From childbearing to housekeeping, sex, or preserving legacy, at the end of it all, the implication is that a man’s emotional loyalty is scarce and only one woman can have it.
By David Okigbo
Picture this: A man is driving his family to church, and his mother takes the front seat beside him. However, his wife remains standing, waiting for him to tell his mother off so she can take her seat. Who does he give it to? Or another man, maybe different, maybe the same, has his wife, mother, and daughter stuck in a burning building, and somehow, he manages to escape it. Not only does he escape it, but by some miracle, he is capable of saving just one of them. Who should he save? Well, it may relieve you to know that questions like these have no clear answers. Yet they have been flooding social media lately, and that in itself is worth investigating.
First of all, if we are to examine it critically, we can rephrase the questions to clarify what they actually mean, peeling back the faux innocence and the underlying misogyny within. For the front seat question, what it really means is, “Who should be more important to the man, his wife or mother?” The burning house question goes even further in its absurdity by asking, “Who deserves to live between the three, or who is worth saving?”.
These lines of inquiry create a peculiar avenue for the arguers to debate what each woman deserves, depending on the mood of the conversation. But if we are keeping it real for a second, these questions don’t just arise in a vacuum. They reflect cultural ideas that pit women against each other in competition for male validation.
From childbearing to housekeeping, sex, or preserving legacy, at the end of it all, the implication is that a man’s emotional loyalty is scarce and only one woman can have it. The wife is perpetually stacked against the mother, that is, if they have a good relationship. And even with the mother out of the way, she still has their daughter to contend with, stuck in a constant struggle for his affection and moral obligation. Repeated often enough, these questions suggest a toxic worldview: “Women are only as important as they are useful to men.” One should deserve more, while the others remain disposable.
And the gag is that these ridiculous questions never target men (husband, father, son) because the very essence of the premise puts men at an advantageous point every time. The front seat question overlooks the possibility that one of the women may have been in the driver’s seat or owned the car. The burning house question ignores that most men don’t know a thing about what to do in the event of a fire, or that no woman just sits helplessly in a burning house waiting for a man to make his choice and save them.
But the questioners don’t care about any of that; the purpose has always been to control. And frequently, men dodge the question with either a safe “Mum always comes first” answer, because filial piety is an easy social virtue, or a performative “Of course my wife comes first”, so they appear to be enlightened modern husbands.
Either way, the game is rigged to remind women that a man’s loyalty can always be revoked if they fail to meet his standards. And it doesn’t even help men either, putting them on the spot for no apparent reason. Because newsflash: Few mothers would want their sons to disrespect their wives, and even fewer wives would prioritise themselves over their daughters, or want their husbands to abandon their mothers. So, the whole thing is just entirely manufactured drama.
Now, as a man in the wild, if you’re ever asked one of these questions and simply can’t ignore it or plead “no comment”, the slightly acceptable answers to these hypotheticals are never the ones we immediately think of.
For the front seat dilemma, simply give the keys to both women and let them decide who will drive, while you relax in the back. For the burning house, the solution is as simple as calling for help, whether through an emergency hotline or screaming to wake the neighbours. You could all also try breaking out through the windows, though, judging by my dainty elbows, I’m not sure I could take my own advice in that regard.
Even if these solutions are just as hypothetical as the questions themselves, they create equity in the once heavily biased story where everyone is given some importance, allowing men to decentre themselves while leaving space for others to thrive. Women are people too, just like everyone else, and they deserve to exist as complete individuals, not as mere extensions of men.
David Okigbo is a Nigerian writer who primarily delves into the fictional realm, crafting stories about everyday people and capturing their lives authentically through the power of storytelling. When he’s not nose-deep in writing fiction, his other works explore the nuances of pop culture, feminism, and the messy intersections of modern life. He currently publishes several Substack publications for a handful of loyal subscribers. When he’s not writing, he’s overthinking world politics or plotting his next favorite character and world. Find him on X (formerly known as Twitter) @david_okigbo, on Bluesky @thedevilworkshop.bsky.social, and on Instagram @okigbod.
Cover image credit: Silent Beads