” To be acceptable as scientific knowledge, a truth must be a deduction from other truths – *Aristotle*.”
During my adolescent years when I was still inordinately preoccupied with “aluta” due to my high testosterone level, I was fortunate to have encountered a few activists, many of whom ultimately became my role model. Then, even though some of them combined some belligerent and implacable eccentricities as a result of their valorous and formidable modi vivendi, all of them had a particular idiosyncrasy in common. All of them used to be analytical and objective before venturing into battles. To them, exhibition of prejudice cynically or activation of any clause which epitomizes preferential treatment, shouldn’t hypnotize one’s cerebral cortex before one goes to battle. That ideology has formed a rudimentary euphemism upon which I entrenched my own activism, and till date, I evaluate succinctly the motives behind battles before I take them up.
After Natasha’s vindictive pursuit against Akpabio, I was compelled to check precisely what sexual harassment entails. Again, I searched for examples of sexual harassment. After searching assiduously, I came across some ridiculous and preposterous examples as highlighted by Google. It states in part : ” if a woman passes by, and she’s whistled down by a man, he has sexually harassed her. Similarly, if a man approaches a woman, and before he could even get to her, the woman looks at him from head to toe, she has sexually harassed him. “. Are you kidding me?. What a comical buffoonery unfeasible for even a Martian let alone humans!.
At that level, I knew something was fundamentally wrong about how the Nigerian society understands the concept of sexual behaviors and harassment. Going by those farcical paradigms as elucidated by Google , haven’t all men and women been guilty of sexual harassment at one time or the other? Or, is there any man who hasn’t whistled down a woman walking down the street with an intention of toasting her?. Similarly, can any woman come out to vouch for herself that she hasn’t looked a potential toaster in a scornful manner while approaching her? .
There should be a crystalline legal counsel, and an explicit legal definition of what sexual harassment entails. Otherwise, even an ordinary compliment can be mistaken for sexual harassment, particularly if the accuser is paranoid and/or has a sinister objective ab initio. An accuser cannot afford to use her own bias in a case which hasn’t been determined by any legal practitioner to adjudge her adversary a culprit. You cannot be a judge in your own case. The validity of the contexts premeditatedly accrued as evidences of sexual harassment should be far more important than the evaluation(s) of the accuser.
As intelligent and quick-witted as Natasha is, she goofed this time. She is a lawyer. As a specialized maestro operating at such a tremendous echelon, she is expected to have (personally) demystified and ruminated on the consequences that could emanate from accusing the number 3 citizen of the country of sexual harassment without having superior evidences to fortify her claims. Recalcitrant-ly, she allowed her emotions to becloud her reasonings. She put the cart before the horse even without having a spare horse to see her through a seemingly impassable path in the wilderness. Now, she’s all but trapped in-between the devil and the deep blue sea. Apparently, she must have forgotten that emotions only gather (public) sympathy ; evidences win cases and lawsuits during adjudication. She has been ostracized by even her female contemporaries in the red chamber ; her path to recovery can only be compared with an Iroko tree whose leaves are suffering from evapo-transpiration and its primary and secondary root systems couldn’t perform hydrotropism at the same time. She is now learning the gimmicks of the games. Unfortunately, not even her supercalifragilisticexpialidocious propensities would come to her rescue – at least not soonest.
Mistakes are meant to be made but some mistakes are capable of sealing the fate of an individual, and catastrophically. Infact, some mistakes are tantamount to reprehensible behaviors and aren’t forgiving.
Despite being a revolutionary and one of the leading voices at the 10th National Assembly, Natasha’s vindictive ideologies have exposed her fragility, and sombrely. Until her recent contretemps with Akpabio, she used to be a revered figure among the Nigerian youths. Undeniably, she has incontrovertibly eclipsed over 99 percent of her male contemporaries at the National Assembly when it comes to achievements – meticulously. Her notable performances in her constituency in Kogi state where she hails from are top-notch. Should she have allowed her emotional volatility and her penchant for vindictiveness becloud all the aristocratic and charitable reputations she had arduously striven for decades to earn and to protect?.
While some feminists masquerading as human rights activists can be pardoned for being ignorant or not vastly equipped (mentally) with the collateral damage such accusations might have on the alleged individuals (without convincing evidences), Natasha shouldn’t be exonerated because she is expected to be aware of the cognisance of the fact that, she could only win a tempestuous fracas of such magnitude with a presentation of superior evidences against Akpabio, all of which she must be ready to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. So far, she hasn’t tendered any incriminating evidence to nail Akpabio. She concluded in her subconscious mind she had been harassed sexually simply because she attached personal sentiments to her relationship with the Senate president.
Now, shouldn’t the constituted authorities of various institutions and organizations enforce such sledgehammer on erring female employees like the Senate did to Natasha? Recently, some feminists are becoming amalgamated, and tutoring themselves on how to bring successful and influential men to their knees. They seem to have mastered the nitty-gritty and the arts and acts of “pull-him-down ” syndrome. It’s no surprising to see that, majority of the women in this category don’t target wretched and impoverished men with nothing to lose as victims of sexual harassment. More often than usual, they deliberately seduce their bosses, use women’s power to trap them and get their attention – all in a bid to gather enough evidences to crucify them. Majority of those feminists had become billionaires owing to the fact that some of their bosses wouldn’t risk not conceding to whatever demand they initiate. Only few bosses are not afraid of scandals, and would remain resolute regardless of the blackmail and assassination of character they might be subjected to. Many male bosses in different institutions and organizations are dying in silence while others have lost their fortunes to these scavengers trying to reap where they didn’t so. They had destroyed the families and careers of their bosses, many of whom refused to play balls and aren’t scared of their names being scandalized.
While I don’t support sexual harassment and I believe it’s morally wrong for a man engage in, I beg to state unequivocally, that, all advances to a female colleague cannot be deemed sexual harassment. Like I said earlier, the legal luminaries should help us in drawing a parallel string between the lines that must be crossed before sexual harassment can be established. It’s very tricky and complicated to vehemently establish a case of sexual harassment by mere setting up your boss verbally (during conversations) when there is no evidence of physical engagement of any kind.
Rape for example, is a capital offence which requires at least a mammoth evidence before a culprit can be adjudged guilty by a jury, and then subsequently incarcerated. While rape is very serious, it’s very easy to establish, unlike sexual harassment. Even a 5 year old child can easily decipher what rape is if he’s present at the scene or if shown the video evidence. But, can we get 10 different SANs who would give us the same verdict if a case of sexual harassment is presented before them? Can 10 judges picked randomly draw the same inference, or would all of them castigate Akpabio for sexually harassing Natasha without the later providing concrete evidences? That’s how complex and convoluted a case of sexual harassment is. A victim should only come out to accuse her boss with convincing facts ; not just mere verbal talks.
” I have one life and one chance to make it count for something. My faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can with whatever I have to try to make a difference – Jimmy Carter “. Unfortunately, while some responsible and hardworking women are busy striving to have an indelible impact in centuries to come in the worlds of Technology, Commerce, Law, Medicine, Industries, etc, some feminists are busy revolting against their bosses at work places and masterminding some ingenious traps, many of which are maliciously facilitated to seek pound of flesh, with an intention of scandalizing them (their bosses) and destroying their families and careers. For how long would such women be allowed to continue to infiltrate our society? Would men continue to be victims of vendetta mission mischievously packaged under the whims and caprices of seeking justice? Shouldn’t the constituted authorities of institutions/organizations take drastic measure to forestall future occurrences?.
(Akinropo Olufemi writes from Federal University Oye-Ekiti. He’s a writer, poet and political satirist.)
