What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity with money? What if the attitude was not “the boy has to pay” but rather “whoever has more should pay”? Now of course because of that historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today, but if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure of having to prove this masculinity.
But by far the worst thing we do to males, by making them feel that they have to be hard, is that we leave them with very fragile egos. The more “hard-man” the man feels compelled to be, the weaker his ego is.
And then we do a much greater disservice to girls because we raise them to cater to the fragile egos of men. We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller, we say to girls, “You can have ambition, but not too much.” “You should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you would threaten the man.” If you are the breadwinner in your relationship with a man, you have to pretend that you’re not, especially in public, otherwise you will emasculate him.
But what if we question the premise itself, why should a woman’s success be a threat to a man? What if we decide to simply dispose of that word, and I don’t think there’s an English word I dislike more than “emasculation.” A Nigerian acquaintance once asked me if I was worried that men would be intimidated by me. I was not worried at all. In fact it had not occurred to me to be worried because a man who would be intimidated by me is exactly the kind of man I would have no interest in. But still I was really struck by this. Because I’m female, I’m expected to aspire to marriage; I’m expected to make my life choices always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important.
A marriage can be a good thing; it can be a source of joy and love and mutual support. But why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage and we don’t teach boys the same? I know a woman who decided to sell her house because she didn’t want to intimidate a man who might marry her. I know an unmarried woman in Nigeria who, when she goes to conferences, wears a wedding ring because according to her, she wants the other participants in the conference to “give her respect.”
I know young women who are under so much pressure from family, from friends, even from work to get married and they’re pushed to make terrible choices. A woman at a certain age who is unmarried, our society teaches her to see it as a deep, personal failure. And a man at a certain age who is unmarried we just think he hasn’t come around to making his pick. It’s easy for us to say, “Oh but women can just say no to all of this”. But the reality is more difficult and more complex. We’re all social beings. We internalize ideas from our socialization. Even the language we use in talking about marriage and relationships illustrates this. The language of marriage is often the language of ownership rather than the language of partnership.
We use the word “respect” to mean something that a woman shows a man but often not something a man shows a woman. Both men and women in Nigeria will say – and this is an expression I’m very amused by — “I did it for peace in my marriage.” Now when men say it, it is usually about something that they should not be doing anyway. Sometimes they say it to their friends, it’s something to say to their friends in a kind of fondly exasperated way, you know, something that ultimately proves how masculine they are, how needed, how loved — “Oh my wife said I can’t go to club every night, so for peace in my marriage, I do it only on weekends.”
Now when a woman says, “I did it for peace in my marriage,” she’s usually talking about having giving up a job, a dream, a career. We teach females that in relationships, compromise is what women do. We raise girls to see each other as competitors not for job or for accomplishments, which I think could be a good thing, but for attention of men. We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are. If we have sons, we don’t mind knowing about our sons’ girlfriends. But our daughters’ boyfriends? God forbid.
But of course when the time is right, we expect those girls to bring back the perfect man to be their husbands. We police girls, we praise girls for virginity, but we don’t praise boys for virginity, and it’s always made me wonder how exactly this is supposed to work out because…I mean, the loss of virginity is usually a process that involves…
Recently a young woman was gang raped in a University in Nigeria, I think some of us know about that. And the response of many young Nigerians, both male and female, was something along the lines of this: “Yes, rape is wrong. But what is a girl doing in a room with four boys?”
Now if we can forget the horrible inhumanity of that response, these Nigerians have been raised to think of women as inherently guilty, and have been raised to expect so little of men that the idea of men as savage beings without any control is somehow acceptable. We teach girls shame. “Close your legs”, “Cover yourself”. We make them feel as though by being born female they’re already guilty of something. And so, girls grow up to be women who cannot see they have desire. They grow up to be women who silence themselves. They grow up to be women who cannot see what they truly think, and they grow up — and this is the worst thing we did to girls — they grow up to be women who have turned pretense into an art form.