|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Moon6eam’s article, The Charade We Nigerians Call Love, presents itself as social commentary. It discusses how love is often perceived as transactional in Nigeria, with men leading with their wallets, and women eager to receive money in exchange for a romantic relationship. The basis of the analysis is how Nigerian women often love weddings, which men primarily fund, and how this can eventually cost them their dignity and respect. It also criticises feminists, accusing them of being hypocrites who do not live by their ideology.
Moon6eam’s article tends to provoke social discourse, perhaps reflections, and call everyone out, probably those whose caps fit. Still, it is largely built on assumptions drawn from trending Twitter discourse rather than facts, research, or lived Nigerian realities. The most striking example is her claim that “women dream of big weddings because they are not the ones paying for them.” This statement is not only inaccurate but also intellectually lazy.
If such a claim is to be taken seriously, basic questions must be answered, and important socio-cultural and economic angles must be considered.
Let’s dig in!
The article opens by describing Nigerian romantic relationships as a “performative chaos,” a conclusion seemingly drawn from weddings alone. But how many wedding vendors did the author speak to before arriving at this conclusion? How many grooms did she interview who claimed they alone paid for their weddings? And more importantly, which Nigerian groom—without significant parental support—pays for every aspect of a wedding, including costs traditionally borne by the bride’s family?
The claim assumes that brides and their families simply sit back and wait for the groom to shoulder all wedding expenses. This is not only false, but it also ignores the social and cultural realities of Nigerian weddings. Across the country, wedding costs are typically shared between both families, with parents contributing a significant portion of the funds. There is extensive evidence to support this. For instance, Priscillia Ojo’s wedding was clearly expensive and glamourously celebrated. Her groom, Juma Jux, is quite rich, yet he didn’t pay for all the wedding! Iyabo Ojo revealed that she contributed significantly to the cost of the traditional marriage, but not just her; Chioma Ikokwu, her friend, also paid for the hall.
In fact, Tonto Dikeh once revealed that she paid her own bride price on behalf of Olakunle Churchill, her former husband, while his ex-wife covered her own wedding costs. But then, this is how narratives like Moon6eam’s article serve the patriarchy, with women’s financial contribution constantly erased, and sole financial provision erroneously attributed to men.
Even more troubling is Moon6eam’s failure to account for Nigeria’s ethnic diversity. Wedding practices vary significantly across different tribes, regions, and cultures. In many cases, women contribute directly to their weddings—some even purchasing their own engagement rings or covering items on their bride price lists before handing them to their partners to present to their families. If the author insists on her claim, she owes readers concrete examples of Nigerian women who had “big weddings” without contributing a single kobo.
Beyond the fallacy that men primarily pay for Nigerian weddings, her assertion on why women dream of big weddings must also be questioned. First and foremost, women are not a homogeneous group. Many women dream of grand weddings; however, some women have no such dream. Some women prefer intimate weddings, while others opt for grander celebrations. Even for those who want big weddings, the reasons vary: their mother may want nothing less, their tribe typically celebrates big weddings, that’s their lifestyle, or they want their wedding to mimic that of a celebrity. The reasons vary, they are boundless, but it is rarely because men will pay for it.
The Economic Side Unconsidered
Weddings are expensive, not because women are reckless or entitled, but because Nigeria’s economy is harsh. Prices rise daily, and wedding costs follow suit. To ignore these factors and blame women is a deliberate misreading of reality. If weddings are expensive because women supposedly demand extravagance, where do women who have had modest weddings fit into this narrative? Did their restraint suddenly make weddings affordable in Nigeria? Of course not.
The article also leans heavily into the familiar “I am not like other girls” trope, presented as personal enlightenment. The author claims weddings never appealed to her, positioning herself as an exception among women. Ironically, she also admits that weddings appeal to every woman she knows—except herself. This contradiction is not insight; it is self-mythologising.
Yet, weddings are marketed to women through media, religion, films, and social institutions. That influence is real. But acknowledging social conditioning does not justify turning women into caricatures devoid of reason, agency, or financial sense.
When the author claims women do not care how expensive weddings are as long as they get what they want, one must ask: based on whose stories? Which real-life Nigerian couples support this claim? Outside of romance novels and fictional media, it is rare to find a groom solely funding an entire wedding. Nigerian women live in the same economy as Nigerian men. They understand financial limits.
If a man earning ₦100,000 monthly cannot afford a ₦10 million wedding, the wedding simply will not happen. To suggest otherwise is to portray women as irrational or foolish—an unfair and inaccurate depiction. In reality, many women fund their weddings with their own income and with support from their families. That is the norm, not the exception.
Finally, when men complain about the cost of weddings, the author is quick to blame their partners rather than interrogate broader economic pressures or shared decision-making. Why must women always be the collateral damage in attempts to critique weddings as a social norm?
Criticising weddings is not the problem. The problem is scapegoating women in the process. Nigerian women are not emotionless gold diggers fantasising about extravagance in a collapsing economy. They are active participants, contributors, and decision-makers—fully aware of financial realities.
Any argument that denies this is not social critique; it is fiction dressed up as truth.
Why Women Dream of Marriage: The Cultural Perspective Ignored
But why do women even dream of weddings at all? It is because society has groomed women to do so. For as long as they were girls, books, movies, and cartoons have highlighted women getting married. There are TV shows dedicated to showing wedding parties, selecting a wedding dress, and even a magazine exists for it. There has been a template as old as time for girls: attend school, get married, and care for your husband and children. In fact, education was made selective for girls, with marriage being the most compulsory. Child marriage still exists today. The federal government of some states give orphaned girls off for marriage and foot the wedding bills! Amidst that, women have been groomed to believe that education and career are secondary because their spouse will provide for them, and being a wife is the ultimate.
These are the templates Nigerian men and women still live by to this day. Men provide, while women do the chores. Men not respecting women in marriage is not because women prioritise wealth. It is the transactional culture in which our society operates and in which children are groomed. Articles like Moon6eam that pretend otherwise are part of the problem. It is why society is now filled with women who are “submissive providers.” Women who provide so they won’t be victim-blamed for their husband’s disrespect, only to find their problems compounded. They provide, submit, and still get disrespected in the marriage.
Marriage Has Never Been About Love
The writer describes Nigerian love as a charade, based on weddings and the transactional nature of marriage. On the surface, it appears to be true, but the writer falls into a pitfall of confusing love with marriage.
The narrative of love in relation to marriage through movie portrayals and romance novels. Historically, marriage has never been about love. It’s about transactions. Men owning women through marriage, and women getting access to financial security because women were largely excluded from it, including not owning bank accounts!
Marriage is still not about love. Women are still taught to marry and focus on their children. They are told they would grow to love the man, and rarely do people ask if you have found love; they ask, “When are you getting married?” In fact, men argue the bible orders them to love, while women are ordered to submit. They say women have no business loving them.
Also, you can love someone and simply cohabit with them without marrying them. You can love someone and spend time with them without marrying or living together. Marriage is not a proof of love, nor is it because of love. Marriage itself is simply a transactional business, where women serve their families by taking care of the household, and men provide for them. It exists with or without love.
The Feminist Problem
In the social commentary, like many critiques of the feminist movement, Moon6eam, did not fail to take a jab at feminists. She claimed women (feminists); and really, feminists are just women, in her circle, say they will never pay the rent, even if they out-earn their man.
Let’s assume this is true. There are a lot of reasons feminists say they will not go 50-50 in a marriage. Some argue it is because men don’t give birth, so there can never truly be 50/50. Some say it is because women still do the most childcare. However, there are many women, feminist or not, who pay rent! Also, many men out-earn women, so the “what-aboutism” scenario is pointless.
However, feminists are women in different aspects of their journey. Ideally, all women must be feminist, all women must reject gender roles, and all women must reject the institution and ideology of marriage. It is an institution that is created for women to serve men, with money being the only thing men bring to the table.
If men fail at it, it’s the men’s fault. If they are unhappy with it, they should simply join the feminist movement, while we all dismantle patriarchy together!
Conclusion
While Moon6eam’s article, “The Charade We Nigerians Call Love,” does a great job of highlighting the transactional nature of relationships in the modern world, it fails to take into account the socio-economic and cultural realities that this form of relationship is born out of. It is also heavily written from a male perspective, blaming women for male inadequacy to provide, and a consequential and often false proclamation of not wanting to marry. In reality, men are still the ones who pursue women to be in a relationship with them. As she noted, they are the ones who lead with their wallets, and they are the ones who often go down on one knee to propose marriage.
The article highlights numerous ironies, but overlooks the irony in her own perspective and words. How can money be the only thing men bring to the table, and you still blame women for desiring it? Do you want men to bring nothing to the table at all? If the point of the article is to encourage both men and women to reject gender roles, why does the article then mostly criticise women, harshly so? And why does it victim-blame women for male actions? In the end, Moon6eam’s article becomes a charade of a social commentary.
