WHY YOU SHOULDN’T MARRY A “FEMINIST”

436

To be clear, this is not a diatribe against feminism and I -in the interest of full disclosure- identify as a feminist. So why if I believe feminism is a great liberator of women (and men) do I believe it would be a bad idea for people -especially those desirous of great success- to marry feminists?

First, some context. The feminist which this piece pictures is a person who is committed to absolute equality in all spheres, public and private and most importantly is against the sacrifice of one’s personal career progression to shoulder responsibilities for the relationship.

So why shouldn’t you marry a feminist? Simple, there is only room for one GREAT dream. Sure, most marriages can survive the pursuit of career, business and other opportunities, but what the vast majority of marriages cannot survive is the existence of more than one truly great dream. For in marriage, there must be sacrifices made and the greater the dream, the heavier the price that must be paid by parties in the interest of the union. A great dream goes beyond the pursuit of jobs and the search for sustenance, it is the desire for example of ultimate political office, literary, artistic or other encomiums, it is groundbreaking activism etc.

Michelle might be smarter than Barack and in 2008 she was earning almost $170,000 more than he was as a Senator of the United States of America, yet she quit her job and hunkered down to make him president. Had she prioritized her career at the time, we would likely not have had an Obama presidency. Would Margaret Roberts the young parliamentary candidate have become the first female Prime Minister of the UK if she hadn’t married Denis Thatcher? I think not. The fact that Denis funded her education as a Barrister and sold his company when they needed financial stability due to her career in politics cannot be underestimated in the emergence of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. In these examples and many others like it, greatness often came because of a unity of vision and selflessness of character, an idea alien to contemporary feminism.

The contemporary feminist ethos derides self-sacrifice for the actualization of a spouses’ dream. It pushes an individualistic creed that sees each person in a marriage as a distinct entity that should be focused on maximizing their own actualization. It engages in a constant and tiring exercise of splitting responsibilities and maintaining an egalitarian balance which is most times unreasonable in the pursuit of success. There can be no splitting of PTA duties with your wife when she is Aung San Suu Kyi, kept under house arrest away from you and your kids for 15 years. You cannot expect your husband to pull his weight around the house if like Ernesto Guevara he is a Marxist Revolutionary and guerilla leader. The price of greatness is very steep and is paid by a great person’s loved ones, that is why few can manage a family and great successes and even fewer still can achieve that with a spouse who possesses the “feminist” mindset.

9 COMMENTS

  1. Maybe this should have been titled “Why you Shouldn’t Marry an Extremist” LOL!
    There are well-informed feminists who don’t have these traits.
    But hey, point taken.

    Guess what! I will marry a feminist. LOL! I think the orientation is what matters. Whether one marries a politician, religious leader, celebrity entertainer, balance and sacrifices are essential in every relationship.

    Thank you for this, David.

    • Thanks for the read Akin. Though the title may seem to unfairly lump all shades of feminists together, I believe that my contextualisation makes it clear what kind of feminist I speak of. Though I believe the unyielding insistence of equal responsibility and derision of sacrifice is sufficiently pervasive amongst feminists to warrant the generalisation, I’ll agree with you that people who think so are extreme. Let’s hope the moderates message better going forward.

  2. My thoughts: I used to think feminism is about choice. Like, in as much as they believe women should be self independent owning careers of their own and all that but they also believe even if they decide to sacrifice their dream for anyone, it shouldn’t be because societies and the structures in place put them to do so, It should be bcos they on their own initiative want that, made the decision and is cool with it.
    If Mrs B is a staunch feminist and after weighing the balances felt it was more beneficial if she made the sacrifice (of maybe her career or something huge), it doesn’t make her less of a feminist, it was her choice. I don’t think feminism is trying to dictate how exactly a woman should live in this contemporary era, I believe it’s just saying “choose with ease how u want to live solely owning responsibilities for ur decision”
    Based on my thoughts (stated above), I still think U can see feminist spouses and can still achieve that huge success abi dream

  3. This statement, “The contemporary feminist ethos derides self-sacrifice for the actualization of a spouses’ dream.” is untrue of feminism.
    The feminist ethos allows for self-sacrifice for the actualization of a spouses’ dream. What feminism is against is the culture that asserts that women should be the ones who make that sacrifice for men.
    And this culture is hinged on the fact that women’s dreams aren’t as worthy as men’s.
    Your examples of Margaret & Dennis and Barack & Michelle, show cases where self-sacrifice is not a gender thing.

    • I suppose I could speak to more reasons why not to marry a feminist from a patriarchal point of view, reasons like the perceived lack of respect of spouses by feminists, persistent one-upsmanship and such, but I’m not a patriarch nor am I interested in speaking for the cult of fragile masculinity. You’re welcome to publish your reasons -should you have any- and I’d love to read them.

  4. I think your contextualisation sufficiently saves you the many sweat-breaking feedbacks were your comments to be read in open-mindedness.

    Hey, I’ve only ‘met’ Ejim once in my life without any interaction whatsoever; only saw him. So, be yet again open-minded as you read this. I’m no “apologist” of his, not a patriach either.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.