NdukuOutLoud

On ‘isms’ And Why One is Never Enough

“Oh, I never took you for a feminist,” says a colleague I’ve barely spoken ten words to all year. That they even have an opinion on what I could or could not be is something only they can explain. And honestly, I’m not even sure I am a feminist-or if the comments I made qualify as “feminist” remarks.

All I said was: “If his wife was also from work, then Peter should have served his own food.” Peter, the IT guy, didn’t eat last night because he wasn’t served dinner, and now everyone’s weighing in. I chipped in too, and suddenly I’ve got a label.

I wonder what she’d think if I added that I also believe it shouldn’t be a daily expectation-or that maybe the wife could consider hot dishes to keep the food warm. But I don’t give it much thought. Because what she did-classifying me-is something that happens everywhere.

There’s a quickness, almost a desire, to slot people into neat “isms.” It makes relating easier. If I know you’re a feminist, a conservative, a minimalist, or whatever, I can decide faster whether I want to deal with you at all. The problem is, human beings are far too complex for neat boxes.

The Myth of Consistency

We hold contradictory beliefs all the time. Life isn’t a monochrome photograph; it’s a messy, high-contrast collage. Sometimes the same scenario, on a different day, will draw an entirely opposite reaction from us.

We see these “glitches in the matrix” everywhere:

• The Domestic Divide: Is it wrong to want equal rights in the boardroom while still expecting a man to carry the heavy boxes or investigate a suspicious noise at 2 AM?
• The Dating Paradox: We champion independence and shared responsibility, yet many still assume the man should pick up the check on a first date.
• The Safety Net: We value our fierce individuality, yet we deeply crave the security and belonging of the pack.

Our Macro Contradictions

These internal tugs-of-war spill into how we run the world. We live in capitalist societies, praising the “hustle” and the freedom to earn. Yet, we simultaneously demand socialist protections: affordable healthcare, pensions, and unemployment benefits. We admire the billionaire’s drive while criticizing the inequality their wealth represents.

Even our politics are at odds with our lifestyles. We wave flags and talk about “protecting our borders,” yet our daily lives are sustained by global trade and international technology. We want to preserve our unique identity while enjoying the fruits of an interconnected world.

Embracing the Messy Middle

Generations and cultures only add more layers to the soup. Older voices may see certain labels as radical, while younger ones see them as common sense. What feels empowering in one culture may look restrictive in another.

We ask for equality in the same breath that we expect someone to “take charge.” We fight for individual rights even when they clash with the welfare of the group.

And that’s okay.

Labels might make it easier to categorize a stranger, but they rob us of the chance to experience a person fully—the known, the unknown, and the messy in-betweens. Contradictions aren’t flaws or hypocrisies; they are the symptoms of being alive.

The real challenge isn’t deciding whether I am a feminist, a capitalist, or a nationalist. The challenge is resisting the urge to reduce one another to a single word, and instead allowing space for the contradictions that make us whole.