By Mohammed Adamu
Aforetime, the modern woman has evoked what chauvinistic, self-centered ‘man’ tags ‘gender protest’, ‘warring sexism’ or indeed such other libertarian hogwash like ‘liberation of the feminine gender’ – ‘Women Lib’, for shot. And ‘male gender domination’ had –or maybe has- always been the culprit.

But, first a confession: being the son of a mother, I hold this to be true –although I can’t say for sure if self evidently- that in spite of all the condemnable corrupt, sit-tight and inept tendencies exhibited by women like Speaker Patricia Etteh (during the Ettehgate saga), it cannot be denied that ‘women’ generally remain intrinsically virtuous and radiate usually ‘un-Patricial’ patience, obedience, forbearance, compassion and such other sublime feminine attributes which man, having neither the courage nor the desire to develop, rather maliciously chooses to debase. End of confession.

Now, maybe pristine women did love each other. But don’t ask me if modern women do. Because I know they don’t! Did you see how they left one of their own, Serah Jibril, stranded on the ballot? O-n-e ballot! -her’s. Nor do the ‘men’ love ‘women’! I thought the rallying call has always been ‘One man, one vote’. If so, isn’t ‘One woman, one vote’ a travesty of ‘Affirmative Action’? –and an abuse of the Electoral Process?

A little digression: you saw how they left Speaker Etteh clinging to the ‘hollow’ –sorry hallowed- chair; surrounded by men.

All chauvinists! Some calling for her ‘head’; others preoccupied with steadying the ‘head gear’ on it. None bother to steady Etteh herself! Women? Where were they? Of course, doing what they do best: standing behind all ‘successful men’! Can’t blame them. “Self love”, which Shakespeare said “is not so vile a sin as self neglecting”, is what the modern woman has remained hard put not to let go.

Now this is not about Serah; it is about all the Serahs. A lot has been said about the ‘woman’ as an enigma of all enigmas; the one creature that gender-bias man laments although he ‘cannot do with’, yet he confesses he ‘cannot do without’! Actor-musician, Will Smith puts it thus: “Can’t do with them, can’t do without them.”

When the men in PDP decided they ‘could do’ with Etteh as Speaker, it was not so that she could be a useful weapon of battle to bring more laurels to ‘womanhood’ in the on-going war of the sexes. No! She was there for the personal aggrandisement of selfish man.

Thus in her political death-bed defiance –or was it etteh-fiance?-, when she sat tightly in defence of her wobbly chair, Etteh only personified the true character of man –grabby and unyielding. And, so being the creation of man, Etteh’s fall was not a metaphor for the condescension of feminine grace. But the problem with Serah’s case was that she didn’t fall. Because she never, ever got off the ground in the first place.

Etteh and Serah apart, man’s delight at using the slightest opportunity to chip away at female virtue has been pristine and primordial. First, he said she made him eat the forbidden fruit; after which experience, he said two crooked ‘balls’ suddenly lodged hideously underneath his ‘under’ -and a third, we know, hangs up his throat as Adam’s Apple.

Women say –and rightly so- that whereas the ‘balls’ are a metaphor for ‘regeneration’, his Adam’s Apple represents man’s ‘long throat’;  -‘greed’.

‘Adam’s Apple’ remains a physiological testimony of the thieving credentials of man during his disgraceful sojourn in the orchard of God. Smartly, the woman who started it all -in the Garden-, has neither ‘balls’ below nor an ‘Eve’s Apple’ up on her glottal to compete with greedy man. She is only guilty by association having, herself, come from the crooked ribs of man.

But Horace Porter said that even the parable of a profoundly sleepy man losing a precious ‘rib’ to the creative genius of God so that a female partner would be created for man, has long been wickedly perverted by evil man himself who gave that as reason that “man’s first sleep (thus) became his last repose.” Meaning that ‘man’ enjoyed peace aforetime, until ‘woe-man’ was created into his world. But some said even God has known no rest since then!

Ask Serah: how come the gender war is all about ‘women’s lib’ when it should be about the lost ‘rib’ of men? In any case, if ‘woman’ was ever a usurper of man’s peace, as Porter contended, it would not be because she was created from a ‘rib’ closest to his heart, -because that should engender love- but because she was created “out of the crookedest part of man” –a bent ‘rib’.

It is thus ironic that whenever she radiates virtue, the ‘woman’ is said to be self-personified, mirroring that which is inherent and intrinsic, but in all her flaws, frailties and foibles, she only personifies ‘man’, -that crooked source from whence she came! Yet, God in His infinite mercy has put ‘ostensible’ love between these two creatures.

Man’s love, especially for the woman knows no bounds. He’ll give her everything, including –remember?- his ‘crooked rib’; but even his ‘rigged vote’, he’ll not!

To be continued.

Subscribe to our youtube channel


Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.