Olivia: Alright Jackson, I have a challenge for you. You have to review today’s book in exactly five words. Go. Jackson: Oh, that's a tough one. Okay, here we go. "Short book, long, awkward conversations." Olivia: That is brilliant. Absolutely perfect. Mine is: "Beyoncé was right about this." Jackson: Ha! I see what you did there. That’s a deep cut for the fans. And it perfectly captures the vibe. For such a tiny book, it has a massive cultural footprint. Olivia: It really does. Today we are diving into We Should All Be Feminists by the incredible Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. And when I say incredible, I mean it. This is an author who won a MacArthur "genius" grant. The book itself started as a TEDx talk that just exploded online. Jackson: Right, it’s one of those rare books that feels like it has escaped the library and is just out in the world, living its own life. It’s in music, it’s in political conversations, I even heard it was given to every high school student in Sweden at one point. Olivia: Exactly. Which raises a fascinating question. The book’s core idea is simply that men and women should be equal. Why does such a seemingly obvious statement need a viral talk, a book, and a global movement to explain it? Jackson: That’s the million-dollar question, isn't it? If the idea is so simple, why is the word for it—feminist—so incredibly complicated?

Olivia: That’s precisely where Adichie begins. She talks about the first time she was called a feminist. She was fourteen, arguing with her best friend, Okoloma. And in the middle of the argument, he said to her, ‘You know, you’re a feminist.’ And she says, very pointedly, "It was not a compliment." Jackson: I can almost hear the tone of voice. It’s that label you get slapped with when you’re a woman who has an opinion that someone finds inconvenient. It’s meant to shut you down. Olivia: Completely. It was loaded with negative baggage. She later had a Nigerian journalist tell her that feminists are just women who are unhappy because they can’t find husbands. It’s this caricature of an angry, man-hating, humorless person. Jackson: And that stereotype is so powerful. It makes people, even people who believe in equality, hesitant to use the word. They’ll say things like, "Oh, I believe in equal rights, but I'm not a feminist." There's a real fear of association. Olivia: Adichie captures the real-world effect of this beautifully with a story about her and a male friend named Louis in Lagos. They’re out for the evening, and a parking attendant helps them. Adichie is impressed by his hustle, so as they’re leaving, she pulls out some money to give him a tip. Jackson: Okay, a simple, nice gesture. Olivia: You would think. She hands the money directly to the man. He takes it, looks right past her, turns to her friend Louis, and says, with a big smile, "Thank you, sah!" Jackson: Oh, come on. He thanked the man? Even though she was the one who gave him the money? Olivia: He thanked the man. The assumption was so deeply ingrained in him that the money must have ultimately come from the man. That her money wasn't really her money. It was Louis's money that she was just allowed to spend. Jackson: Wow. That is such a small moment, but it speaks volumes. It’s an invisible bias made visible. What did her friend Louis do? Olivia: That’s the best part. At first, Louis didn't get it. He asked her, "Why are you so angry about it? He was just being grateful." But then Adichie explained the implication, what it felt like to be rendered invisible in her own transaction. And the book says Louis, who is a thoughtful person, started to see it. He started noticing these tiny, everyday slights that he, as a man, had never been forced to see before. Jackson: That’s the key, isn’t it? The lack of awareness. It’s not that Louis was a bad guy; he was just living in a world that was built to make him comfortable and visible. He didn’t see the architecture of the inequality because it wasn’t designed to hinder him. Olivia: Exactly. And this gets to a question you hear all the time, which Adichie addresses head-on. People often say, "Why use the word 'feminist'? Why not just say you believe in 'human rights'?" Jackson: Yeah, I've heard that a million times. The argument is that 'humanist' is more inclusive and less confrontational. Olivia: Adichie’s response is so clear and powerful. She says, of course, feminism is part of human rights. But to use the vague, general term 'human rights' is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It’s to pretend that women haven't been the excluded group for centuries. Jackson: That makes sense. It’s like saying "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter." It’s technically true, but it deliberately ignores the specific group that is facing a specific, systemic problem. You have to name the problem to fix it. Olivia: You have to name it. She says that would be like a doctor treating a patient with a specific cancer by just giving them a general wellness tonic. No, you have to target the specific disease. The disease, in this case, is a global system of gender inequality. And the name for the movement that seeks to cure it is feminism.

Jackson: Okay, so once we get past the baggage of the word itself, we get to the core of the problem. And what I found so profound about this book is how she argues this isn't just a "women's issue." Olivia: That is the most crucial part of her argument. She says that the problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be, rather than recognizing who we are. And these prescriptions harm everyone. She tells another story from her childhood, when she was nine years old in primary school. Jackson: I remember this one. It’s heartbreaking. Olivia: The teacher announced that whoever got the highest score on a test would become the class monitor. It was a big deal—you got to write down the names of the noisemakers. Adichie, being the brilliant person she is, studied hard and got the highest score. Jackson: And she was excited, ready for her moment of glory. Olivia: She was beaming. But the teacher, looking surprised, said, "Oh, I didn't realize the person with the highest score was a girl." And then she told the class that the monitor had to be a boy. She gave the job to the boy with the second-highest score. Jackson: Just like that. No apology, no explanation. Just, "this role is not for you." Olivia: Just a simple, matter-of-fact reinforcement of a gender role. And Adichie uses this to make a broader point. She says, "We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller." We teach them to have ambition, but not too much. To be successful, but not so successful that they threaten a man. Jackson: It’s the idea that a woman’s likability is paramount. She shares that story about the American woman in a managerial position who gets called "aggressive" and "difficult" for behaving in the exact same way her male predecessor did, who was praised for being a "tough go-getter." Olivia: The double standard is baked into our expectations. But then she flips the script and talks about men. This is where the book becomes truly universal. She says, "Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage." Jackson: That line is so powerful. A "hard, small cage." It perfectly describes the immense pressure on boys and men. We teach them that they have to be tough, that they can’t show fear or weakness. We define masculinity so narrowly—by financial success, by physical strength, by suppressing emotion. Olivia: And in doing so, we cripple them emotionally. We create, as she puts it, fragile egos that have to be constantly propped up. We teach boys to be afraid of fear, which is a terrible burden. And we teach them that their masculinity is something that can be "taken away" if they don't perform it correctly. Jackson: It's like we're all handed a script at birth. Girls get the script for "how to be a good woman," which is about being accommodating and not too threatening. Boys get the script for "how to be a real man," which is about being dominant and unemotional. And feminism, in Adichie's view, is about throwing away both of those scripts. Olivia: Exactly. It’s about allowing people to be their full, authentic, complicated human selves. It’s about raising our sons and daughters differently. Raising them with a focus on ability and interest, not on gender. Jackson: Now, I do have to ask. This framework is incredibly powerful, but it was written in 2012. Some modern critiques suggest that her focus is very much on a binary of men and women. How do you think this argument holds up in a world where our understanding of gender is becoming much more fluid and inclusive of non-binary and trans identities? Olivia: That’s a very important and valid point. The text itself is rooted in that binary framework. I think if Adichie were writing it today, the language might be more expansive. But the core principle—that society imposes restrictive, artificial roles based on perceived gender—is still profoundly relevant. The "small cages" she describes can be seen as the foundation of a much larger system of gender policing that affects everyone, especially those who don't fit neatly into traditional boxes. Her work provides the fundamental grammar for understanding how these roles are constructed in the first place. Jackson: So it’s like she’s diagnosing the original sin, and from there we can expand the analysis to understand its impact on a wider spectrum of identities. It’s the starting point for a bigger conversation. Olivia: I think that’s a perfect way to put it. She gives us the tools to see the cage, and once you see it, you can start to see all the other cages it connects to.

Olivia: In the end, after all the stories and analysis, Adichie brings it all back to a very simple, elegant definition. She looked it up in the dictionary. A feminist is simply "a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes." Jackson: It’s so straightforward. There's no mention of hating men or burning bras. It’s just... equality. Her own personal definition is even better. She says a feminist is a man or a woman who says, "Yes, there’s a problem with gender as it is today and we must fix it, we must do better." Olivia: That’s it. It’s an observation and a commitment. You see the problem, and you want to be part of the solution. It’s not an attack; it’s an invitation. An invitation to build a fairer world. Jackson: A world where a little girl can be class monitor because she earned it. A world where a man doesn't have to perform a caricature of strength to feel worthy. A world where a parking attendant thanks the person who actually gave him the tip. Olivia: And that’s why this little book has had such a massive impact. It’s not just an essay; it’s a tool for starting conversations. The fact that the Swedish government gave it to every 16-year-old wasn't about indoctrination; it was about giving them a shared language to talk about fairness and respect. Jackson: It makes you think about what small cages we still live in without even realizing it. The subtle ways we police ourselves and others based on these outdated gender rules. Olivia: Maybe that’s the most practical takeaway for anyone listening. The first step isn't to join a march or read a dense academic text. It’s just to start noticing. Notice who gets thanked, who gets interrupted, who is expected to take notes in a meeting, who is told to "man up." Jackson: That feels like a good place to start. It leaves me with a question for myself, and for everyone listening: What's one gender rule you follow without even thinking about it? What script are you still reading from? Olivia: A perfect question to end on. It’s about waking up to the world as it is, so we can start building the world as it should be. Jackson: This is Aibrary, signing off.