Dissecting Feminism of Beyonce and Feminism of Adichie: Focus of convergence and strands of divergence

Adichie is a feminist. Beyonce is a feminist. But they are graduates from different schools of feminism.

Beyonce’s standpoint: “What a man can do, women can: We must show men what, we women, are made of: We have strength to occur hurdles they (men) presents; If he causes you pain, make him pay”

Adichie’s view point: “We should not let our emotions revolve around men: We (women) can be majestic on themselves: We can take care of ourselves; men are just partners, not our guardian angels.”

Beyonce is advocating for feminine militancy. Is Adichie calling for truce? Adichie is informed by desire for pragmatism. Is Beyonce’s view an off shot of matrix of dominion? That female gender may be overlapped?

Beyonce, it seems, in face of hurdles at the hands of a man, will be like I-take-no-bullshit-if-you-mess-I-Kick-your-arse reaction. She, unwittingly, concedes, female gender, comes from an inferior pedestal. Adichie, on the other hand, a man is just a friend, just like her girls.

How will Adichie pragmatism reconcile the face of romantic love? Which brings irrationality to people? Romantic love is a societal creation.

If you lived where polyandry has roots, you will not feel queasy with your wife getting a mate. But if you lived in a society where such is abominable, spasms of jealousy will bite if she strays. Romantic Love, is but a societal construct and an arsenal for control and dominance.

It is true female sex has faced more hurdles from dogmas of our patriarchal society which are fueled by Judeo-Abrahamic religions. In our recent history, women have found themselves deprived control of their sexuality, they could not vote, they could not own property, they were assets of men, they faced the horror of genital mutilations, so on.

Then, there came strong women who called for what is fair. But then, there are johnny-came lately activists theorized, falsely, the woes facing the women in the society could be dissipated by taming the run away patriarchy.

Patriarchy a problem? Is it patriarchy which makes our daughters think they can not tender themselves, and in sponsor mentality, hawk themselves to moneyed men?

Is it patriarchy, which makes our daughters, instead of craving to build their own empires, crave to get “wealthy and to do” men to take them as wives for better lives? This is the worst form of mental servitude, ingrained in our daughters, which Adiche and Beyonce must tackle.

Woman from Utopial

A woman visiting from utopia. She is not socially engineered or cocooned into constrictions of ‘place of a woman’. She is in her true element. How would she behave? Most probably, she will be driven by instinct. She will establish her empire. She will look for a male capable of giving her off spring with traits she desires; when she is ready. That how she would be. She will be liberated.

Adichie and Beyonce schools of feminism, both mean well. They teach women, their happiness should not be derivative from men. They teach women, they are not objects to be taken care off.

They teach them to find their value. They teach them to take their mates, mates of their desire, either male or fellow female, as their partners, and in case of male mates, not to be subservient to them.

Adiche and Beyonce have a long way to go. For patriarchy dominates matriarchy, because female-folk, perhaps, and it could be due bad social engineering, accepted to remain in servitude. Female liberation is a good thing. Feminism is not necessarily a good thing. For feminism does not guarantee female liberation.

The Suffocation of the Capital Markets Authority

By Gatuyu T.J

In the Finance Act 2016, we have given the Capital Markets Authority mandate to regulate online Forex traders. The overzealous authority has gone ahead and crafted “penalty laden” proposed regulations to be meted upon online traders in currencies without proper set up.

Poor CMA, how will they get these traders now? They are online. They could be trading from anywhere: From Damascus, amidst the music of exploding bombs.

We have spoken to some of these traders, and some have already broken their ribs in laughter, laughing at the lame attempts.

It is like betting companies. They use online platforms. If we strangle Sport Pesa with taxes, like Midiwo wanted, they will relocate to British Virgin Islands, a tax haven. Yet, people will continue plying their betting craze in their platform.

Policy making in a globalised digital economy is a tricky thing. Key assets entail the intangibles, fluid things to keep taps on.

Upon the physical Forex Bureaus, death is reckoning. Death is also hunting the brick and mortar commercial banks: for how will they survive the onslaught of shadow banking?

We don’t have to use currency. We can Bitcoin. We won’t take loans. We will crowd fund and peer lend.

And why would the CMA be the one to regulate forex traders?

Currency trading is a regime in the Money Markets. The Central Banks are the regulators of money markets. The CMA should only be concerned with long term securities. We of late have been suffocating CMA with more than they can chew.

The Companies Act (Good that Acts of Parliament have not copyrights, we would have been sued for plagiarism) said CMA has to regulate all mergers of public companies. We forgot we have the Competition Authority. And How would handle such a huge mandate? These demons need urgent exorcism.

Is this a vote of no confidence against our central bank?

Maybe yes. As we shall later argue in this series, Central banks are imposters; Irrelevant. The economy can survive without central banks. No central bank has ever prevented a financial crisis. Central banks will not prevent the next crisis, the one to be triggered by shadow banking. The days of central banks are numbered.