Chimamanda will lead women to hell – Nigerian Journalist writes
Nigerian celebrity writer and feminist, Chimamanda Adichie during an interview said she was upset with former FLOTUS and Presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton who attached ‘wife’ to her bio before listing her achievements.
The comment caused reactions from different people.
According to Frederick Nwabufo a Nigerian journalist and media entrepreneur,her comments will most likey lead women to ‘hell’. Nwabufo said Chimamanda Adichie has not only intruded into the personal business of Clinton but also spurned what true femiinism centres on which is choice. He made emphasis that feminism is based on ones choice.
Frederick’s reaction on the interview made him ask many questions including who made Chimanada Adichie the Supremo of feminism.
He added that a woman should be at liberty to be anything she wants to be -doctor, lawyer, housewife or mother.
The woman’s choice should be the principal thought and her choice should be treated with equal acceptance. However, Chimamanda has raised the standard and rules which may lead to a second captivity- by matriarchial she-lords. Her brand of feminism goes to contradict the essence of the movement-equality of gender.How? Chimamanda’s
standard on feminism, by default, teaches all women are not equal.
The principle of feminism should centreof choice. In all, it is still “woke” if a woman chooses “wife” as her title. It is all a matter of choice.
Personally, I believe “father” is an esteemed title. Feminism should be defined by women in different positions, their realities and choices they make. It should not be based on self-installed matriarchal rules.
Read his post below:
Chimamanda will lead women to ‘hell’
Who made Chimamanda Adichie the supremo of feminism? Who made her the feminist papal? How did she become the feminist potentate?
By asking Hillary Clinton, former US presidential candidate, why her Twitter bio starts with “wife’, Chimamanda has not only intruded into the personal business of Clinton, but also scorned a key principle of feminism – “choice”.
Besides other leanings, feminism entails freedom of choice. A woman is at liberty to be anything she wants to be – doctor, lawyer, housewife or mother. The right to choose is principal, and this should not be prejudiced.
Setting straightjacket standards and rules, which Chimamanda’s brand of feminism promotes, will result in a second captivity – by matriarchal she-lords.
Notable feminists of the first and second waves such as Betty Friedan, author of ‘The Feminine Mystique’, emphasised the essence of “choice” in their works; that a woman can be a housewife or a career person if she chooses to. The key word here is “chooses”.
The imposition of personal foibles on the feminist struggle gives it a blemished complexion. The result of this is the ridiculing of women who choose to be mothers or housewives by their so-called “woke” peers.
As a matter of fact, Chimamanda’s brand of feminism makes a caricature of the movement’s goal – equality of gender. How? Chimamanda’s virulent feminism, by default, teaches all women are not equal – the housewife is less of a woman and in shackles, while the stiletto-wearing career woman is the archetypal vanquisher of the demonic patriarchal order.
In all, it is still “woke” if a woman chooses “wife” as her title. It is all a matter of choice. Personally, I believe “father” is an esteemed title. Nursing my six-year-old son from infancy has been the most rewarding duty for me. Yes, I am a father first.
In conclusion, Chimamanda’s feminism is already leading some women to the hell of confusion, bitterness and misandry.
Feminism should be defined by all women in different stations, according to their realities and choice, not by some self-installed matriarchal potentates.
Fredrick is a husband, father, journalist and media entrepreneur