The Mazan/Gisèle Pélicot rape trial in France wrongly called the trial of all men

The trial of the Mazan rapes of Gisèle Pélicot just ended yesterday. During the 3 months of media coverage of this trial, feminist rhetoric was very present in the French-speaking and international media.

This is about describing this trial as "the trial of all men, of masculinity, of the man in the street".

All of them have in common that they have frequented the site Coco (site knows to be a den of predators, murderes, child crime) which is already not so ordinary 🤡. Many have admitted to having an "overflowing sexuality", speaking of "needs" that they satisfied via this site and the libertine meetings, ideal for them because there are no strings attached and free. Some have also admitted to having been less careful, especially as they got older, and therefore to having accepted the Pelicot proposal, for want of anything better... Why? As you recall, many were abused as children. I count a dozen of them, to which must be added the dark number of those who will never say it. If not all abused children become aggressors, the proportion of former victims among the perpetrators is absolutely overwhelming. This is also at least one reason that explains why they have difficulty regulating their sexuality, which began under the auspices of prohibition. If this does not deprive them of their free will, we can only understand this case by keeping this in mind. Finally, as one expert explained, childhood traumas such as abandonment (there are many in this case) shape their brain in an archaic way that leaves a lot of room for impulsiveness, and much less for reflection. Some, however, are counter-examples, we do not find in them, a priori, any trauma... To summarize, I would not say that they are ordinary men (even if violence and abuse against children are extremely widespread in general), nor that it is the trial of men.

Honestly I am tired, tired of feminists not fighting as a left-wing movement should:

-real inclusiveness of male victims of rape and domestic violence by starting to talk about "victims" and not "women", by normalizing the typical profile of the male victim, by stopping denying the impact of overrepresentation in these crimes, the demonization of men in society, the generalization of men on the non-liberation of men's speech.

They could have done it so that their male victims do not become future aggressors but no.

Instead, the "all men" or "not all men but always men" discourse has been normalized in all media, in colleges, on walls, even in artist petitions denouncing the "not all men" calling it "valueless in the face of the scale of violence, guilty without proof of concrete and daily feminist actions" = moral panic. The man who is the victim of another man in this society must hate his own sex if he wants empathy.

We prefer to highlight this, which does not advance the cause, rather than the journey of the accused, we must not humanize them.

It's distressing because in this case the journey of the accused was detailed, unlike banal cases where they didn't bother to publicize it, or we let the feminists simply summarize it as patriarchy and rape culture.

Most people will never know/remember that these people were also victims.

If it would have been the trial of all men, then it would be urgent that we look at the male victims. CQFD