So, it’s not only the sociosexual scholarly hypotheses that train our arguments that men are territorial, looking at nature in its wildest form shows us they actually can be brutally protective.
I know women leave all manner of small clothes and lipsticks behind when they visit but those small markings are not of interest today. In this argument, we are only victims of men. We will be reluctant to admit that women actually enjoy being taken away from the marketplace.
It thrills us to be branded as taken because it hurts our exes and disappoints our jealous friends. It is the reason women will post their bae on their timelines to announce to the world that we are off the shelf. But that isn’t even our area of interest today. Instead, I want us to focus on how the yester man did not train the man of today on why certain perforations were intentionally left in their territorial firewalls. Indeed, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
For example, today’s hullabaloo about miniskirts and revealing dresses should not be anything new because looking back into the seventies, our mothers wore shorter skirts and dresses already. Didn’t they? The much-publicised Ukraine-Russia war is nothing compared to the number of bombs and missiles the US landed on Iraqi soil in George Bush’s tenure as president. It is a vicious cycle that goes round and round.
But I digress again. So, I intend to say that the reason society is fast witnessing growing numbers of single-headed families is that men of our time want to introduce foolproof control measures around sexuality. Let me bring it closer home: generational curses and genetically transmitted conditions have always existed.
Our forefathers knew that if children kept dying in a family, then chances were that there was an incompatibility in that couple that resulted in misfits unable to live long enough. Structures had to be adopted to ensure there was a solution to that dysfunction without causing a complete dissolution of a marriage fabric that was otherwise functional and healthy.
Similarly, if the children of a couple presented with conditions such as trisomy-21 or even turned mad at some point in their growth it was considered a generational curse that needed to be broken to ensure that the marriage begot some healthy children to carry the family name.
Men back then understood that society is not about science - that society is about family, the clan, the community around us, the nation we live in and the world we occupy. New lives have nothing to do with genetic profiling, we just need children who can stay alive, eat, work and carry forward a name.
Our forefathers understood that the core purpose of society was continuity. They recognised with a deep sense of wisdom that your children don’t have to bear your own genes, they must however carry your name to further the family lineage and protect the hard-earned property that has been passed across generations. It is the same concept of wife inheritance.
In most African societies, it was, therefore, a well-orchestrated practice to ensure that there were preventive measures put in place to avert the threat of extinction caused by genetic malfunctions and or generational curses drawn from a failed pairing of a man and woman.
Being the hatcheries, women have always been tasked as executioners and men have always been trained in their role to ignore any evidence of the process or product of outsourcing. My point is that women of today are not trying to be genius, we are only trying to perpetuate a normal trend.
We, certainly draw no direct benefits from the heavy burden of keeping this secret from our husbands and children. It is all a huge price we pay for men’s sake while still honouring our place as the loyal wives that cook and serve food in time and respect our husbands nonetheless.