The 2017 Ghanaian movie “Nteteye Pa” offers a thought-provoking exploration of gender roles, patriarchy, and socialisation. Set in a traditional Asante household, the film follows the lives of two sisters, Pomaa and Irene, as they navigate the complexities of womanhood.
Through the characters’ experiences, the movie highlights gender concepts such as patriarchy, domestic division of labour, class, and dichotomy. Patriarchy is woven throughout the narrative, with male authority dominating social, political, and economic aspects of life.
As Pilcher & Whelehan assert, patriarchy is any rule within a social setting where the male is regarded as the dominant figure over a unit, thus, possessing legitimate power over all others, especially women, children, and even younger males within the setting.
In Part 1, Boatemaa (Akyere Buruwaa), the mother of the two sisters, advises her younger daughter, Pomaa (Emelia Brobbey), to not emulate Irene, the older, because “these things you’re doing at home are the same things you’ll be doing in your marriage” (13:29), and “if you’re not a hardworking woman, you will be miserable” (18:01).
Although marriage to the right partner can be a source of companionship and eternal bliss, this dialogue highlights the expectation that women must prioritise marriage and domestic work above all else. And this orientation starts with the family – the basic unit of society.
The film depicts the family as a breeding ground for patriarchal oppression, where women are disproportionately vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.
As scholars note, the family is often the place where patriarchy finds its most primal expression, subjecting women to forms of abuse and torture. Irene’s experiences, particularly her mistreatment by men in her life, illustrate this point.
All through the movie, Irene (Nana Ama McBrown) never receives any form of familial support from her people when the men in her life mistreat her for not knowing how to ‘manage the home’.
In fact, in one of the scenes in Part 1, her father (Kwadwo Nkansah) is the one who comes to spread the news of Appiah’s marriage to “Ante Grace’s daughter” (56:29), without pausing for a second to consider the impact the news was likely to have on his daughter.
He also tells Pomaa to pay no mind to her sister because Irene is “useless” (55:47).
I could be Irene; and so could you.
Reflecting on your family’s influence on you, how has your family’s dynamics and values influenced your understanding of boundaries, abuse, and personal identity, particularly in relation to patriarchal norms and their impact on women in your family?
The movie also showcases the socially constructed perspective of the body, with Irene’s beauty and light skin seen as essential to her worth.
In Scene One, Irene emerges, clad in a piece of cloth, saying, “I am not well”, and says she “cannot go to the farm today” (04:42).
It is only after the two women have left for the farm, that, in a soliloquy, Irene tells the real reason she refuses to go to the farm or even apply herself to any house work: she is keeping her skin without blemish in wait for her “Prince Charming.”
In most scenes of the movie, Irene tells herself and others that her beautiful body will earn her a place in the life of her “Prince Charming”, giving her the status of a woman of substance in his eyes.
The concept of class is also evident, with economic resources dividing characters into polarised categories.
In Part 1, Mummy, Prince’s mother (Maame Dokono Grace Omaboe) says of Pomaa, “If she knew what God was doing for her [by meeting me], she would continue to serve me” (1:06:31). This statement highlights the power dynamics at play, with the wealthy assuming a “Messiah” status over the poor.
Power dynamics is another significant theme, not in the sense of state structure, but on a microcosmic level to show, as Sawicki puts it, how subjects are constituted by power relations.
The men wield power over women and perpetuate female subjugation, while the rich subject the poor to meaningless tests. An example is seen in how Mummy sought to test young women in order to find ‘a suitable’ wife for her son.
In Part 4, Patrick (Bernard Nyarko) admonishes Irene for not telling him she didn’t know how to cook, saying he was willing to spend “millions on you to make you a COMPLETE woman” (11:28). Other scenes like this go on and on to illustrate the ways in which men generally exert control over women’s lives.
The scenes also had stark portrayals of domestic division of labour, where there is a distribution between family members of those responsibilities and tasks necessary for the ongoing maintenance of a domestic home and its people.
The men showed their love to by providing for the women; or coming home to eat the meals they cooked; or showing them off to other women or their friends. It was never shown in offering a helping hand in the home because managing the home is what a woman should “be doing in your marriage” (13:29).
In Part 1, Appiah says to his fiancée, “Sweetheart, I will be inside, so call me when you’re done” (46:27), leaving the woman to do the laundry alone.
The movie portrays female subjugation and devaluation, highlighting how gendered language is used to keep women inferior. Patrick’s statement, “She’s good for nothing. She’s not a woman”, because Irene couldn’t cook for him and his friends (21:00, Part 4), reinforces this.
Men were portrayed to be superior to their female counterparts. In Part 4, for instance, Irene goes on her knees in tears while Patrick stands, saying, “Honey, where it has gotten to, I have to confess” (09:54), as though she committed a crime for not knowing how to make chicken groundnut soup.
Likewise, Appiah says to Irene, “This is what we call a woman”, when he introduces his new fiancée to her. “She is a woman of virtue… She knows how to cook; she knows how to wash; she works like a woman… Not something like you. You don’t know anything.”
The use of gendered language continued in other scenes with statements like “she is good for nothing”, and “not woman enough because she cannot cook (21:00; Part 4); she is a woman of virtue [because] she knows how to cook… wash… and works like a woman” (43:21; Part 1).
These are subtle, albeit unconscious ways of debasing women with the use of gendered language.
According to Pilcher and Whelehan, dichotomy refers to the act of dividing something into two distinct entities, often emphasising a stark contrast between them.
To better understand the portrayal of dichotomy in the movie, it’s essential to revisit Prokhovnik’s four key features of dichotomous thinking: difference, hierarchical order, encapsulation to form a whole, and value through ascendency.
The movie employs dichotomy to draw a sharp contrast between women and men, perpetuating a patriarchal ideology. For instance, in Part 1 (38:03), Paapa prays for Pomaa to “become a blessing to your husband.”
Later (38:38), he expresses concern over Pomaa’s unmarried status because she is a good woman, reinforcing the notion that a woman’s worth is tied to her marital status.
The movie projects this idea by portraying Pomaa’s eventual marriage to Prince as a reward for her obedience and domesticity, as though there aren’t woman who haven’t sacrificed anything but have ended up in good marriages.
Notably, the perfection of their marriage is attributed to Prince’s (Bill Asamoah) character, rather than Pomaa’s agency or actions, further solidifying the dichotomous view of women’s value being tied to their relationships with men.
In the movie, Pomaa and Irene are consistently socialised to believe that their lives and self-worth are contingent upon securing a husband, exceling in domestic duties, and embodying the ideal wife.
Scenes at 13:29 and 18:01 exemplify this notion. In contrast, the male characters are not conditioned to prioritise self-improvement or strive to become the perfect man to attract a worthy woman.
This disparity highlights the gendered nature of socialisation, where women are taught to derive value and status through marriage, while men are simply expected to exist as themselves, awaiting a partner who will elevate their status upon union.
This dichotomy highlights the societal expectation that women must earn their worth through relationships, whereas men are inherently valued regardless of their relationships.
When reality falls short, literature often steps in to provide a sense of resolution and closure. Typically, stories conclude on a positive note for the protagonist, unless they are tragedies.
However, the movie’s abrupt ending disappointingly neglects to provide Irene with a sense of redemption or triumph. After Irene takes initiative to learn cooking and domestic skills, she returns home to discover Patrick’s engagement to another woman, without any prior communication or regard for her dignity.
Irene wasn’t the antagonist; rather the oppressive social system in which they lived was.
The film failed to provide Irene with a satisfying conclusion, neglecting to acknowledge her growth and resilience in overcoming her challenges. This omission left me with a sense of injustice and disappointment, as Irene’s journey was left unresolved and her growth unvalued.
Despite its shortcomings, the movie was a thought-provoking and impactful experience that prompted me to introspect and examine my own perspectives. It served as a catalyst for self-reflection, enabling me to analyse why I hold certain beliefs and values.
Ultimately, “Nteteye Pa” offered me a nuanced exploration of gender relations, socialisation, and power dynamics.
I also discovered that while the characters’ actions were not deliberate attempts to oppress or dominate, the movie served as a commentary on the blind perpetuation of harmful gender norms, unrealistic expectations, and polarisation of social classes.
