The other day, I listened to an animated debate between my teenage son and daughter about recent comments attributed to Kannywood actress Nafisa Abdullahi The comments have been posted and re-posted on social media. She has suddenly been crowned by many as the newest champion of feminism simply because she publicly declared that marriage is optional and that her relationships are her personal business. My son argued that she has the right to choose and if she decides to be a feminist, that is her fundamental right. My daughter countered that feminism is western concept and bringing it to our local setting is both abhorrent and unacceptable. Condoning such behavior may eventually corrupt our society. As usual, they wanted me to weigh in.
One may agree or disagree with Nafisa’s views, but describing her as a feminist reflects a misunderstanding of what feminism actually means Rejecting marriage does not automatically qualify someone as a feminist, just as owning a stethoscope does not make one a surgeon. Feminism, at its core, advocates the political, economic and social equality of women and men. It seeks equal opportunities, equal rights, freedom from discrimination, and the dismantling of unjust barriers that prevent women from realising their potential. A feminist may choose to marry or remain single. Marriage is neither a requirement nor a disqualification. The defining issue is the pursuit of equality, not one’s marital status.
Nafisa’s viral comments, however, were not about equal pay, access to education, political participation, workplace discrimination, or legal rights They revolved almost entirely around her personal decision regarding marriage and intimate relationships. That is not feminism. It is a personal lifestyle preference. The distinction is important because confusing individual choices with social movements diminishes both.
When I checked the controversy on the social media, I found that, ironically, one of the strongest responses came from an Islamic preacher who cited accomplished married women as evidence that marriage does not prevent female success He mentioned former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Nigeria’s Amina J. Mohammed of the United Nations, and Kannywood actress Rahama Sadau. Then, with characteristic Northern Nigerian humour, he added that Rahama is even more beautiful than Nafisa. Whether beauty should enter the debate is another matter entirely. Beauty contests are hardly reliable measures of intellectual arguments. Nevertheless, his broader point remains valid: marriage and achievement are not mutually exclusive.
As a student of History, I cannot help bringing stronger evidence from our recent past Consider Nana Asma’u, daughter of Shehu Usman an Fodio and one of Africa’s greatest scholars. Living between 1793 and 1864, she became a prolific writer, educator, linguist and reformer. Through the Yan Taru network, she organised women into learning circles, expanded female literacy, and promoted religious education throughout the Sokoto Caliphate.
Remarkably, Nana Asma’u accomplished all these while embracing marriage and family life She demonstrated that empowering women does not require rejecting marriage. Her legacy was built on knowledge, service, scholarship and moral leadership—not on declaring independence from the institution of marriage. For this reason, many historians describe her as an icon of women’s empowerment, though not a feminist in the modern Western ideological sense. Her model of empowerment emerged from Islamic scholarship and community development rather than confrontation with family institutions. That is a world apart from today’s social media theatrics.
If one insists on attaching a psychological label to Nafisa’s comments, a more appropriate candidate might be gamophobia—the persistent fear or anxiety about commitment or marriage Gamophobia is recognised as a psychological condition in which individuals experience significant distress at the prospect of marriage or long-term commitment. It should not be casually diagnosed from a viral video, nor can anyone responsibly conclude that Nafisa has it without professional evaluation. However, her public rejection of marriage invites questions about whether fear of commitment, rather than feminist philosophy, better explains her position.
There is an important difference between saying, “Women deserve equal rights,” and saying, “I do not want to get married” The first is a political and social philosophy. The second is a personal decision. One seeks to transform society. The other simply expresses individual preference.
Unfortunately, our social media culture often rewards sensational labels over careful thinking Every outspoken woman becomes a feminist. Every criticism becomes misogyny. Every disagreement becomes oppression. Nuance disappears, while hashtags flourish.
Perhaps we should resist the temptation to force every controversial opinion into fashionable ideological boxes My son seems to have taken a simplistic view on feminism without pondering on the implications. My daughter rejected what he considered feminism without critical analysis of the meaning of the ideology.
Nafisa Abdullahi has every right to make personal choices about her life Equally, my son, my daughter and indeed the society has every right to debate the implications of those choices. But intellectual honesty demands that we use the correct terminology. Not every unmarried woman is a feminist. Not every feminist rejects marriage. And not everyone who loudly dismisses marriage is advancing the cause of women’s equality. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, as Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, famously said.
And sometimes, what is presented as revolutionary philosophy is simply a deeply personal outlook One that may have far more to do with attitudes toward commitment than with feminism. Nana Asma’u changed history by educating generations of women. Nafisa Abdullahi merely changed the subject of the last few weeks’ social media argument. My son and daughter ended the debate without apparent winner. But now they appreciate the meanings and implications of the two words – feminism and gamophobic. They don’t seem to worry about the social media controversy regarding Nafisa’s personal choices.