oh, Stephen! I think I just fell in love with you after reading this piece. So intelligent!! I however do not believe that most Nigerians are ready for women in top-tier levels of power. The misogyny eats deep into the very fabrics of our society and this includes both genders. I really do want to see how the country will fare under the leadership of intelligent, capable women. (Maybe, I might contest one day. lol.) However, as you have rightly said, I or any woman who is fortunate enough to lead this great country will however have to develop a very very thick skin and work 3 times harder than any president before her because we have a lot to prove to ourselves and have to debunk decades if not centuries of misogyny.
Thank you very much Miriam for your compliments and your insights. While I agree that there's a lot of misogyny around and a 'thick skin' is needed, I don't know if you need worry about 'proving anything to anyone'. The way I see it, no matter what you do some people will still think of women as not fit for leadership. So it is a waste of time in my opinion, expending energy in debunking their incorrigible stance. Energy will be expended yes, but let it be towards more rewarding efforts like enlightening women and getting more of them interested in vying for political positions. And of course if that is you, you have my support!
Fantastic one Stephen. I for one don't believe in gender equality seeing how tilted the scale is that it doesn't favour the female gender. Rather I preach gender equity and that will cover up for the disadvantage society and religion has created for the female gender.
This is a very good and educative write up. Well-done.
Thanks Stephen. This should be consistently echoed by the male gender. We are guilty as charged. Or better still, I AM guilty as charged. Even the blind can see how tilted the scale has been in favor of men for centuries. There is hope though. Some societies are already setting examples. Iceland and Rwanda are testaments that prove that the possession of testosterone should not be the license to earn a driver's seat while there are other qualified candidates in the vehicle. As you can imagine, this was not birthed by our gender's inclusion of our 'counterpart' out of volition. Essentially, it took a painful eventuality like the genocide in Rwanda that drastically reduced the male population, to pave the opportunity for women to fill the vacuum our entitled gender secured for centuries. At the risk of oversimplifying, a Rwandan girl can dream to be ANYTHING she wants to be, considering there are relatively limited gender affiliated limitations to limit her dream.
My appreciation of your submission stems from a 'common sensical' point of view that we do not have to wait for more genocides to create voids for women to fill. Women should not be 'scavengers' of leadership positions. They deserve more. We must create seats of them at every table of decision making, not as a privilege, but as a right if they merit it. And this makes me question your conclusion - by default whoever the person is has Stephen's vote. Wouldn't that be a 'delta variant' of the extant 'virus'? Isn't that the 'default setting' conditioning we are trying to uproot/reset? Many people irrespective of the gender contesting will by default vote for a man. Hence, my advocacy would be premised on equity and merit. While i have preference for more women to be in leadership positions, i do not have a 'default setting' that predetermines me favoring my vote for one gender over the other. Let the best man win. In a more inclusive manner, let the best PERSON win.
Thank you very much for your brilliant submission. Very detailed. Society is better off with more women in charge. I dare say that more women means less wars too!
Your submission on Rwanda provides a context I never thought of before! Gender inclusion borne out of necessity. Hopefully like you mention, it never gets that bad before we set things right.
The part on my bias for supporting women by default, let's just say it's my own way of affirming positive discrimination. Yes everyone deserves equal opportunities regardless of gender. But certain fields of endeavour where women historically find it difficult or near impossible to break glass ceilings mean that over time an exclusive 'boys club' has been engendered that naturally confers advantage for men over women. In such cases I advocate concessions for women. An example that comes to mind is Reuters' Alessandra Galloni who in April became the organisation's first female editor-in-chief after 170 years! No way am I buying the argument that there were no suitable female editors available to take up that position all that while. More often than not is the unspoken rule that excludes women from such positions. So forgive my default setting brother, I say we give more deserving women a shot. I mean, do you imagine Nigeria can get any worse than it currently is with a woman in power?
oh, Stephen! I think I just fell in love with you after reading this piece. So intelligent!! I however do not believe that most Nigerians are ready for women in top-tier levels of power. The misogyny eats deep into the very fabrics of our society and this includes both genders. I really do want to see how the country will fare under the leadership of intelligent, capable women. (Maybe, I might contest one day. lol.) However, as you have rightly said, I or any woman who is fortunate enough to lead this great country will however have to develop a very very thick skin and work 3 times harder than any president before her because we have a lot to prove to ourselves and have to debunk decades if not centuries of misogyny.
Thank you very much Miriam for your compliments and your insights. While I agree that there's a lot of misogyny around and a 'thick skin' is needed, I don't know if you need worry about 'proving anything to anyone'. The way I see it, no matter what you do some people will still think of women as not fit for leadership. So it is a waste of time in my opinion, expending energy in debunking their incorrigible stance. Energy will be expended yes, but let it be towards more rewarding efforts like enlightening women and getting more of them interested in vying for political positions. And of course if that is you, you have my support!
very well said Stephen. I totally agree.
Fantastic one Stephen. I for one don't believe in gender equality seeing how tilted the scale is that it doesn't favour the female gender. Rather I preach gender equity and that will cover up for the disadvantage society and religion has created for the female gender.
This is a very good and educative write up. Well-done.
Thank you Raphael. Hopefully we get a more equitable society going forward.
Thanks Stephen. This should be consistently echoed by the male gender. We are guilty as charged. Or better still, I AM guilty as charged. Even the blind can see how tilted the scale has been in favor of men for centuries. There is hope though. Some societies are already setting examples. Iceland and Rwanda are testaments that prove that the possession of testosterone should not be the license to earn a driver's seat while there are other qualified candidates in the vehicle. As you can imagine, this was not birthed by our gender's inclusion of our 'counterpart' out of volition. Essentially, it took a painful eventuality like the genocide in Rwanda that drastically reduced the male population, to pave the opportunity for women to fill the vacuum our entitled gender secured for centuries. At the risk of oversimplifying, a Rwandan girl can dream to be ANYTHING she wants to be, considering there are relatively limited gender affiliated limitations to limit her dream.
My appreciation of your submission stems from a 'common sensical' point of view that we do not have to wait for more genocides to create voids for women to fill. Women should not be 'scavengers' of leadership positions. They deserve more. We must create seats of them at every table of decision making, not as a privilege, but as a right if they merit it. And this makes me question your conclusion - by default whoever the person is has Stephen's vote. Wouldn't that be a 'delta variant' of the extant 'virus'? Isn't that the 'default setting' conditioning we are trying to uproot/reset? Many people irrespective of the gender contesting will by default vote for a man. Hence, my advocacy would be premised on equity and merit. While i have preference for more women to be in leadership positions, i do not have a 'default setting' that predetermines me favoring my vote for one gender over the other. Let the best man win. In a more inclusive manner, let the best PERSON win.
Thank you very much for your brilliant submission. Very detailed. Society is better off with more women in charge. I dare say that more women means less wars too!
Your submission on Rwanda provides a context I never thought of before! Gender inclusion borne out of necessity. Hopefully like you mention, it never gets that bad before we set things right.
The part on my bias for supporting women by default, let's just say it's my own way of affirming positive discrimination. Yes everyone deserves equal opportunities regardless of gender. But certain fields of endeavour where women historically find it difficult or near impossible to break glass ceilings mean that over time an exclusive 'boys club' has been engendered that naturally confers advantage for men over women. In such cases I advocate concessions for women. An example that comes to mind is Reuters' Alessandra Galloni who in April became the organisation's first female editor-in-chief after 170 years! No way am I buying the argument that there were no suitable female editors available to take up that position all that while. More often than not is the unspoken rule that excludes women from such positions. So forgive my default setting brother, I say we give more deserving women a shot. I mean, do you imagine Nigeria can get any worse than it currently is with a woman in power?