Opinion
Women As Lubricants
After delivering a lecture at a private occasion, there was an appeal to have the material published for the benefit of a wider public. Despite some slight modifications, the central issue is that women are meant to be a present source of comfort, solace and inspiration for men; more so, in moments of stress.
Without going into an engineering principle of tribology which has to do with greasing and lubrication, women can rightly be described as lubricants in human relationships. Whether or not they are aware of this natural role peculiar to them, the truth is that women infuse into men a motivating power and impetus to spur them. It is not wrong to say that behind every successful man, there is always or woman. The reverse may also be the case, unfortunately.
This motivating feminine power also has some taming tendency which, when applied without tact, can turn a woman into a shrew or a tyrant which manifests in nagging. It is wrong to describe women as weak, because they are endowed with some unique countervailing power serving as a balancing complement to that of men. This counten-balancing and complementary arrangement in sex-roles is meant to produce harmonious checks and balances.
The concept of “pairs of opposites” as we find in Jewish cosmoging or “yin and yang” in Chinese philosophy may be too complex to delve into here. But briefly, we find that species split into two sub-units for the purpose of effective collaborative operation, whereby one cannot do or function independently without the other. A commonly used example for illustrative purpose is the transmission of electric current which demands a combination of negative and positive lines, to produce power. So, we find this process of split and collaboration as a fixed law.
Like every positive phase of energy, men are aggressive, pushing and possibly ruthless in nature, while women balance these raw masculine tendencies through the infusion of a taming and healing balm. It is not weakness on the part of women that they are soft, subtle, passive and alluring, but these attributes constitute a present necessity for the purposes of lubrication, pacification and direction. In the household of nature the feminine leads and sets the standard, while the masculine executes. Without such conmplementarity, the dynamics of energy would be chaotic and mis-directed.
Matrimonial partnership is not necessary for the natural qualities of the sexes to manifest, although the family circle can be an appropriate point where these qualities can be perfected and put into practice. Problems and distortions arise where these qualities are misapplied, such as a female engaging in activities and behavioural patterns that are masculine, or vice-versa. Female hormones can be affected by such distorted activity pattern, leading to quite unpleasant consequences.
Thus, when a woman abandons her natural line of activity and behaviour and inclines towards the male pattern, she runs the risk of distorting the nature of her sex. When a woman becomes masculine in thought, behaviour and actions, then she would lose the peculiar feminine qualities which include being a soothing balm in moments of stress. She would become incapable of enjoying harmonious relationship with men, although she would rarely know the origin of her plight. Effects of past unresolved errors rarely manifest immediately.
Unhappy and broken relationships, fastidiousness, domineering attitude, frigidity and several other plight that women experience usually arise from the failure of a woman to keep faith with her sex-role as a complementary, soothing companion. Having lost the value of complementarity as a result of distortion of her sex attributes, a woman also loses the quality of being a soothing lubricant.
While men are also guilty of several wrongs that women complain about, it would be more proper for women to recognise the lubricating and taming power which they possess. To apply such power in the form of pepper rather than a soothing balm in situations of stress and conflict rarely helps in human relationships.
It is not by nagging and tantrums that women can wield the subtle power which they have over men, but by true feminine homeliness. When a woman is said to be homely, it means that she has the grace, charisma and nobility of character which a man would give anything to have as the foundation of an ideal home. A woman does not need to be perfect, to cultivate the aura of homeliness. A soothing, rather than a scolding tongue, is an asset for a woman.
Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer, Rivers State University, PH.
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
