Chimamanda’s We Should All Be Feminists from a Cultural Lens

If you are not living under a rock (unlike me, who just read this book) you may have already read Chimamanda Ngozi’s beautiful essay We Should All Be Feminists.

Not that I did not know about the book, I kept seeing it everywhere, and at the time it really felt like a trend, with the multiple reels and 'bookstagram' recommendations.
Now that I have read it, I can understand the huge number of recommendations it has received.

There is something unsettling about seeing feminism and its meaning misunderstood in similar ways by so many, even as the experiences of discrimination differ widely.
But do we as women understand the essence of feminism as well, or is it another buzzword to get attention or a topic for discussion?

If you Google it, below is the answer:

Feminism is the belief in and advocacy for the full social, economic, and political equality of all people, particularly through efforts to achieve women's rights and interests, challenge gender inequality, and dismantle systems of discrimination based on gender, race, and other intersecting factors. It is a broad set of movements and ideologies that seek to create a society where all genders have equal opportunities, treatment, and respect.

Simply put through my lens: it is my right to be treated as a fellow human without discrimination based on gender.

Most of you who are readers and do not procrastinate just because you think something is a trend have already read this. Done and dusted, taken your lessons, and moved on.
To me, who just gave it a read this afternoon, it seemed so simple yet annoying and grudgingly so, and the essence of it felt distorted. Such a simple task, to respect and value someone based on personality and not gender. And yet such a distant idea, actually not even an idea, to many.

Disclaimer: Spiritual talk ahead. This would be a good time to check out if you are not interested.

---

Spinning the Traditional and Cultural Lens

Since many of you have already read it, there is no need to repeat the same details mentioned in the book.
The main reason for this article is to highlight the different perspectives depending on culture. It is promising to know that the essence and definition of feminism remain mostly the same, and yet a shift in region, situation, and culture can provide so many different perspectives.

As a Hindu, when I read this, I sat for some time with Chimamanda’s idea that gender roles are deeply ingrained in us without our realizing it. We tend to act according to these unconscious learnings because we are not confident in our own value. However, once we recognize our value, that is when the shift truly occurs.

For me, this led me to the thought of Shiv Shakti: the supreme Hindu God and Goddess couple.
Anyone who is aware of the basics of Hinduism has carried them in mind as an ideal couple (literally). Beyond that, there are also philosophical and biological connotations. Shakti is the Kundalini asleep at the base of the spine. As she awakens, she makes her way through the spinal steps, activating each chakra, and finally unites with her Shiv at the topmost chakra.

In everyday life, we consider women to be a mirror image of the Goddess (though consideration does not mean this is applied much in real life, except in some homes), and men as an image of Shiv (again, not necessarily acting like him or learning from his stories).

On my spiritual path, I too have considered myself Shakti (since I am lucky to be born a woman), waiting to unite with her Shiv.
For the first time today, after reading this wonderful essay, it helped me switch my perspective.

What if I am Shiv waiting to unite with his Shakti? In Hindi there is a saying:
शिव है शव बिना शक्ति के — roughly, Shiva is a corpse without Shakti.

Shiv is withdrawn from the world, deep in meditation, unaware of and uncaring about the happenings of the world. When Shakti arrives, she breathes fire into him and brings him into participation with the world, keeping the universe intact and blessing it further.

Is this not a deep-seated gender-specific role that I have been carrying? Just because I am a woman, I think I am Shakti.

I know for some this may be a wasteful conversation, but it matters to me the most.
Did he not burn more than Sati in the fire she gave herself to, for the disrespect caused to her husband and to satisfy the ego of a man (her father)?
Did he not agonize over his beloved’s death and roam the universe as an ascetic burning in her absence?
Did Shiv not patiently wait for Parvati to come along while being in his sadhana?

When we think of this story, we think of Sati’s sacrifice and Parvati’s penance to obtain Shiv as her husband. But seldom do we think of Shiv’s patience, disguised as his inertia and unwillingness to participate in the world without his half.

Spiritually speaking, to consider myself “Shakti” when I may as well be “shav” waiting to become “Shiv” once united is giving into a gender-specific role.
Why is this important? Because a wrong diagnosis can only give incorrect consultation and medication, which can lead to further derailment rather than improvement.

But even to understand this, I must know myself not as a human born in a certain gender, but as a soul given the opportunity of this wonderful life as a human. Maybe then, I can tread my path carefully and reach my Shakti.

A thought to consider: Shiv and Shakti are within me.