Social contracts are contracts that are neither written or verbal, and of which validity is reinforced by custom and practices.
In Nigeria, social contracts exist between the young and the old, the individual and the community, the child and the family, the husband and the wife, and men and women.
These contracts mainly determine what roles and duties are expected of all the parties involved. They are not legally binding since they are neither written or verbal. However, they still manage to be relevant in environments where a sense of community is quite strong.
In Nigeria, social contracts are extremely binding and those who defy them are not well seen by outsiders or members of the same social units.
However, things are changing.
As people become more aware of the unfair burden that society places on its member, especially on those who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy (children and women), social contracts are losing their binding powers little by little.
The change comes especially from women who have started to realise that they have more to lose than to gain from respecting social contracts between men and women and between husband and wife.
In order for these two social contracts to function, women ought to renounce their financial independence, while the men renounce their basic maintenance skills. The relationship that the two contracts dictate is that of co-dependency, in which the woman ends up with shortest stick because she is not the one with the money.
The patriarchal setting does not help either: because while a man is forgiven for breaking a social contract, a woman is severely punished if she fails to respect it. A woman's respect and honour depend on how much she respects these contracts and funny enough, the burden to make sure the man also respects them, is on her too.
Even when the man fails to honour his part, the woman is still not allowed to dishonour hers. Because, while the woman's role is absolute, the man's role is determined by his personal whim. This is how patriarchy shapes social contract between men and women and husband and wife.
Social contracts exist across every society around the world.
In Italy for example, there is social contract among classmates. From primary school to middle high school, if anybody is celebrating his or her birthday, they have to invite their classmates. As the children grow older, this social contract becomes less binding.
A few days ago, I read the post of a lady who claimed that on her first visit to a man she had been seeing for just a few weeks, he requested that she cooked for him and his friends because that is what is expected of a woman. She refused and ended contact with him.
My comment on the post was this question: "During those weeks, did you accept any money from him?"
Some ladies thought that my question was legitimate, while others thought it was irrelevant. The truth is that, since that incident took place in Nigeria, my question was more than valid. The woman's decision to refuse to cook would only gain legitimate support if she never accepted any form of monetary gift from the man.
In Nigeria, if a man offers you money and you accept, you have entered a social contract that demands that you cook, clean and sexually satisfy him.
In Nigeria, if a woman accepts to pay a visit to your house, it is implied that she is going to perform at least one of the three roles a social contract demands of her, so she expects you to pay for her journey to and fro, and also give her money for personal upkeep when she leaves.
What happens when the woman is the one offering the money instead?
If a woman offers a man money and he accepts, his gesture won't birth a social contract because this type of social contract relies on rigid roles to function, the so called gender roles.
Women who act outside their designated gender roles won't find support and sympathy if events turn sour. But men who take on roles that are regarded feminine, will still manage to find support, amidst mockery, thanks to the patriarchal setting in Nigeria.
Patriarchy is what protects men who are involved in social contracts, while it offers absolutely no protection to women. A woman's protection is at the discretion of the man she is attached to, and like we said earlier, it's her duty to make sure the man respects the contract.
I personally do not like social contracts and do not like to involve myself with men or women who partake in social contracts. The relationships that social contracts create are just too rigid, stressful and monotonous.
I have no problem cooking for a man. I do it because I want to but I'd find it offensive if he thought he has to reciprocate by giving me money.
It's even more offensive when a man buys me a present and the next thing, he is demanding that we get sexually involved. I always make sure a man and I are on the same page.
If I cook for you, you can reciprocate by cooking for me.
If you buy me a present, I'll reciprocate by buying you a present.
I understand that there are men and women who want to take advantage of the steady change to eat their cake and have it.
Men want women to partake in financial roles and still enjoy being served food, cleaned after and sexually satisfied whenever they want.
Women too want men who will partake in domestic chores and still carry all the financial burden of the relationship.
It doesn't work like that. You either respect the social contract as it is or you abandon it completely and do what suits the both of you.
It's all about what makes you happy.
If social contracts make you happy, stick with them.
If you think social contracts are crap, scrap them and do you.
In Nigeria, social contracts exist between the young and the old, the individual and the community, the child and the family, the husband and the wife, and men and women.
These contracts mainly determine what roles and duties are expected of all the parties involved. They are not legally binding since they are neither written or verbal. However, they still manage to be relevant in environments where a sense of community is quite strong.
In Nigeria, social contracts are extremely binding and those who defy them are not well seen by outsiders or members of the same social units.
However, things are changing.
As people become more aware of the unfair burden that society places on its member, especially on those who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy (children and women), social contracts are losing their binding powers little by little.
The change comes especially from women who have started to realise that they have more to lose than to gain from respecting social contracts between men and women and between husband and wife.
In order for these two social contracts to function, women ought to renounce their financial independence, while the men renounce their basic maintenance skills. The relationship that the two contracts dictate is that of co-dependency, in which the woman ends up with shortest stick because she is not the one with the money.
The patriarchal setting does not help either: because while a man is forgiven for breaking a social contract, a woman is severely punished if she fails to respect it. A woman's respect and honour depend on how much she respects these contracts and funny enough, the burden to make sure the man also respects them, is on her too.
Even when the man fails to honour his part, the woman is still not allowed to dishonour hers. Because, while the woman's role is absolute, the man's role is determined by his personal whim. This is how patriarchy shapes social contract between men and women and husband and wife.
Social contracts exist across every society around the world.
In Italy for example, there is social contract among classmates. From primary school to middle high school, if anybody is celebrating his or her birthday, they have to invite their classmates. As the children grow older, this social contract becomes less binding.
A few days ago, I read the post of a lady who claimed that on her first visit to a man she had been seeing for just a few weeks, he requested that she cooked for him and his friends because that is what is expected of a woman. She refused and ended contact with him.
My comment on the post was this question: "During those weeks, did you accept any money from him?"
Some ladies thought that my question was legitimate, while others thought it was irrelevant. The truth is that, since that incident took place in Nigeria, my question was more than valid. The woman's decision to refuse to cook would only gain legitimate support if she never accepted any form of monetary gift from the man.
In Nigeria, if a man offers you money and you accept, you have entered a social contract that demands that you cook, clean and sexually satisfy him.
In Nigeria, if a woman accepts to pay a visit to your house, it is implied that she is going to perform at least one of the three roles a social contract demands of her, so she expects you to pay for her journey to and fro, and also give her money for personal upkeep when she leaves.
What happens when the woman is the one offering the money instead?
If a woman offers a man money and he accepts, his gesture won't birth a social contract because this type of social contract relies on rigid roles to function, the so called gender roles.
Women who act outside their designated gender roles won't find support and sympathy if events turn sour. But men who take on roles that are regarded feminine, will still manage to find support, amidst mockery, thanks to the patriarchal setting in Nigeria.
Patriarchy is what protects men who are involved in social contracts, while it offers absolutely no protection to women. A woman's protection is at the discretion of the man she is attached to, and like we said earlier, it's her duty to make sure the man respects the contract.
I personally do not like social contracts and do not like to involve myself with men or women who partake in social contracts. The relationships that social contracts create are just too rigid, stressful and monotonous.
I have no problem cooking for a man. I do it because I want to but I'd find it offensive if he thought he has to reciprocate by giving me money.
It's even more offensive when a man buys me a present and the next thing, he is demanding that we get sexually involved. I always make sure a man and I are on the same page.
If I cook for you, you can reciprocate by cooking for me.
If you buy me a present, I'll reciprocate by buying you a present.
I understand that there are men and women who want to take advantage of the steady change to eat their cake and have it.
Men want women to partake in financial roles and still enjoy being served food, cleaned after and sexually satisfied whenever they want.
Women too want men who will partake in domestic chores and still carry all the financial burden of the relationship.
It doesn't work like that. You either respect the social contract as it is or you abandon it completely and do what suits the both of you.
It's all about what makes you happy.
If social contracts make you happy, stick with them.
If you think social contracts are crap, scrap them and do you.
No comments:
Post a Comment