ROSALIND HOBBS

Rosalind Hobbs

The University of Tulsa

Women and Gender Studies

September 18th, 2020

 

Textual Analysis of We Should All Be Feminists:

Redefining the Antagonist of Gender Inequality

 

              Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s essay and speech, We Should All Be Feminists, is a modern and rational introduction into what feminism really is, and is not, as well as its role in the world’s flawed society that normalizes gender inequality. As feminism has evolved, like many movements, the meaning behind the ideology has strayed far from its foundation. Adichie lights the way back home with welcoming arms as she untangles the truth behind the relationship between women and men. We Should All Be Feminists offers a compelling representation of the relationship between women and men as well as a plan of action to encourage civility and equality. The text There is No Hierarchy of Oppression by Audre Lorde aids in defining this relationship. women and men are undeniably different, but they are hardly on opposite sides of the playing field and both girls and boys must be raised deliberately to find a societal harmony amongst gender differences.

 

              Adichie begins her essay by identifying the nature of women as being a dependent element of the man. Through personal anecdotes, she successfully emphasizes the ever-present social norm that men are superior, and women are objects to be possessed by men. As she, almost humorously, journeys through both her experiences and those of other women it is apparent that, in society, a man is an independent element welcome to bask in all of life’s opportunities whereas a woman must be at the side of a man to gain even a semblance of respect. Women are failures if they are not married, but men, in the same position, are lucky bachelors that haven’t been “tied down” yet (Adichie 30). These anecdotes are vital to Adichie’s argument because they not only specify the instances where these gender inequalities occur, but they also bring attention to these experiences for the many individuals, especially men, who might not have previously known experiences such as these still occur and are still a problem. As Adichie puts it, it is a mistake to think that “something that is obvious [to oneself] is just as obvious to everyone else” (14). Her anecdotes create a foundation of understanding so that she can proceed in her exploration of this relationship of genders.

 

              Compromise is a pillar of any relationship, but Adichie argues that, between women and men, women tend to do great more compromising than men. Society teaches girls that they are the ones that must do the most compromising. Men might give up trivial things such as going to night clubs but women, however, will compromise their careers, dreams, and goals in a relationship, as they are expected to (Adichie 31). The woman adapts to the man, not the other way around.

This relationship can be likened to that of the domestication of a wild animal. A man brings home a wild dog, has instituted possession over it, the man does not begin to behave like the dog, for the dog must behave in accordance to the man. This ignites questions about the plausibility of genuine co-inhabitance. Can two beasts genuinely live in harmony? Or will one always have to compromise and adapt more than the other?

 

              Although Adichie illustrates this highly unbalanced nature of the relationship between women and men, she also discovers another face of her argument that reveals the relationship to be much more mutually interdependent. Both girls and boys are raised to feed into each other’s problematic social norms. Society “stifles the humanity of boys” offering a very limited definition of what is acceptable masculinity (Adichie 26). These expectations are internalized and affect men inwardly as well as outwardly. Adichie describes a sort of “endless cycle” where boys are raised to have very fragile egos by enforcing the compression of traits that are associated with femininity and girls are raised to cater to these fragile egos (27). In turn, boys become men that are dependent on the nurture of a woman to cope with their socially damaged egos.

 

              While it is easier said than done, if society could reconstruct what it is to be a man, gender expectations of women would adapt as well, creating a healthier relationship of the two genders. In the current state, men must be “hard,” and women must “shrink themselves” to fulfill their gender expectations (Adichie 27). Thus, it can be concluded that both women and men are simultaneously victims of gender.

 

              While many perspectives on gender inequality pit women and men against each other, it is quite the opposite. Men are not the antagonists of gender inequality for they too are negatively affected by gender expectations. This is not to say that women don’t “have it worst,” but that both genders are oppressed and as the title of Audre Lorde’s article puts it, “there is no hierarchy of oppression.” Comparing and measuring inequality is a distraction from the problem at hand and creates a hostile environment with minimal mobility.

 

              The antagonist, then, is society, culture, and the expectations they breed. However, as Adichie states it, “culture doesn’t make people, people make culture” (46). Thus, women and men are their very own antagonists, and change can only come about once they overcome their hostility and decide they are ready to create said change.

 

              Deliberate effort put into making culture can yield much more satisfactory results. To allow culture to make people is to accept an automatic thought process and neglect the potential to enforce change. Adichie, near the end of her essay, redefines feminism as “a man or woman who says ‘yes, there’s a problem with gender as it is today and we must fix it, we must do better’” (48). Acknowledgment and the willingness to change the system that’s currently in place is creating the reality feminists need.

 

              Adichie’s suggested method of enforcing change is to raise girls differently, but also raise boys differently. If society were to welcome a more diverse expression of characteristics in men and less care-taker expectations in women, a future of equality is much more plausible. The external issues between women and men cannot be resolved without first amending the internalized damage gender expectations have done to everyone involved. If both genders are welcomed to be their truest selves, they can begin their journey to successfully co-inhabiting without projecting and battling with their internalizations of toxic gender expectations.

 

              Adichie impressively tackles the nature of the relationship between women and men by identifying it as having multiple faces and being anything but a two-dimensional concept. Women are treated as possessions and dependents of men. This is a result of the inherit societal nature to stifle any semblance of weakness in men and training women to nurture those compressed emotions. This practice results in an extremely interdependent relationship that has an unsecure foundation. However, to fight this and reconstruct the nature of this relationship, it is necessary that both women and men recognize the problem and do what they can to change it by raising future generations differently. Rebuilding and instituting the foundation of what it means to be a woman, or a man, can aid in constructing a new definition of this relationship of genders.

 

Works Cited

Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. We Should All Be Feminists. Anchor Books, 2015.

Lorde, Audre. There is No Hierarchy of Oppression. Gendered Voices, Feminist Visions. Oxford University Press, 1983.