March Essay Competition

March 9 — March 22, 2026,

Prompt

The average man, regardless of creed, family background, religion, personal convictions, or social, economic, or marital status, will always feel threatened or intimidated by a successful, strong, independent woman.

Competition Home Page

Essay

Score

When Strength Meets Strength: The Myth of the Intimidated Man.

By Michael Oyewole

March 12, 2026 · 894 words · 5 min read

When Strength Meets Strength: The Myth of the Intimidated Man A young man sits across from his girlfriend at a restaurant. When the bill arrives, he reaches for it almost instinctively. No discussion. No negotiation. It is simply expected. Later, when his income dips, the atmosphere between them begins to change. The comments become sharper. Comparisons creep in. Subtle reminders appear sometimes jokingly, sometimes not that a “real man” should be able to provide. In many societies, particularly in places like Nigeria, this script is deeply familiar. From a young age, men are taught sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly that their value in relationships is tied to financial capability. In everyday conversations among young people, advice to women can be blunt: do not date a man who cannot provide. The phrase “I can’t date a broke guy” is often said openly, even jokingly, but with a seriousness that young men quickly understand. A boyfriend is expected to fund outings, solve financial problems, and demonstrate commitment through spending. Capability is measured financially, and masculinity often becomes intertwined with economic power. Over time, many men internalize a simple equation: provision equals value. If you can provide, you are respected. If you cannot, your identity begins to feel uncertain. But what happens when provision is no longer the defining currency of respect? What happens when the woman across the table does not need financial rescue at all? For some men, the answer is discomfort not because the woman is hostile, but because the script they were taught suddenly stops working. Seen from this perspective, it becomes easier to understand why some men experience discomfort when confronted with a successful, confident, and financially independent woman. When masculinity has long been defined through provision, a woman who earns more, leads organizations, or builds wealth independently can appear to disrupt that identity. Yet the discomfort is rarely about the woman herself. More often, it is about what her success exposes. Often, the real pressure is not the capable woman sitting across the table. It is the invisible audience judging the man beside her. In societies where men who lack financial dominance are mocked, pitied, or dismissed, a woman’s success can feel like a public test of masculinity. Her independence becomes interpreted through a cultural script that asks a silent question: If she can provide for herself, what exactly is the man’s role? In this context, insecurity is understandable. However, acknowledging this tension does not make the original claim correct. The assertion that the “average man,” regardless of upbringing, culture, religion, or social background, will always feel threatened by a successful woman collapses under scrutiny. Human beings are far too shaped by context for such a universal claim to hold. Background matters. A man raised by a financially accomplished mother may grow up seeing female success as normal rather than intimidating. A man from generational wealth who never tied his identity to economic survival may not perceive a successful partner as competition. Likewise, men who have witnessed balanced partnerships where responsibility and ambition are shared often interpret strength in a partner as an advantage rather than a threat. Identity is not something people are simply born with. It is shaped over time by family, culture, and the expectations society places on us. History reinforces this point. Women have not only entered traditionally male spaces they have excelled within them. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf governed a nation through difficult reconstruction. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has shaped global economic policy and now leads the World Trade Organization, one of the most influential institutions in international trade. In corporate leadership, women such as Ibukun Awosika have led major financial institutions in Nigeria, demonstrating that competence in leadership is determined by vision and capability rather than gender. In global industry, Mary Barra leads one of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers, steering transformation in a sector that was once overwhelmingly male. These developments did not produce universal male intimidation. What they produced instead was adjustment. Institutions adapted, partnerships evolved, and societies slowly reconsidered long-held assumptions about leadership and gender. The deeper issue is not male biology but fragile identity. Anyone whose sense of worth depends on being superior will feel uneasy when confronted with someone equally capable. This reaction is not uniquely male, it is human. A student who defines intelligence as being the smartest in the room may feel threatened by a brilliant classmate. A manager who equates leadership with control may feel unsettled by a talented subordinate. In the same way, a man whose identity depends entirely on being the provider may struggle when that role is no longer exclusive. A successful woman does not automatically threaten masculinity. More often, she reveals which versions of masculinity were built on insecurity. Perhaps, the real question is not whether men will always feel threatened by strong women, but whether society will continue teaching men that their worth depends on standing above them. Return to the young man at the restaurant table. If his identity depends entirely on paying the bill, then a successful partner may feel like a threat. But if his identity is rooted in confidence, character, and partnership, her success changes nothing essential about him. A successful, strong, independent woman is not inherently a threat. She is a  like a mirror. To insecure identities, she reflects inadequacy.To secure identities, she reflects possibility. Strength does not automatically intimidate strength. More often, it simply exposes the outdated hierarchies we have grown used to calling “natural.” And hierarchies, unlike human potential, are never permanent.