In 1930s Nigeria there were, shall we say, strong opinions about the status and role of women in society. In any case, the 1922 Constitution named after Sir Hugh Clifford, who was governor-general from 1919 to 1925, had seen to it that women had no voice. The Constitution allowed electoral rights for adult males who must be at least 21 years-old; were propertied and natives of the protectorate; with a gross income of not less than £100 per annum. Nominations for male candidates were made by a minimum of three registered male voters who must also meet the above criteria. Each nominee must deposit a sum of £10 for eligibility as a candidate. Evidently, this laid the seed for a male-dominated electoral and political system that has seized hold of Nigeria till this day.
During the 30s, it was not unusual for letters and articles from members of the public, with views on women’s lives, to be published in the newspapers. Frequently-mentioned topics included education, marriage and place in society, etc.
The newspapers were in on this too. For instance in February 1938, a West African Pilot editorial stated that: “Our womenfolk should re-trace their ideas to the good old days when women were industrious, free, respected and worthy, if not, let them stop talking about emancipation and what not. Let them be content with the Kitchen.” Women’s behaviour at social gatherings also attracted commentary, such as the one back in December 1937, when another editorial titled “Womenfolk” declared, in part: “When at dances and other social functions, we see our women taking strong drinks and mixtures of strong drinks with relish and gusto.” Presumably, this was a note of caution to women in light of the on-going festive season.
A few years later, the newspaper advocated for what it called a “Matrimonial College” for women, in order to “appreciate the responsibility of matrimonial life.”
Anyway, in September 1930, a debate between two men – B. Kassim and Humanist – was published in the Nigerian Daily Times. It was sparked off by Kassim’s stance on marriage during a lecture he gave at the Progress Club in Lagos.
In laying the background to the ‘duel’ between the two of them and to further defend his position, Kassim wrote an article under the headline “Kassim versus Humanist”, which the Times deemed worthy to be published on its front page:
“I made bold to advise my co-religionists to adopt monogamy. I did so fully conscious of the controversial nature of the subject; and as I was well aware of the specious arguments with which the advocates of poligamy (sic) always bolstered up that institution, I was not afraid of raising the hornet’s nest about my ears. A humanist has now led the way and it is not improbable others of his way of thinking will follow.”
Unfortunately, not everyone agreed with Kassim and an individual who identified only as “Humanist” sent in a robust response:
“If there is a shortage of women in the world, I can understand the necessity for advocating a rigorous adherence to the monogamic system of marriage, but in the view of the alarming figures seven women to one man disclosed by the 1921 Census, the Missionary Christian insistence whom our friend Mr B. Kassim is no doubt trying to imitate, seems unintelligible. What is going to happen to the surplus women? Or does an All-Wise providence create them for waste? Certainly not! There is a purpose to all in all His doings and to me the Central Purpose in Life is procreation. … The highest calling for women is marriage. Women are born to love and to be loved, to marry and beget children and at this critical moment of male stringency only polygamy, guarded polygamy, can in my opinion, save the situation. Or how else is (sic) the male shortage going to be met and the surplus women, married.”
For good measure the individual added:
“It is heart-rending to see so many women wandering aimlessly without home and husbands. To refuse these surplus women their natural and legitimate craving is a social disservice; and the man who though can afford to marry and shelter more than one woman, yet refuses to do so is a socially unserviceable individual!”
In his closing statement, Humanist said: “Women are sweet beautiful things and need to be protected and well-tended and not to fade or run wild.”
But Kassim had a reply to Humanist’s points:
“‘Humanist’ has discharged one of the most powerful bullets of his camp – the argument of surplus women. I daresay a little mathematical calculations by ‘Humanist’ would have opened his eyes to see that poligamy (sic) rather than being a solution of the problem of surplus women would tend to make the situation worse. Fortunately ‘Humanist’ has supplied the figures to which to base such calculation. We have it on the authority of ‘Humanist’ that according to the 1921 Census, the preponderance of women over men is in the ratio of seven to one. ‘Humanist’ has omitted to tell us which system of marriage prevails in the country the census was taken and in fairness to his case, I assume it is monogamy. Proceeding on that assumption it becomes obvious that since one man marrying one woman produces a surplus of seven, women therefore it follows that according to the remedy suggested by ‘Humanist,’ poligamy (sic), if introduced, so each man becomes the husband of seven wives, (it must be borne in mind according to ‘Humanist’ each surplus woman must be married) the resultant ratio would be 49 women to one man and so on until the appalling situation is created when each man must have not a hundred wives like the patriarchs of old, but thousands of consorts!”
Having done the arithmetic of the matter and projected the outcome, Kassim added:
“‘Humanist’ again speaks of ‘guarded poligamy’ (sic) which according to him means: if a man can only keep and maintain two women comfortably, he should marry two, no more no less, in order to fulfil his plans in social system of things. Developing this argument a little further ‘Humanist’ would say ‘if a man can keep and maintain 10 women or 100 women he should marry no more, no less.’ Oh! ‘Humanist’ can’t you see now the ridiculousness of the doctrine you proposed? The sweeping statement of ‘Humanist’ to the effect, there is no one (African) monogamist in Lagos is as audacious as it is fallacious…”
This argument was between the two and there is no further evidence of other interventions on this particular matter. But there were other views published in the newspaper. In December, another article was published in the Nigerian Daily Times by someone who identified as “Kiyesara” in a letter titled “The true place of women.” A few interesting views from 1930s Nigeria!
Credit: Tayo Agunbiade