Using Men As A Financial Plan Is Justified In A Sexist Society

A picture of rapper M.anifest
A picture of rapper M.anifest / Disclaimer: I am NOT calling Manifest sexist or accusing him of holding these views. Credit: https://instagram.com/p/3Jzx29w3cU/?taken-by=manifestive

The only time that sexist men care about the systematic disenfranchisement of women as a function of gender, is when they are negatively affected. I have to clarify, that while pictured, I am not calling M.anifest sexist. I have to clarify because the fragility of masculinity will have men crying, defending their reputation as “good guys” over addressing the institutionalized political, economic, and social marginalization of women in Ghana. Back to my post: repeatedly, I hear men whine over having to economically provide, without addressing why such gender roles exist: patriarchy. It is the root of a social system that divests in women’s education, denies women equitable access to jobs, and disseminates widespread ideas that indoctrinate woman to believe  that heterosexual marriage will be their greatest achievement. Essentially, in a patriarchal society where women are reduced to men’s domestic helpers, where women are confined to the home and expected to labor in that space, where women’s economic power is continually dismantled with rampant discrimination, using men as financial mobility becomes a learned means of survival. It is patriarchy, that seeks to reinforce a social order where men dominate women by granting men economic power, and leaving women as dependent on men for survival. Thus, men (and all persons) displeased with the normative ideas that require men to care for women financially, should seek to take apart patriarchal economic distribution, or shut the fuck up  rather than resent women and complain. 

A patriarchal society that ensures that men hold power over women weakens women’s earning capacities such that women gain social mobility through men. Either through their fathers or their husbands. Essentially, this post seeks to argue the following two points:

  1. Patriarchy confined women to the domestic sphere, and created the mutually parasitic relationship where women are forced to depend on men for survival.
  2. If we want to break this vicious cycle, we must utilize feminism to address capitalistic exploitation and patriarchy such that heterosexual romantic relationships shift from a desperate grasp at material objects to a free and loving one based on mutual respect.

Patriarchal Social Contract

The complexity of Ghanaian sexism is the complexity of all post-colonial societies: negotiating the infusion of indigenous sexist cultural customs with the imposed imperialistic misogynistic values of the colonizers. To be a Ghanaian woman is to fight indigenous sexism like FGM and witchcraft accusations, while also resisting European gendered division of labor that confined women to domestic spheres and allowed men to amass social, economic, and political power outside the home. It is European patriarchy that divided labor on the basis of gender as economies changed from agrarian to industrial. As poor women continued to be exploited as cheap domestic labor and farmers, middle class women were given a social contract where they would exchange participation in the paid labor force for marriage.

The patriarchal marriage agreement was as follows: men were to maintain legal dominion over women (who occupy subservient status in the home) cleaning, cooking, and raising children, in exchange for only men’s participation in the middle class paid work force. Essentially, it was patriarchy that first created women’s economic dependence on men through romantic courtships and marriage.

The impact of the imposition of Western patriarchal gender roles are evident in Ghanaian economic society today:

But most importantly, where the expectation that women perform domestic labor because they are women, adds an additional layer of responsibility that quenches time and effort so women cannot fully participate in the capitalistic labor force. It is clear, as social institutions continue to be structured such that economic power is concentrated amongst men’s hands, women will result to using men as a means to an end. The end being, survival.

Ghaminism (Ghanaian Feminism) As A Remedy

It is unfortunate that feminism gets a bad rep, when feminists are committed to reducing human suffering by creating equitable social conditions such that all people, despite gender identity, have the opportunity to thrive. Ghaminism seeks to create a society where people are not assigned to predetermined life roles, even before they are born, on the basis of what is between their legs.

The simple fact is that, only ruling class men benefit from this current social arrangement, where men become women’s means of social mobility through romantic relationships. Ruling class (wealthy men) benefit from this arrangement because the existence of plenty resources makes them more desirable partners. Because romantic partnerhips become about resources and not love, wealthy men do not have to compete for the affections of women with poor men. By default, women in a patriarchal society looking to amass resources are more likely to choose wealthy men simply because they are wealthy.

By undermining patriarchal gender roles and gendered division of labor in the capitalistic market, economic resources will be distributed equally despite gender. By undermining the existence of gender dependent roles, no person can ever fix their mouf to tell you that you have a duty because you are a man, woman, androgynous, gender-non-binary etc.

So yes, if you are a man, who is tired of people requiring you to shoulder the burden of economic responsibilities simply because of your gender, commit yourself to Ghaminism.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Using Men As A Financial Plan Is Justified In A Sexist Society

  1. I don’t believe it’s possible to change a corrupt system by adopting the same system.

    it’s like atheists trying to cause the downfall of religion by fashioning themselves as a Religion.

    Smart warfare against the establishment is asymmetrical. Not a frontal attack.

    in this particular case,
    I find it cynical, polarizing ALL men, no matter whether they are allies or sexist by imposing on them Patriarchal roles.

    So how goes the war against the Fatherland, freuline? :3

    Ultimately its like saying,
    ‘Patriarchy is such a dominant evil and needs to be dismantled entirely, *Raised fist* — Oh but until it is, sweetheart, can I still have those privileges this wicked system affords me? Tenkew… Y’know, because Patriarchy is evil and stuff’

    I say, pick a side.
    We are either Feminists and feminists ALL the way (Risk has always been a part of taking down the whole damn system so brace yourselves, ladies. Don’t ask for men to pull out your chair while you do it)

    OR

    we aren’t feminists, and we stop pretending – Cuz this is counterproductive and hurting the efforts of women and men willing to fight the system Fully.

    It is flawed logic, and it reeks of eating our cake and still wanting to have it.

    Like

    1. I have to come to the conclusion that you did not read the text. As the solution advocates for a dismantling of sexism rather than an adoption of captitalistic predatory behavior

      Like

  2. I appreciate the core argument in your post. Yet, my comment was to readers, especially female readers who seem to have come to the conclusion based on the post that in a Patriachal system, the only solution for women to beat their economic inequalities is insist on the privilege they receive such as alimony (In Ghana that’s one-directional) like it were a form of affirmative action.

    I do not disagree with your 2 main arguments. I’m simply concerned how they are interpreted.

    Like

    1. you’re condescending. You think you can advise women on how to deal with OUR oppression? You are the one making assumptions about what the women readers are getting from this. Check your male arrogance

      Like

  3. The irony of you telling me what I think. I actually did speak to several women and fellow feminists about your blog post. They were quite clear on ‘chopping some man’s money’ as payback for the male domination.

    That was their take-away.

    But feel free and bite head off once again. I’m so sorry for being born with a dick.
    I am such a horrible, horrible agent of the system by just that fact.

    Like

      1. Sarcasm?

        Any way, We’ve had our run-ins in the past, ObaaBoni and never once did we see eye to eye no matter what I said. I feel discussions on feminism would be so much more constructive if even the more disagreeable opinions were engaged, rather than shot down on account of the gender of the author; so no side is simply being reinforced with arguments that agree with theirs.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Lmao. I’m amused at all Yaw’s comments.
    Yaw, you sound like you know what women go through more than the women that actually go through them.
    But you know, feel free, do you.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thank you for writing about this vitally important subject. Yaw has (most likely) had more resources devoted to his education and yet it hasn’t been enough. Listen, understand, support. Repeat. Don’t waste our time until you actually have something to contribute that lightens the burden of oppression.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s