa that your dependents are on, they may not be able to work at all in the United States. You also need to show proof that you can care for your dependents before being issued a visa. If the limited ability to work will affect your family, you may need to consider schooling in a different country that allows off-campus work opportunities.

How much am I willing to spend?

More money talks. International students are not always aware of how they can cut costs while schooling abroad. Options exist such as attending community college, going to state schools, scholarships, and grants, etc. I suggest looking into these options and contacting your school’s financial aid office for more information. As well, various countries have programs where they send their citizens to study in the U.S. in return for service for a number of years. That may be something to look into. whatever it is, you want to be able to cover your expenses. It’s one thing to be broke, it’s another thing to be broke on foreign soil.

Well, that’s all I have today. Please let me know if I am missing out on anything else in the comment section. Check out my other posts on Adabekee.

Is it only mere optimism to suggest that sometimes wars are needed to get peace? Or a practical tour de force borne out on historical conscience? Or rather common knowledge needing nothing as punishing as rigorous insight? Or, when stripped of self-righteous rationalizations, a questionable ethic founded on a Marxist, far-right-wing, or progressive liberal-minded ideology?

Before consenting to any of these possibilities, we would have to point out two inevitable assumptions inherent in the suggestion itself. First, in plain view is the assumption that war is, sometimes, a requirement, or one among a requirement for peace, a bitter price to be paid today for a peaceful future. The second is the rather subtly hidden connotation that, sometimes, peace is the hoped-for conclusion to war, or what is the same thing, the reason behind war regardless of its untold outcome. To begin to think about the second assumption is to attempt to bring the first justice. For if the true motive for a war is first laid bare, we might hope to find compulsion in connecting its final achievements to its initial purpose, and learning something of its success as a means to its stated end.

Then there’s the unavoidable issue of knowing exactly what this stated end is, as, with every other concept, peace is as much fuzzy in its dimensions to offer up a cut-and-dried definition for our use. To keep this as clear as possible and at the risk of presenting so shallow, and in consequence meaningless, a simplistic model for truth we shall skirt around every entanglement that might waylay us journeyward and stick only to generalizations, digging in only occasionally, by way of examples, for clarification’s sake.

Before consenting to any of these possibilities, we would have to point out two inevitable assumptions inherent in the suggestion itself. First, in plain view is the assumption that war is, sometimes, a requirement, or one among a requirement for peace, a bitter price to be paid today for a peaceful future. The second is the rather subtly hidden connotation that, sometimes, peace is the hoped-for conclusion to war, or what is the same thing, the reason behind war regardless of its untold outcome. To begin to think about the second assumption is to attempt to bring the first justice. For if the true motive for a war is first laid bare, we might hope to find compulsion in connecting its final achievements to its initial purpose, and learning something of its success as a means to its stated end.

For our purpose, for the purpose of discovering the true motive of war made on a peaceful strength, we shall define peace then, as defined by them whose job description contains the legal right to make war, that is the governments of the modern nation-states. Because the right to rule of governments comes from the mandate of its subjects, peace must to them be a national state of affairs in which the lives of their subjects are successfully protected from both internal and external threats, the supposition, of course, being that democracy is that glittering opaque dress in which the government of the day strives to be seen, however deadening maybe its appearance in the nude. Defense from internal and external sources then is what, from here on, we shall mean by peace. Let us now depart from this point, and see where that takes us.

Peace as defense from an external source, be it a border skirmish with a neighboring country, aggressive air warning-strike from a rivaling nation, or terrorist threat from a foreign group or country, immediately sends us prying into the missions of global bodies already set up to mediate international relations in hope of some form of stable geopolitical order. Permit the UN to come to mind.

Sprung out in 1945 as a result of the distaste of witnesses to the large-scale inhumane ravages left in the wake of the war, the newly formed UN, a composition of countries grown averse to the idea of a global dispute of any kind, started to organize peaceful military missions in regions like post-war borderlands to ensure that the compromise reached between warring party countries were effected as agreed. Hitler’s war had been a military lesson in the inevitable danger of appeasing policies, and the UN had taken note. With only armored cars and light weaponry, the blue-beret UN soldiers served to intimidate the usurping elements into deterrence for the duration of the peacebuilding process. To keep the peace, the UN needed only to employ a tacit threat of violence, a will to act – a simple response that could have entirely prevented a second world war. Even after the murmurings of Hitler’s imperial ambitions heard in French and English towns had climbed to confident screams of aggression by Germany on her neighbors, the powers that mattered stood idly by, afraid to risk war, continually giving in to each of Hitler’s demands hoping that he could be appeased. But by the time it was too late to do anything, a war had penciled itself in the schedule of unfolding eventualities. “Throughout history,” says Erik Durschmied in his book, Blood of Revolution, “it has been the weakness of those in power, men who failed when the situation called for strong, even brutal measures, that allowed  the barbarous to take charge.”

History is scattered with such tales as weak leadership wreaking disastrous consequences. Before Wudi, the war-making Han Emperor of China, rose to power, other emperors had appeased barbaric straddlers who raided the empire’s borders and the result was always that they continued more aggressively with their raid, but it was only until the coming of Wudi that peace bribes were done away with and an army was fielded to force the barbarian’s retreat away from the borders and into the steppes.

Han Wudi
Han Wudi | Image from Ancient-origins

As we too well know, wars in the past have been fought between countries on the flimsiest of excuses from the prince of a kingdom bedding the queen of another, to unfounded ridiculous ideas like Manifest Destiny. But today we find that the simple threat of a nuclear attack is efficient enough to halt the splurge of spats between countries into a war. Witness this year’s (2020) US-Iraq conflict, and last year’s Indian-Pakistan Kashmir dispute, heated confrontations that eventually fizzled down to an airstrike or two, some fatal gunfights, and copious internet memes.

Although we can trust that sometimes wars, and the threat of them or fear of their consequences at least, are sometimes required to ensure international peace, how about the crises in the Middle East? They are to some countries as remote a problem as the fabled Armageddon, and an investigation into their hybrid nature reveals a complex tangling up of more than three ethnic factions fighting for hegemony, sometimes backed up with proxy agenda. Except to assume that these wars are fought to restore internal peace or to defend external peace by waging a global anti-Jihad crusade against Islamic terrorists, we shall not concern ourselves with these intricacies.

To internal peace. It is the agreed function of government that it should ensure peace whenever there break out sectional differences, terrorist elements, and anything at all within its geography that chooses to threaten the lives of its subjects, those from whose assent it derives its power. But when statistical evidence pronounces that six times more people worldwide were casualties of their own governments than of international wars, we might start to ponder a revisit to the meaning of peace. Do we take for granted that these casualties of government are usurpers of the peace, or do we contend that the government, legally wielding a monopoly to violence, has become a usurper itself, and is thus no longer qualified to offer us a proper definition?

If we are to select the second and more open-ended option, to whom does it fall then to rescue us from this semantic upheaval. The subject, on whose behalf the government exists, and who is better fit to make them more worthwhile assessment on the success of his/her being protected from internal or external threats? It cannot indeed be otherwise. So at any rate we are made to understand that the government itself can at times constitute an internal threat against which the subject should fend itself. And it is only when the glittering opaque dress of the deadening democratic politician in the fullness of time washes away transparent that the subject can discern the truth.

Nigeria is a country happily tolerant of abuse. Its people blunt their will to act when they too readily settle for national crumbs, and not least because they pine for a day when they can be just as moneyed as the corrupt politician of the time (there is a book in the works I have with this concern as its theme) when they can stand tall and influential among their peers.

There is also the material Marxist who, given to sentiments about food, would find it astute to suggest that man must live first by bread, and then faith or whatever keeps a man whole, and, if he were to be deprived of bread, would sooner die. So to empathize with the Marxist, protecting the life of the subject would go so far as including not depriving him/her of food. It becomes the prerogative of the subjects to bring war to such a system that they should think to normalize that kind of injustice. Such is the situation with civil wars, where a minority economically maligned and politically abused, fearing for its life, rebels and tries to secede, only to have war pronounced on it by the national government. Here too, we can hold the motive to be peace, purporting, from now henceforth, that it is the maligned subject or group who can lay claim to a proper definition of peace. There is the other peculiar case where the civil war is not between a maligned group and an oppressive government but among equal ethnicities such as seen in Somalia, or Congo. What then should we call peace here, when all warring ethnicities are just as afraid of the other and are struggling to be in power to protect the lives of its own people? That is of little relevance to us, if we are at once to recall that since all the citizens are “equally maligned” and are looking to change the status quo, then the motive for war here is also peace.

Having gained one more knowledge of this vague concept that is peace, should we not also recast our earlier assessments in a richer light, and so doing expect to make a more enlightened value judgement about peace-driven wars at the end of this noise-making?

Now that the authority of proclaiming the conditions for peace lies with the subjects, the international order would only be thought peaceful when every citizen in every country believes in the justness of the international economic systems of world tarrifs and quotas and political systems that do not provide for any kind of abuse or deprivation of bread. But it is not so. We have only to refer to the US accusations of unfair economic practices towards lesser countries and political manipulations of third-world country leaders that would go to make an american neo-imperial hegemony to see the futility of this resolution. Even religious pollution from western decadence has received its due blame in the reason for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If wars should be fought on these grounds, on the grounds that the war-makers are seeking a peaceful system adjudged from their perception of what is economic and political comfort, we should hope to see, on an international scale, the citizens of third-world countries, apparently deprived by bodies like the WTO, declare war on the profiting countries, we should hope to see Africans holding onto old colonial grudges, “nursing racial grievance like a virtue” as described by Naipaul’s Ralph Singh, at last given a vindictive opening for war, we should also hope to see relatively rich south korean tech moguls, whose 5G technologies unjustly deprived of American markets in a world of gradually liberalizing economies, in league with marginalized poor african peasants suffering from aggressive US agricultural tarrifs.

This last point automatically presents an irritating problem. Just when can you say you have been deprived of bread? The sensitive American, decrying his marginalization on social media by the big one percent of his country, does so from an Apple laptop in an air-conditioned room. How do we know, as finely put by Achebe in a Man of the People that “Nanga has taken more than the owner can ignore,” if he did take at all.

Outrightly disgusting is the reality that peace is, first and foremost, a mundane matter of comparison, an ideal striving for equality, and later a genuine fact of oppression. It might be true that all humans are equal. but it is more so true that, a la George Orwell, “some are more equal than others,” for a time at least. Yes, western abundance was an invariable consequence of precolonial mercantilism, slave trade, and colonialism. But it is easy to forget that the form western exploitation takes today is made possible by the present corrupt third-world leaders when we gloss over our internal realities and focus rather on scaling both African and Western economies, not knowing that industrialization was no more expenditure of mental energies of generations past than it was an investment funded by cheaply acquired African raw materials. When we begin to look to ourselves, first of all, basing our own growth on our own energies, releasing ourselves from the consequences of our local corrupt politicians, when we do this and still sense an unfair economic world order bearing down on our liberation from neo-imperial dependence, then we can resume lamenting the old injustice of the White Man again and thereupon bring war to his doorstep. So too with the sensitive American who, year after year, ungratefully scales up his economic comfort, so that he always manages to be in a position to cry poverty at such time as there should be a war to be made on an economically oppressive government.

 We must not agree with the Marxist, who believes in some clockwork contradiction that timely arrives in the shape of a revolution to drive society to another needed phase of equality and hence prosperity, just epochs shy of that much-awaited moment in the horizon when the worker shall rule for all eternity on the behalf of all his fellow equal comrades. Nor must we agree with the liberal man who, given the optimum opportunity, merely sows the seed of anarchy in a point of man’s history to flower in the annals of posterity.

That leaves us with one basic condition on which to wage war: upon deep dialogue and understanding. It is too often said that if the Treaty of Versailles had been ratified with the weakness of the defeated Germans taken into account, they would not have felt humiliated enough to do over a global war. But it is also my belief that if the German principalities had not been strengthened well beyond their capacity for policing the imperialist tendencies of post-Napoleonic France, they would not have felt any exaggerated national pride and any vainglorious need to militarize and draw the other powers into an imperial world war, only to be defeated and, in a chronic bout of inferiority disorder, to pronounce themselves a superior race worthy of an empire.

When wars are mindlessly fought for the sake of peace, without a deep dialogue to ascertain what this peace is in terms of the strength and weaknesses of both sides, then it is at best a temporary or fragile peace, and at worst an invitation to the repeat of another war. Take the Nigerian civil war for instance. The Northerners were suspicious of Igbo economic dominance, the Igbos of northern political dominance. But what if they had parleyed in brotherhood? What if they had come to the understanding that the leaderless and enterprising Igbo, the least inexperienced in state administration, could for the time relinquish genuine democratic power to the North while piloting the economy for the newly independent people, making the peaceful Yoruba a mediating group to see through this understanding and as well protect its interest and that of the other minorities until some gradual communalism lumps each of these groups into one national whole? Could we have seen the hatching of a roughly democratic nation-state? We may never know. If only because first, inconsolably inflamed sensibilities are a natural given in the haunt of newly familiarizing strangers, and second, the African state was at the time mired in the complex web of neocolonial interests which it had no time to contemplate.

Nigeria Civil War
Ojukwu and the Biafran Soldiers | Picture from Vanguard Nigeria

But we do know that after a civil war and a pronouncement by the Nigerian government that there was “No Victor, no vanquished,” the ethnic tensions between these two groups to this day still run as deep and fresh as sixty years ago.

The difficult question still remains, is the price for peace, war? To this, I offer nothing as nearly absolute as an answer, but only caution: war should be waged, only if deep dialogue and understanding have failed. A dialogue that probes into the capabilities of the subject citizen, to see if his being alive, taking into account the activities and beliefs that keep him so, is hampered by the state, an understanding that his strengths are not exaggerated in his agitation for peace, an understanding that holds governments accountable to their citizens,  an understanding that a genius in a capitalist state who has worked out his wealth from value creation must not prey on the worker’s right to live, renumerating him as handsomely as his skill demands, an understanding that the worker in turn, wholly satisfied with his job and not possessed of the mental equipment to churn out value or wealth but is still able to support a modest fairly-holidaying lifestyle, must not, in comparing himself to the genius, confess to marginalization and start seeking a redress of wealth through orchestrated revolutions. He must view himself as one more unique tool in the service of humanity, and nothing more. It is all too sad that gratitude has lost its virtue.

Lastly, we live in an age where truth has dropped its proud universal airs and come to settle among the dwellings of mortal men, and we see this plurality of truth (that most sophisticated weapon of the liberal man), attempting to unravel some four hundred years of nation-building work. With little foresight one can understand why in these times it is only with patience that we can dialogue and understand the varying opinions of one another. Though the results might be uneasy compromises, skewed in favour of the most dogmatic, patience will always weed out the unfavourable policies, and love . . . love conquers all.

Digital Love

Humans have never been more dependent on the internet than ever before, with virtually everything being “digitized” even our love lives. This is in contrast to a few years back where you had to meet someone physically and asses them through first impressions, gradually knowing them yourself without having to worry about if they lied on their tinder profile or not.

In the modern era where internet dating is rampant, we get first impressions from a person’s profile. While things may seem to have been easier this just ironically complicates things. The consequences are so grave that you might find yourself waking up in the middle of the night and wondering why the person beside you in bed is so different from what you had imagined.

Oh Joe

Read Now: Signs of deep love in a relationship

Difference With Time

Kids these days are in some ways unlucky because they are already so exposed than kids were in the past. They grow up even more insecure and less naive.

Read Now: What is happiness to you?

Most don’t understand the joy of knowing someone intimately not based on first impressions they get off the internet but that sweet sensation you get in putting down your metaphorical shield and allowing someone to love you gradually like the slow process love should be much like evolution, maybe a little faster.

The Problem

People look to social media to understand and learn how to love from celebrities or influencers. Their eyes and brains are filled with happy pictures of people who seem to be or are really in love. This is in contrast to before where you had to figure things out by checking what works for you and your partner.

Break Up

This causes high expectations which in turn leaders to breakups and infidelities. With words like, “side chick”, “side piece” one can easily see how cheating is normalized. Little wonder why the infidelity rate is high, according to Hernom.com about 40% of unmarried relationships and 25% of marriages see at least one incident of infidelity. An issue of Marriage and Divorce journal also stated that 70% engage in some kind of affair sometime during their marital life.

Things may not be so gloomy after all. People have claimed to find the “right one” through the internet and that number seems to be growing continuously. There may still be hope after all as time gets by we can better navigate and develop a sort of “digital seventh sense” which may be able to digitally filter the persons we meet on the internet just from their online bio data. Thanks for reading my Ted talk.

Viewing happiness as a Nigerian

I did some surveys on twitter to understand how most Nigerians view happiness. I came to a few conclusions.

Nigerians mostly view happiness as social status, reaching a certain place in life, having a lot of money if not more, being able to afford anything and the list keeps ongoing.

A few questions people had difficulty or inconclusive answers to were as follows:

Can you be happy all the time?

Let’s say you attain the social status you craved, now what?

Can money buy happiness?

What does happiness mean to you?

Before we go into the details explaining what happiness is, let look at what isn’t happiness for a better understanding.

“Happiness is like butterfly; the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder”

Henry david thoreau

Happy isn’t a state of mind

It’s believed that every individual has a level of happiness. Psychologists refer to it as a set-point theory of happiness. It varies for each individual based on the environment that they grew up and the life experiences they have had so far in life.

Most at times when you receive a salary alert/twitter giveaway alert, news of your loved one putting to bed, gift and so on, you would feel a level of increase in your current state of happiness. After some period of time, it returns back to it’s set point.

Equally the same when you received news of losing a loved one, your level of happiness decreased, creating a sad feeling. After a certain period, it returns back to it’s set point.

Read Now: How to build your self-worth to improve your self-esteem.

Does more money mean happiness?

“Happiness is not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

During my survey on twitter, most Nigerians if not all agreed that money is their source of happiness. A lot of Nigerian live below the poverty line which makes it hard to be happy.

For freelancers and entrepreneurs, the process of earning money gives them happiness rather than the money itself.

According to thriveglobal.com, researchers found that having more money directly increases life satisfaction. Nevertheless, after a certain period of time, the impact it has on happiness diminishes. And those with little money felt happier with increased earning.

Yet, money is needed to maintain the level of happiness(set point theory of happiness) or to keep it afloat.

What does happiness mean to you?

“Happiness is being contented with what you have, living in freedom and liberty, having a good family life, and good friends.”

Divyanka Tripathi

In Nigeria, people live with lots of expectations, either from people or themselves. Life isn’t a destination but rather a day to day journey.

Carrying a lot in the heart weights down your happiness and can disrupt chemical imbalance which could lead to depression.

Happiness is the ability to overcome negative emotions, seeing positive in the worst scenario. The ability to connect and affect others positively. A sense of well-being, joy, or contentment.

Your happiness simply means how contented you are with your life, how you interact with your family and friends. How you allow your day to day affects you.

Understanding “feminism” in Nigeria

Feminism/feminists are two of the most commonly used word in Nigeria’s social media platforms since 2010 according to Google trends. Most people have few to little understanding of what feminism actually means due to how frequently it’s often misused in Nigeria.

Some Nigerians view it as a stand against men due to how often the words are associate with “hate men” analogy. Some Nigerians criticize feminism/ feminist from a religious standpoint. Does beg the question of what is feminism actually?

What does feminism mean to you?

Feminism can be defined in simple terms as the fight for all people equality not just “women”. People should not be excluded based on their sex, race, tribe, religion, social standing, and sexual preference. Feminism is more than just gender equality.

Read Now: Understanding the LGBTQ+ community

That’s is the true meaning of feminism, but often on social media platforms, people use feminism to represent the wrong image which creates a horrible look for what feminism actually stands for.

Misandry is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against or boys in general

Wikipedia

When next you come across people associating themselves with the terms feminist. Yet only talks about their hatred towards men, they don’t represent feminism rather misandry.

Read Now: Speaking Up Against Sexual Harassment

Nudity & Feminism, What’s the connection?

Feminism means equality, not nudity, yet feminism stands with liberation. Over the years women have been subjected to what to wear, how to sit, and how to walk to mention quite a few.

In recent times more women can dress as they see fit without being subjected to the slut slender.

Read Now: Nudism culture: Feminism or Extremism?

Often people argue that male and female nudity isn’t the same. In truth, yes they are not the same, women have been covering their bodies in all religions and traditions over the years.

If women began to cover their eyes, after a long period of time, covering eyes would be the same as covering boobs. Her body, her choice!

The notion of feminism is against tradition/ religion?

Feminism isn’t against tradition nor religion. If the tradition in question is against gender equality then such tradition should be changed or scraped away because the world has moved passed those archaic ways.

Feminism is all about togetherness, peace, and one love. The notion that feminism is against religion is guff.

Read Now: Love in the social media era.

Conclusion

If you believe in one love, togetherness, peace, equality for all then you are already a feminist.

You should speak up because your voice means liberation not just for women but for discriminations based on religion, gender, tribe, social standing, and social orientation.