There is something deeply paradoxical about the way some of us talk about women’s freedom Choose a career, and you are empowered. Choose motherhood, and someone may wonder whether you have sacrificed your ambition. Choose independence, and you are celebrated. Choose to build your life around a marriage you value, and suddenly your freedom becomes a matter for debate. Reject traditional expectations, and you are liberated; embrace some of them by choice, and you may be told that you have not evolved enough.
I should probably make something clear before I go any further I am definitely not a feminist, but that does not mean I dismiss feminism. I recognise the enormous contribution feminist movements have made to conversations about women’s rights. What I question is the idea that, in order to support women, I must
Perhaps that is also why I have always been uncomfortable with labels Labels can provide identity and community, but they can also create expectations about what one must believe, support or reject. I would rather retain the freedom to think, question, agree, disagree and define my own worldview without having to fit neatly into an ideological box. A woman should be able to support gender equality and equity without adopting every position associated with feminism, just as she should be able to challenge certain feminist ideas without being accused of being against women.
I have often wondered whether we have reduced feminism to a universal template for womanhood, when the very principle feminists claim to be defending is the freedom of women to define their own lives What does freedom mean to one woman? It may not mean the same thing it means to another. A Northern Nigerian woman may have a very different understanding of a fulfilling life from a woman in Sweden, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or the United States.
That does not mean women’s rights should be relative The right to dignity, safety, education, opportunity and freedom from violence should never depend on geography. But what a woman chooses to do with that freedom can be deeply personal, and that distinction matters.
Women are often judged for making choices that do not fit another woman’s definition of liberation If she wants to be a full-time housewife, people ask what happened to her ambitions. If she wants to be a career woman, people ask who will raise her children. If she wants no child, people question her womanhood. If she wants six children, people assume she has sacrificed her identity. If she wants marriage, she is sometimes portrayed as dependent. If she does not want marriage, she is sometimes portrayed as selfish. When did feminism become another set of rules about what a woman must want?
I believe feminism, at its most fundamental level, should expand a woman’s choices, not replace one prescribed life with another If a woman chooses to build a career, support her. If she chooses to dedicate herself to her home and children, support her. If she wants both, support her. If she wants motherhood, support her. If she does not, respect her. The point is not that we must agree with every woman’s choices. The point is that we should defend her right to define what a meaningful life looks like for her.
Something else that concerns me is the emergence of another kind of standard: the idea that there is one recognisable image of the empowered woman She is expected to be fiercely independent, career-driven and unwilling to defer to anyone, while women who value more traditional forms of femininity can sometimes be treated as though they have settled for less. But why should empowerment have one appearance? Why should a woman in the boardroom be considered more liberated than a woman raising children?
A woman should not have to choose between motherhood and intellectual fulfilment She should not have to prove her strength by becoming hardened or reject her femininity to be taken seriously. Equally, no woman should be told that because she enjoys being a wife and mother, her ambitions are somehow inferior.
Personally, I want children I want a family, a home and a career, and I do not see those aspirations as competing identities. I also have absolutely no problem submitting to my husband if he treats me well, respects me, values my opinions, supports my ambitions and gives me the freedom and encouragement to pursue my dreams. In a healthy marriage, I do not see willing submission as humiliation. I see it as part of the relationship I have chosen to build, rooted in trust and mutual respect. That is fundamentally different from submission imposed through fear, violence or the denial of basic rights.
A woman does not need to dominate or disrespect a man to prove that she is strong She does not need to compete with her husband for supremacy in the home to prove that she is ambitious. She does not need to reject traditional expressions of womanhood to prove that she is liberated. She can be ambitious and still want a home. Educated and still respect her husband. She can have a career and still want to raise her children. She can be independent and still choose interdependence. She can have a voice and still choose, in some circumstances, to defer to the man she has voluntarily chosen as her partner. There is nothing inherently contradictory about these things.
This is where I struggle with some contemporary conversations about female empowerment Why should a man be a woman’s yardstick for anything? Why should she measure her success by whether she does what a man does or earns what a man earns? Her ambition is not validated because she can outperform a man, just as her femininity is not diminished because she does not want to imitate one. A woman does not need to become the best version of herself relative to a man. She should simply be free to become the best version of herself, full stop.
A woman’s accomplishments do not need feminism to prove that they are accomplishments Her education, career and ambitions are meaningful because of the work she has put into them. They do not become more valuable because they can be presented as evidence that she has escaped traditional womanhood. A woman can be proud of what she has achieved while still embracing the parts of womanhood that bring her unrivalled joy.
At the same time, we should not romanticise circumstances in which women have no real alternatives A woman who is denied education, prevented from earning a living, trapped in an abusive relationship or threatened with violence cannot simply be told that her situation represents freedom. But that principle should not lead us to assume that every woman who chooses a traditional path is incapable of independent thought. A woman can understand the alternatives available to her and still sincerely prefer marriage, motherhood, homemaking or a combination of these.
If you genuinely believe in women’s freedom, you should be willing to defend a woman’s choice even when you would never make that choice yourself Support the woman whose idea of fulfilment looks nothing like yours. Because if your feminism only supports women when they make choices you approve of, then perhaps it is not really about freedom. It is about conformity to a different set of rules.
I say this as a woman, and perhaps more importantly, I say this as a Northern Nigerian Muslim woman I do not need to borrow someone else’s definition of liberation to know that I deserve dignity, opportunity and respect. My faith, culture and personal aspirations shape how I understand a fulfilling life, just as other women’s experiences shape theirs. I should not have to abandon those parts of myself to prove that I am progressive, intelligent or empowered.
And I do not need feminism to tell me that submitting to a good man makes me less of a woman I am not diminished by the choices I make willingly. I am empowered by having the freedom to make them.