The Gender Equality Bill: A failure that shouldn’t have been

By B. B. Zakari

The rejection of the gender equality bill by the Nigerian 8th senate has rightly and understandably attracted a lot of attention. This, however, is the second time as Senator Chris Anyanwu from Imo State, had presented a similar bill at the 7th senate and it was equally rejected.

It can be agreed that a good number of people, especially in a country like ours, have some reservations about ‘gender equality’ generally, because is not yet well understood. According to The Gender Equality Movement, ‘gender equality’ is not just one thing; rather, it is a vast series of many different things.  Thus defining it may seem simple and straight forward, but the specifics of it will often look very different from one individual to another.

Historically, the concept started as a struggle against the subordinate position of women, which is very obvious throughout the history of human kind, because, ‘there has never been a time or a place or a society where men and women were equal, or where the men were subordinated to the women,” noted Prof Robert Max Jackson of New York University.

The struggle for gender equality or feminism, started as demands for intellectual, political, social and economic changes in the relationship between men and women. Around the 1850s, women were not allowed to vote; to attend the same school as men; and to own or inherit properties. So the ‘first-wave feminism’, started with a fight for these rights. Its success climaxed with the women’s right to vote, granted in New Zealand in 1898; in the US in 1919; and the UK in 1928.  The second-wave feminism (1960s to 1980s), fought for and achieved the establishment of Equal Pay Act, 1963; and Women’s Educational Equity Act, 1975.  Then came the ‘third wave’ (late 1980s to early 1990s), with the new generation of feminist, who criticises the second wave (generally confined to industrialized nations) as having shifted from struggling for women’s right, to a sort of war between the two sexes, all in the name of gender equality.  The third-wave takes a more global perspective, encouraging women to actualize the change they need, to gain power and equality, within their own cultures with their own voices. In a way, the start of third wave feminism sets the landmark for the  separation of ‘gender equality’ from feminism, thus making gender equality  more generalised addressing both women’s rights issues and those not only pertaining to women.

Based on this premise, it is easy to see why those prone to chauvinism, in a patriarchal society like ours, can easily dismiss ‘gender equality’ as being a fad for western women, without looking beyond the title.

Ye,t the main issues outlined in the proposed bill are about prohibition of violence against women and maltreatment of widows; married women’s right to acquisition and ownership of properties; discrimination against women in education and employment; rights and protection of the welfare of children after their father’s death; etc. These are clearly issues that should have been addressed a very time ago.

However, some of the issues presented – like discrimination against women in education – were not properly captured, making it easily dismissible by claiming ‘our constitution has taken care of it’. This is because the challenges faced by girls/women in education is more of a socio-cultural problem, than a policy issue. For example girls are more likely to miss school due to domestic or related responsibilities. So, a policy can be suggested in recognition of that societal problem, like making provision for girls/women who dropped out of school to complete their education when possible. A similar one can also be proposed to require institutions of higher learning and employers to make provisions for accommodating the challenges of studies/career with marital responsibilities.

With all due respect to Senator Biodun Olujimi (pictured) for proposing the bill, the presentation of the bill made it all too easy for those against it. In addition to issues above, since the bill is about the rights of women, why not go for that directly? Those key issues, the exact problems that no one can deny are violations of women’s right should have been the catch phrase of the bill.

It is not very surprising that the bill was rejected on the basis of cultural norms and religion. For the Muslims, Islam has made provisions for women, addressing the rights fought and achieved by the feminist/gender equality movements, almost 1300 years prior to the rise of feminism. For example, Islam has stated the exact percentage of a deceased properties that MUST be given to a woman – as a daughter, a wife, a mother, a sister, etc. A woman, in whatever capacity has the right to own whatever she is capable of owning in terms of properties. In terms of education, she does not only have a right, but it is MANDATORY for her to be educated – by her parents or guardian as a child, or by her husband when she gets married. In marriage, it is MANDATORY for her to give her consent; and she has the right to demand for a divorce, and for her wish to be respected without any stigma attached.  In the event of her husband’s death (or divorce) she is only required to wait for a specified period of time to ensure that she is not carrying the deceased (or previous husband’s) child.  Thereafter, she can remarry when and to whoever she wishes.

But in reality, how many of those provisions made by Islam are the Nigerian Muslim women enjoying today? Wouldn’t it be a sheer self-deceit for any senator to claim that the women he is supposed to be representing are being provided as Islam mandated?

Besides, it is known that in some areas of the country, no similar provisions are made either by the cultures or the religions of the communities. In some areas, widows are inherited alongside the properties of the deceased; women have no right to inherit their father’s properties (in some case even when the father has no male child); are not allowed to opt out of a failed marriage; and cannot remarry after the death of their husbands. In such areas, when women are treated otherwise, it is simply out of the good will of their family members not an institutional provisions made for the benefit of all women.

Obviously, the senators did not reject the bill because it wasn’t needed or irrelevant. They either supported the rejection to score cheap political points, feed their ego, serve their personal vendetta, or were just too cowardly to risk being seen not to follow the bandwagon.

If the senators truly wanted to serve their people, and care about the interest of women, they should have requested for its amendment, rather than total rejection. Those hiding under the umbrella of Islam should have asked ‘do we have a constitutional law compelling people to give Muslim women all their rights as per Islamic provisions? If yes, how accessible are those laws to the women concerned? And how many and to what extent are they enforceable?

Has any of the senators contacted the women he is presumably representing before deciding that they don’t need that bill? Try calling women for a town hall meeting and learn about the heart breaking cases of how the women are struggling for their survival and that of their children.

Our senators need to always remember that they’re not being paid those outrageous allowances just so they can decide the fate of people, based on their whims. Their decisions are supposed to be based on facts, credible information, extensive knowledge of the issue at stake, and MUST reflect the realities of the situation among their people.

[email protected]