Apparently, This Author Does Not Like Feminists and Atheists

Social media is not a real place.

This is a phrase I repeatedly use to pacify myself whenever I see something on Obasanjo’s internet that makes me question whether humans are really just animals living in a fancy, simulated zoo.

So, what’s gotten me muttering that phrase to myself this time?

Just in case you’re a bit new here or haven’t seen the post being referred to here’s a little context.

About a month ago I posted this article:

It was my, albeit unprofessional, assessment of the recent state of affairs on Substack. I drew parallels between the influx of celebrity content on here to the growth in polarising content, especially surrounding two topics: feminism and religion. My intention—which I stated pretty clearly in my view—was not to suggest that I did not want opinion pieces on dismantling patriarchy or deconstructing religious worldviews. Instead, my issue was with how we were slowly moving from a room that accommodated alternating ideas to one that rejected divergence.

Here’s a direct quote from that post

This was my issue. This was my central message. This was the essence of that post.

Less “I don’t like it when feminists and atheists and agnostics and other marginalised groups speak up”, and more “I just miss old Substack, when debate was about exchange and not just a performance for engagement.” That was it. That was all it ever was.

Now, I realise that when you put something out into the world, you inevitably put yourself in a position where your work can be interpreted according to the biases or sentiments of the people viewing that work. In other words, your actual intent can get diluted by the lens through which a reader consumes your material.

That is the ultimate risk of choosing to share your ideas with people who do not know your real name, or do not think the way you do, or are unaware of the fact that you’re just a 19-year-old desperately in need of 2k to facilitate digestive processes within the next 24 hours.

And, I have no issue with someone reading my post and interpreting it differently. What I have an issue with is an attack on my character. A very false one, might I add. I wanted to ignore it. I really did. But I also realised that I responded to every other comment on that post. Ignoring this one, could suggest I was agreeing via silence, refusing to respond because I had nothing to say.

The funny thing is all it takes is one person to be mad at me, or have an issue with me, go through my old Substacks, find this comment, screenshot it, and post it somewhere with a caption festooned with other false narratives about me. Suddenly I’m left in a position where I’m trying to put out fires with half a bucket of water, a cracked bowl, and the urgency of Burna Boy’s PR team whenever the self-acclaimed African giant inevitably makes one of his characteristic public blunders.

So, this is me challenging this fully before it spirals out of control, and hoping to God, Oduduwa, and Abacha’s grave that I don’t have to make a similar post to a comment under this article.

The comment’s main modus operandi for reaching its unstated, but obvious, conclusions is that since I am a part of group A, I do not like it when people in group B speak up about their issues.

The first instance of this trope is the suggestion that since I am a man, I do not like it when feminists talk, and that is why I wrote the article.

Insert prolonged sigh*

To be honest, I find it difficult to be defensive on things of this nature because, I genuinely sympathise with that view. While I don’t appreciate being labeled, I’m not daft. Whenever guys rush to exempt themselves from things like this, I always feel like they miss the point that actually needs to be addressed.

When a woman feels unsafe around a male, it might not be because that male is am inherently bad or violent person. It might just be because of the fact that statistically women are more prone to harm around that gender.

The same goes for issues like this.

Her assumption that I want feminists to speak less just because I am a male, might seem unfounded at surface level, but is a bias she has every right to have when you dig deeper considering the status quo surrounding such conversations with Nigerian men.

My issue though, is that before this comment was written, my profile was apparently audited. And the results of that audit are what I do not understand.

This note was referenced in that comment. And all of the issues with it boiled down to one word: punctuation. Her first issue was with me putting quotation marks around the word Ladies First. Well, when I was in primary school my teacher taught me that whenever I am quoting the name of a movie or a book, I should always draw two tiny commas above it. And unless Ms. Margaret taught me rubbish 10 years ago, I don’t see the problem in what I wrote.

The second issue was my quoting the word matriarchy. Again, I was trying to place emphasis on the noun, and unfortunately there is no italic feature when using notes. So, I compromised with the tools I had available and put it in quotation marks.

Sometimes, the simplest explanation really is the only explanation. This is one of such scenarios.

I also don’t appreciate the fact that, she drew conclusions on my thoughts about the movie on my behalf. So here are the “thoughts” that I did not share previously.

I thought it was an okay movie. I’m a big fan of simple 90-minute comedies with digestible stories, simple resolutions, witty dialogue, and a happy ending. That’s what “Ladies First” was supposed to be. The problem is, the issue tackled by that movie is not one you can resolve satisfactorily with a simple comedy—which at some odd point turned into a rom-com.

Feminism, misogyny, and the mistreatment of women in the workplace aren’t problems you can fix with a quick 15-minute montage. They’re deep, structural issues that need art willing to dig into the real, uncomfortable details of these long-standing injustices. Rushing through scenes just to hit a climax, instead of truly addressing the problem, is not the way to handle something that carries the weight of thousands of years of history.

I also felt like its portrayal of a matriarchal society was rather inaccurate. It suggested a direct reversal of roles, without playing around with the nuances that a world run by women are actually likely to have. If you’ve watched the movie, you’d understand what I mean.

They make a matriarchy seem no different from a patriarchy, outside of the chromosome combinations of the people running it, which I thought was an underrepresentation of what such a world would actually look like. The writers simply reversed the roles, without acknowledging the role players.

Like I said earlier… okay movie. The only reason I didn’t give my opinion on it previously was because I was too lazy to write on it. Don’t put words in my mouth.

The premise of the second argument in this post is that I’m a Christian, hence I do not like when people deconstructing religion speak.

Again, I sympathise with the opinion. But yet again, you are wrong on both the premise and the conclusion.

I personally have deconstructed—or in any case, I still am deconstructing—and if you carried out a thorough enough audit of my profile you would have noticed that too.

It’s absurd to suggest that I don’t like it when people write about their experiences navigating religion, when I’ve, at least, alluded to such in my notes and posts in the past, restacked notes from other writers on that topic, and am openly curios on questions around faith and man’s relationship with the metaphysical.

Why am I talking plenty sef? I literally wrote an entire article challenging someone’s view that atheism is incompatible with being Nigerian. I really don’t know what else to say.

This one is just… idek how you… like… what?!

This is the restack that was referenced, and again… I’m short of words.

For context. The quote is from the infamous post someone made a while back about being homosexual and Christian. Do you remember that post? If yes, congratulations, you officially use Substack way more than you should… I digress.

This person made the rather outrageous claim above, that you can sleep with a lesbian today and wake up liking men. Someone quoted that and restacked, obviously shocked by the assertion. I then restacked that restack. And somehow, you think I suggested men should sleep with lesbians?

As how nawwwwwwwww?!?!

You know what, I’m done. There’s no fancy conclusion to this. I have exams on Monday. Y’all should enjoy your weekend. I’m so tired.

.

.

.

What I’m watching: Suddenly realises he hasn’t watched anything all week*… exams are after my life mehn.

What I’m reading: Just finished “Slaughterhouse Five.” Notice how I put the name of the book in quotation marks?

What I’m doing: Playing “You’re Pretty Sad for a Girl So in Love” on REPEATTTT!

Recommended Substack for the Week: