A recent debate between a teenage son and daughter in Nigeria sparked over comments attributed to Kannywood actress Nafisa Abdullahi. Abdullahi publicly declared that marriage is optional and that her relationships are her personal business. Many have crowned her as the newest champion of feminism, but this label reflects a misunderstanding of what feminism actually means. Feminism advocates for the political, economic, and social equality of women and men.
The core of feminism 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, as marriage is neither a requirement nor a disqualification. The defining issue is the pursuit of equality, not one's marital status. Abdullahi's viral comments, however, were not about equal pay, access to education, or workplace discrimination, but rather her personal decision regarding marriage and intimate relationships.
An Islamic preacher responded to Abdullahi's comments, citing 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. This response highlights that marriage and achievement are not mutually exclusive. Historical evidence also supports this, with Nana Asma'u, daughter of Shehu Usman an Fodio, becoming a prolific writer, educator, linguist, and reformer while embracing marriage and family life.
Nana Asma'u's legacy was built on knowledge, service, scholarship, and moral leadership, not on declaring independence from the institution of marriage. Her model of empowerment emerged from Islamic scholarship and community development rather than confrontation with family institutions. This is a world apart from today's social media theatrics. If one insists on attaching a psychological label to Abdullahi'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. While it should not be casually diagnosed from a viral video, Abdullahi's 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 statement is a political and social philosophy, while the second is a personal decision. One seeks to transform society, while the other simply expresses individual preference. Unfortunately, social media culture often rewards sensational labels over careful thinking. Every outspoken woman becomes a feminist, every criticism becomes misogyny, and every disagreement becomes oppression. Nuance disappears, while hashtags flourish.
Perhaps we should resist the temptation to force every controversial opinion into fashionable ideological boxes. Abdullahi has every right to make personal choices about her life, and society has every right to debate the implications of those choices. 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.
Key points
- The label of feminism attributed to Nafisa Abdullahi reflects a misunderstanding of the concept of feminism.
- Abdullahi's comments were about her personal decision regarding marriage and intimate relationships, not about equal rights or social equality.
- Gamophobia, or the fear of commitment, may be a more suitable explanation for Abdullahi's public rejection of marriage than feminist philosophy.
