Date: 14th April, 2026. Author: Iddrisu.
COULD SOCIAL MEDIA BE RIGHT? SOME FEMINISTS ARE BITTER WOMEN.
An embattled friend of mine openly confided in me about how he has had to struggle with depression lately and jokingly, he added that Twitter has been richly supportive in satisfying his longing for fun and laughter from time to time. If my recollection serves me right, I had bonded in these conversations and we usually laughed in unison over some of the jokes he skillfully reproduced, so skillfully as though Twitter gave him a fleeting moment of triumph over his depression. It amuses me.
Part of why I had bonded in these conversations, was that I, too, have lately found Twitter as an invention for great fun. But, unlike my embattled friend who seems to only find jokes on Twitter, I have been mildly irritated by a number of posts on the media most disturbing of which are on feminism.
I have had to ask myself, how it is that posts about feminism could trouble you so much? But, my realisation leads me to conclude that I am not troubled by my own choosing; these posts are hardly capable of classification, you see: some posts draw us towards the possibility of totally eliminating gender bias and mainstreaming; others, are traditional and only concerned with the struggle for equal treatment of sexes, a few others are alarmingly radical – espousing a theory of women who, perhaps irritated by the world’s predominant inattentiveness to feminist clamour, have decided to interpret the perceived muteness of the entire male gender (which is an erroneous premise) in this whole agitation as devious, conspiratorial silence. The result is that these ones consider men to be hate-worthy even though, for most of them, tweeting is just for pastime – a fleeting moment of tongues in cheek.
Feminism is easily an uncomfortable discussion to have. Or maybe it is comfortable but not easy; well, something along these lines. To talk about feminism is to assume a mouthful. It is to attempt to emphasize an idea that usually encounters an almost immediate resistance.
Interestingly as I have observed, the result of this constant resistance is the introduction of several extensive interpretations to the term feminism so that it has now gravitated towards weightless intellectual debates. For instance, there’s now such an unfashionable styling known as “MENinists”, “Twitter feminists” “Men are scum gang” and such others. Indeed, knowing how problematic it is to talk about feminism has not been particularly helpful for me.
Different versions of its essence as well as the odds that stifle its red-carpet treatment have been spoken of but what about the side of the story, we always prefer to ignore? I took a stroll with a friend at the Law School in one of those evenings where the weather was quite audacious. The sun imposed itself into the evening so that even a friendly stroll had to be hurried. It was 5:30PM or so, but its impact could still turn our greyest selves into colourful props. We were discussing the legal profession and for good reasons, I was minded to ask her if she would love to be a Supreme Court Judge. Though she seemed to lighten up at the idea, her demeanour firmly suggested an otherwise arrangement. Later, she mentioned that she was better off in the corporate world.
Out of curiosity, I had asked, “If your husband were the CEO of a company, and was as rich as Dangote, perhaps uninterested in seeing you work, would you rather you stayed at home?” She turned to me with a look that tended to stultify. She was alarmed by my question and, in what she bodily described as a question that should have gone without saying, she shrugged. “Of course I’ll stay at home. Is he not the man? What will I need to work for? I’m not a feminist, and so I am chilled.” She responded.
Seeing as I was not now particularly interested in saying anything in response, she had asked if I were a feminist in a way that suggested she would be both surprised and uncomfortable about her answers if I said I am a feminist. I brushed it off with a laughter. That too, suggested that there was nothing wrong in her choice.
You would have to forgive me for an account of my stories from time to time. I have been more identified as a story teller than an actual writer and it probably accounts for how easily I had forgotten to add to my earlier classification of feminists above, a fourth class of persons you would have also encountered by now; the class of women who neither over-stretch feminism nor support the traditional idea but flatly deny being associated with anything that has to do with feminism.
Let me first say that indeed, I have seen women who support feminism with what seems either as caution or doubt, in a way as not to stir up the resentment of non-feminists. I have seen others who aggressively support the idea and sometimes, perhaps due to human imperfection of wit, tend to mismatch its essence with other unsupportable ideologies.
I have also had the pleasure of listening to a few others who try to steer a middle course – these ones treat feminism with the resentment you will find in an adult who dislike the popular band of friends in the class but still wants to be their friend. But in my experience, I can assure you that none of these three sets of persons do more damage.
The fourth class, a version of the feminism story we prefer to ignore, is the story sold by a class of women who declare that they are not feminists, that they have no association with the term often in a way that is attempted to be seen as justified by how troublesome the idea has become. These ones deliberately scorn the subject most times in an arrangement of selfish populism. They try to suggest that women who are feminists are elaborately unsatisfied with the whims of life or, more deliberately, with the benefits of womanhood and feminine sexuality.
This class of women create a stereotype for feminists that tend to establish that feminism in its entirety is misguided, misplaced and unnecessary. They refuse to believe the possibility of being wrong in their perceptions, rather, they suggest that their populist display of submissiveness emphasizes acceptance of their womanhood. Conversely, they argue, that feminist agitation is a subtle way to display dissatisfaction and insecurity that is pervasive in women. Or, maybe even more than that.
These ones sometimes suggest that the opposite of feminism is not inequity; in a sort of patronizing well-meaning pity, they justify their disinterest in the feminist clamour by what they would describe as the inevitability of patriarchy in the socio-cultural structure. It amuses as much as it interests me but I’m often frightened by these stereotypes because, like all stereotypes, the problem is not that they are entirely untrue, the problem is that they are often incomplete.
The important remainder is often the story we prefer to ignore. And what do you say about my friend cited above who rejects being a feminist? I have given her response good thought and I’ve had to consider the question: Is it wrong to not be a feminist? But it was not the fact that she proclaimed to be non-feminist that unsettled me; it is the fact that she considered feminism to be opposed to a marital arrangement where a woman could chose to not do any job she isn’t comfortable doing; it is the fact that she saw feminism as an ideology that would encourage an attack on a husband’s suggestion saying his wife should quit her job; it’s the fact that she did not expect me (at least from her demeanour) to be a feminist; it is the fact that before she could answer the question, she had to look at me assumptively as though I should know that a lady whose husband were that rich could not possibly oppose his opinions on the financial economies of his family and that she would have to be a feminist to launch such an “opposition.”
What if my dear friend was wrong? What if feminism has nothing to do with any of these assumptions? What if feminism were just as easy? It is pretty much shameful having to prove that you’re feminist or even having to verbally affirm it. For instance, there are a lot of women who are loving and affectionate by lifestyle and they do not court you into believing this. They are just…doting. Many of them do not, in a lifetime, realise there is such a word as “doting” which describes the character of being affectionate.
Perhaps, people should be feminists before they realise there is such a word qualifying them. This is where the problem lies; the weight of gender expectations prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing all that we are. What if feminism was simply just freedom of choices, equality of options/opportunities and humaneness of endeavor? Feminism simply says that my friend could confidently tell her husband she wants to keep working if she desires and her gender would not matter in the scheme of considerations. Feminism requires that the “Dangote husband” would appreciate her opinions, if necessary, find a common ground without a fit of irritation only because she is a woman. But, I’m not keen on blaming my dear friend.
Feminism today suffers a major problem – the counterproductive manner in which many women propagate its ideals. For instance, when you find a lady who says she is feminist, it is often that she equates it with ambition and a longing to acquire what a male counterpart could as well acquire. She forgets that feminism only says men and woman should have equal chances, and it is not true that feminism is incomplete until a practical, physical equilibrium is maintained nor does it create an atmosphere of unhealthy class struggle. Feminism may be connected to these but they are not synonymous.
The presence of a dispassionate provision of equal respect, treatment and opportunities is the allure of feminism. Feminism does not say that men can be condemned for false rape accusations while the accusers are warped in the excuse of feminine weakness. Feminism is not a stamp of hatefulness in women nor does its sheer presence justify men’s prejudice against women who support it. Since, feminism preaches fairness, I have always been prepared to believe that feminists, should in fact be loving people who are considerate of other’s opinions, choices and circumstances, the gender notwithstanding.
Indeed, you would find women who think lowly of other women who, to them, have low ambition. They dismiss other women who do not aspire to “greatness” in their own definition and shunned as only ultimately fitting to be house wives. You would find women who make other women feel uncomfortable with the simplicity of their desires as though feminism means that all women must aspire to top lofty positions.
Indeed, the consequence is that many women live the ambitions of other women because they feel inadequate living theirs; often because they know theirs would be undermined or perhaps even condemned as enforcing patriarchy. These ones too forget that because feminism is based on free choices, a woman can choose to be a house wife, or a corporate tycoon. Yet, to be ordinarily respected, a woman or a man does not have to do anything.
It is therefore highly counterproductive that many women clamour for equal opportunities and treatment for both genders yet they stifle the choices that many of them have freely made by showing extreme disgust for such choices. That all feminists would support the same views of social engineering, is not true and that is why true feminism protects women and men alike whether complacent or ambitious. Feminism has not endorsed that the bitterness of women support it should be unjustifiably equated with spousal dissatisfaction or related ordeals when bitterness in man is not so construed.
Feminism despises misandry as it does, entitlements only on grounds of masculinity. The message is simple. Social media may be right after all; some feminist women are bitter women those who have forgotten the essence and now support their clamour with bitter acclaims. But one cannot blame the media for preferring to popularize this stereotype because the negatives are attractive like moth to flames.
What the media may not popularize are the massive efforts of those constantly shrinking in their own weight as they clamour just for equality of treatment for the genders, the ones that have not asked for a biological equilibrium of the sexes. Indeed, these ones have a right to be bitter and the media fails us every time when it chooses to forget that men who have relentlessly clamored for the same, are just as bitter; we all should.
I believe we should all be feminist, both men and women.
FEMINISIM, MASCULINITY, PATRIARCHY, MEDIA.
My name is Iddrisu Seidu. I am a lawyer and, at heart, a despairing optimist. I am drawn to reading, art, music, and writing—disciplines through which I make sense of the world and my place within it. I believe writing, in particular, is both my craft and my calling; it is the means by which I hope to reach, engage, and inspire others.
I believe deeply in the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. I believe that true love exists, that words possess immense power, and that human beings are far greater than they are often made out to be. Above all, I hold that people deserve to be enlightened—that through thought, expression, and understanding, we can become better versions of ourselves and of the world we inhabit.
