A press and electronic media insults-trading pantomime has been the main element arising from the 30-year female night lady or not jibe as provoked. The said tangible reason for the uproar is that the text and tone of the original DS complaint letter to the President was the provocation. That is regrettable because it totals two wrongs being forced to count as one and invariably right.
I am not going to rake muck. My discourse is from a cultural prism about a wrong logic which appears to make the fact that a spinster who is thirty [30 years] and trekking beyond is necessarily on rough sleep.
The initial presumption is that at 30 a woman is a goner without alternative except … Then what of if she is single mother?
Is the same accolade attached?.
The culture of the marriage of the under 20 is alien. Indeed, a man would be compelled to marry that girl once he had owned up the pregnancy.
The reason is it covers up what is considered as” fall” of that girl and raises honor for her and the family — micro and macro.
This is the traditional compulsion-edict’s goal. It had been the norm until the onset of the recent show off weddings-competition led by the church today. It is another form of corruption because it more than seriously undermines our values.
I notice the new Methodist Prelate Awotwe Pratt’s saying the church must lead the attack on corruption. It is because it started there in the ready special blessings for the hugest donation into the collection bowl.
The worry immediately heard after the applause is none would have advised him to make that public statement because it is said he would either be cut down or be sabotaged in too many subtle ways based in church politics — more horrific than in real politik. The deduction is no one needs a pair of binoculars for any scanning of that stuff at all.
I would not concur absolutely. There is a slight but fundamental difference between that shilly-shally and my dubiety with reference to the female marriage age argument.
Let me develop it to trigger a debate. The elders held the view that the better appropriate time a woman shall marry and switch on the birth machine is from 23 up to 27/8.
You constantly heard the old Mammies asking the poor recently- married woman when to expect “our grand-child…before we die”? That initial teaser-query runs into a crescendo of anxiety when the age creeps closer to the 30. Gynaecology’s cross-35 barrier adds to the concerns to raise it into alarm.
This is the compelling factor in the armoury of those who defend early marriage turned into a fashion for under-20s today. The two situations cannot be merged or taken as real alternatives because they contradict themselves and each of the other.
But they are the accepted culture. That makes it possible for anyone to question no-kid age 30 and above. Mind you the women worry in silent agony. It is a most relevant factor to tamper the old query “when…”.
In other words it is a matter whose handling requires great circumspection. The amour propre [self-esteem or public standing] of the woman at that point is supremely primal in all circumstances and times.
Tradition does not leave that caution for bargaining either. Put together there is a double face somewhere in the culture. What is on board arising out of the DS Letter to the President by the actress is the contradictions in our native system pertaining to the family life societal regard and the inalienable privacy of a woman — may be not necessarily unique to Ghanaian [African] culture. The pot pourri messes up the life of a woman. Une femme pauvre!
That leaves to lead the issue of whether marriage and child bearing are compulsory and have a bearing on the human mind into behavior apart from the depression and suicides some may be driven into.
I shall not attempt to be a scientist let alone medical to pretend an answer on that latter part of this grave matter; but I can raise the compulsion bit to reply a bold NO because it belongs to the individual and their choice [an exemplary exercise of human right].
To sum up the native attitude in the case leaves every female vulnerable and caught up in a mind game. The hurt in side bar of the reactions to the DS critique has been damage-repaired in the retraction and apologia.
On the contrary to the furore, the repugnant verbal incendiaries — some obnoxious and others squeamish have wakened the national conscience or for those who care the problem vis a vis our cultural norms to address, if we may bearing in mind (a) women outnumber men in the population and the average ratio cross-country of four girls to one boy births per daily deliveries is not going to change.
I am not playing possum or indeed God but that is the situation; and (b) after all the growth of every country dwells in women numbers. It does not mean making them incubators because that production line is not able to sustain a mass that could delinquent, destitute willy-nilly by broken home and or single parenting. There is a growing army of that category.
It is an important national socio-econo-cultural problem to contend. For the moment these are the good and the bad dividends from the “DS Letter”. By the way “DS” means DUMSO.