IAmSplendour

"There's no such reality as 'unmerited favour'. Unmerited favour is something you stole from something else..." - Zekeri Idris Junior

This is terribly wrong. No child should ever go through this. This is a horrible stain on our humanity.

Since the Ozoro incident, I’ve seen many women trying to explain the “not all men” phenomenon to men whose first reaction to any account of sexual violence is that dismissive comeback aimed at exceptionalism. I want to remind us (women) that they are not confused. In fact, they understand more than you. They simply do not care. It is simply a distraction from the real subject: the normalisation of sexual violence against women. Do not waste your brilliance on people who do not care.

There’s currently a pandemic of white female teachers raping their students.

“After Visiting Abia State I Can Confirm To Everyone That Alex Otti Is A Failure, I Don’t Believe In Half Transformation.” ~ Sowore

When Asherkine does giveaways for women, you don’t come and thank me for it. When Tunde Ednut gives random women money, you don’t appreciate me for it. When a man opens a business for his girlfriend or surprises her with something big, nobody says “well done to all men.” But when some foolish men go and misbehave in Ozoro, Delta State, suddenly you remember my gender and want me to take responsibility for it. Good men do kind, thoughtful, and generous things for women every day, and only those individuals get praised, not “all men.” But the moment one man or a group of men do something wrong or evil, it somehow becomes a burden all men are expected to carry. How does that even make sense? At some point, we need to be honest, praise should be individual, and blame should also be individual. Stop generalizing when it’s convenient and selective when it’s not. Because this double standard? It’s not just unfair, it’s exhausting.

You’ve practically just answered the question yourself. You, I, and the women speaking out, very well know that not all men are rapists or bad, it goes without saying. I am not, you are not, so why are we so determined to use moments when they are expressing anger, fear, and real patterns they’ve experienced from men to exempt ourselves as if we don’t understand what they mean? If you and I are not guilty, our government names were not called, why do we feel attacked in that very moment? Why are we more concerned about exceptions the moment a norm is being rightly called out? Do we want an award for being exceptions? What does it matter to the victims, in that very moment, that you and I are exceptions when no one mentioned our names? Of what use is highlighting our “good guyness”? Is that the real issue? How is it helpful to the issue when, instead of leading with empathy and understanding, acknowledging and holding our fellows accountable, our first and loudest response is being dismissive, derailing the convo, centering and reassuring ourselves instead of the affected people? We understand what we mean when we say the Nigerian police are bad or share our horrible experiences, we know not all officers are bad. Yet in that moment, we understand that it would be dismissive and insensitive when someone, especially a police officer responds with “not all police” or claim we are exaggerating. Imagine this happening during the heat of Endsars. We understand the concept of rhetorical expressions used to highlight patterns and communicate urgency. We understand the concept of using language for social critique and pointing out systemic issues. We understand that the point is to draw attention to recurring problems or patterns, we understand all these in other issues but choose not to apply that same understanding here, why? Why is it so important to us that “some” must always be inserted when a pandemic is being highlighted? Ozoro did not happen out of nowhere, it happened because an ill has been so normalized for too long unchecked, one that persists when patterns are downplayed or dismissed and young men have been socialized to find nothing wrong with it. We must do better.

The most tiring thing about this discourse is that both sides involved knows it's not all men. Tegbe here knows that in fact, not all men are rapists, as he himself is not a rapist. It beats me why they'd rather pretend otherwise; or what they intend to achieve.

As a decent man, I understand the instinct to say “not all men.” You’re right, it’s not all men. Lol it can’t be all men. But you grew up with women or you at least have female friends and colleagues. MOST of them have stories of sexual harassment and sometimes sexual abuse. Real and painful stories. Abuses and harassment perpetuated by who? A man. You can’t know all these and your first reply will be “not all men”. The priority in that moment shouldn’t be “distancing yourself” from the problem, it should be listening to what’s being said and acknowledging the pattern. Everyone knows it’s not all men. Even the women saying “all men are guilty till proven innocent” know they’re wrong. However I understand that logic as a safety/defensive mechanism when interacting with men you don’t know. Back to the point. You don’t need to “defend men” in that moment. Lol most decent men aren’t asking you to defend them in that moment.