deepcuts

On Collien Fernandes case, the Silence of "Not All Men" & Patriarchy

Note: This article was originally published as a series of Instagram stories and has been refined and compiled into a single piece.

A couple of weeks ago, I witnessed a group chat conversation centered on the recent case of Collien Fernandes, who was a victim of a non-consensual deepfake p*rn*graphic content created by her ex-husband, Christian Ulmen. A leftist cis male—a label that often implies progressive thought, yet here we are—was part of the group. After an Instagram post was shared, which stated "men should also hate men" and characterized male pushback on the subject as "wrong" he immediately pivoted to a typical "not all men" defense. He claimed to be against the abuse BUT (there’s always a "but") felt offended that "men are lumped in with the guy who did it" calling this "a very irresponsible leap in reasoning". To him, it "doesn’t make sense logically and morally" that "sexism is socially accepted as long as the recipient belongs to a certain group" (I assume a male one) and that "the behavior isn’t punished at all".

Why do most males get offended in such cases, effectively centering themselves—especially when the discussion revolves around a woman’s experience of sexual abuse? Why do so many men prioritize distancing themselves from the perpetrator rather than facing the systemic reality—one where femicide is a common phenomenon and the Epstein revelations highlight just how deeply this normalization runs? Why do almost all men remain silent when witnessing everyday patriarchal suppression, yet find boundless energy to fight back the moment they feel personally attacked? Unfortunately, this behavior isn’t just an outlier; it represents the majority of men we interact with, including those in my immediate circle.

There's a certain level of privilege and lack of empathy that are both equally enraging. What "behavior" isn't punished exactly, why it should be and how it equates to discrimination according to this line of reasoning, that's beyond me. No one denies that stereotypes exist on all sides (e.g., in the form of jokes), but for behavior to constitute discrimination, it must be prejudice combined with the exercise of power. Discrimination is when that power leads to unequal access to rights or privileges. In what world are males and/or white people direct recipients of such conditions? In the vast majority of cases, it's quite the opposite. Period. Equating a tasteless joke you might hear at a Christmas table to the systemic reality of fem*cide—simply because of "male grievance"—is the very definition of privilege. Those who push the false narrative of "reverse racism" or "discrimination against men"—when no systemic loss of rights actually exists—are simply delusional.

Sure, patriarchy is systemic, and men are not inherently sexist; sexism takes many forms and can be manifested by anyone, regardless the gender. We can also discuss the experiences of young boys growing up in a patriarchal society who don't subscribe to the "macho" stereotype and were suppressed because of it (👋🏽)—I think that's valuable. However, we cannot simply overlook the fact that the primary perpetuators of patriarchy are men. And as cis males in a position of privilege, we have a moral imperative to be vocal about these issues when others are silenced, dismissed, or face greater risks for speaking out. To anyone still offended by this: please do yourself a favor and read more bell hooks.

"The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead, patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem."

― bell hooks, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love

Sources & Further Reading