As a Ghanaian woman, your every worth was (and in many ways still is) tied to a man. You may be the best most compassionate doctor, the sweetest person person, a wonderful and true friend, but you will be held in less esteem if you aren't married (why else would a legitimate reason for not nominate Alima Mahama as NPP VP candidate be "she's not married; she doesn't have children?) Oh yes - you better produce children after the first year or two of a marriage or else. Even if you and your husband are agreed to wait before kids, society won't let you be - the snarky comments will come your way (and those comments hurt! Sticks and stones will break your bones, hurtful words from your own people will break your spirit). Many women (some that I know, and some I've heard of) would rather be trapped in an unloved, abusive marriage than be divorced or single, because of the stigma. A childless woman is viewed as less of a woman. The book we were reading says that women were allowed to divorce a man if he wasn't givnig them children. Fair enough. But in reality, how many times have you heard of a case such as this? Is it not the men who are always clamoring that their wives are barren (can u imagine how many women had to suffer so much scorn when it was probably their husbands that were infertile?!) The book also says that in matrilineal societies, it was female children who were prized more. Hmm - but I have heard the proverb (supposedly from some matrilineal ethnic group in Ghana: please don't crucify me, I just said I've heard, not that I know for a fact), the proverb which is said at the birth of a child, when asking for it's gender: "Is it a human or a girl?" Doesn't make one feel very precious now, does it?
We vaunt Yaa Asantewaa as a display of female liberation. But according to the books, wasn't the only reason Yaa led the charge that the men were too chicken to do so? Wasn't that why it was so shameful to the men and so brave of her? She led the war because the men were emasculated. So Yaa ascended to the position of power when the MEN who held it had abdicated that power by being too chicken to fight the Brits. Not so liberating a picture now, init? Yes, matrilineal society, queenmothers are important, but in the end, is it not the Asantehene that is the highest authority of the land?
Women are expected to be subordinate to men in every area: work, home...life! You are never a woman by yourself. It is always in relation to your husband or children. It is true enough that many times it is women who identify themselves in relation to other people, but even so, identifying yourself that way should not take away from being a person too. A la Tsitsi Dangarembga, it's no use being taught secrets of sexual pleasure, if I can't marry someone of my own choosing, and even less if I'm married off to a man old enough to be my father. There's even less to be said for the rationale behind the practice of FGM. The treatment of widows....I could go on an on.
I asked the two other Ghanaians in the class with me what they thought of my opinions. After a bit of debate, and disagreements here and there, we came to this consensus: Even then (pre- and peri-colonial days) and now, what Ghanaian women have is CONTROL. We are the backbone of the economy (who's in the markets and running the informal sector: women). We are very outspoken and let our voice be heard. But all of this control doesn't translate into POWER, which is what matters. What is the use of being the backbone of the economy when the spending decisions are taken out of your hands? What is the use of being the backbone of the country if you have no say in running it? What's the use of being very outspoken if your words are given little attention or credence? What is the use of being elevated as a 'mother' in society when it is your husband that determines your reproductive choices? What is the use of being allowed to divorce your man when the society will hound you for it, or if he almost always divorces you first? What is the use of laws that uphold your rights if the in vast majority of cases your rights are not upheld? What is the use of a 'wife' being an important role if you have to live with abuse and no support (because 'that's how men are' or because 'God said so')? And the things I've seen, I've seen from 'Christians' and traditionalists alike.
And oh yes - one or two cases that show 'liberated women' do nothing. I can show one or two cases of anything to support my points. The measure of how liberated women are is in whether the majority of women are liberated. Having 10% of women liberated in the country doesn't mean much if 90% are still repressed - the country is a country of repressed women then. Showing that in 10% of cases the law upholds the rights of women doesn't do much when in 90% of cases, the law (which btw is supposed to uphold our rights 100% of the time) doesn't uphold those rights. Then for all intents and purposes, the law doesn't uphold our rights. If 10% of professors don't demand sex for grades, but 90% do, then the country can be branded as a place where sex for grades rules. Catch the drift?
No society anywhere in the world has fully 'liberated' women. But I do think that the western world has progressed furthest in giving women both control AND power. I do think that a good majority of African women are repressed, repressed by culture, society, religion (although there is a burgeoning set of 'liberated' African women). I do with all my heart believe we are less repressed now than we were back in the days before and during colonialism. No amount of lilterature will convince me different (at least, they have to try way harder than what I've read so far) because my experience bears me out. Mine eyes have seen, truly or falsely, they've seen for themselves.
So..... am I wrong? Am I thinking along the right lines? Or am I the product of a colonized mind?
PS: I found a disclaimer of sorts in the book which states that we should not assume from thepicture they paint that women weren't oppressed in those days. They note that women are also not necessarily more liberated today. It is just the the oppression manifests itself in different ways then and now. So some freedoms we had then, we don't have now, and some we have now we didn't have then.
