Institutions are comfortable with feminism as long as it remains polite, predictable, and procedural. The moment it questions power, it is re-coded as hostility. Drawing from encounters in gender sensitisation programmes and Internal Complaints Committees, this reflection examines how feminism is repeatedly misheard—not because it is unclear, but because it is inconvenient.
When Feminism Is Misheard as Hostility
There are moments when society makes a deliberate mishearing of feminism.
Instead of recognising it as an ethical and political framework concerned with dignity, justice, and quality of life, feminism is reduced—conveniently—to male-bashing. This reduction is not innocent. It is a refusal masquerading as misunderstanding.
For decades, women have tried to correct this caricature. Yet some ears remain closed—not because the explanation is unclear, but because acknowledging feminism as a holistic critique of social arrangements would demand discomfort, self-reflection, and accountability. To dismiss feminism as antagonism is far easier. It allows society to silence women while claiming neutrality.
This reflection emerges from two spaces where I encountered this resistance most clearly:
first, as a resource person conducting a Gender Sensitisation session, and second, as an External Member of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).
Entering the Room: Gender Sensitisation and Anticipated Resistance
Gender sensitisation programmes are now mandatory in many government-sector training modules. When I was invited to conduct one such session—as the Honorary Director of a Centre for Women’s Studies—I carried with me a familiar anticipation. Experience has taught me that such sessions are often met with folded arms, defensive postures, and silent hostility—especially from male participants who arrive prepared to protect themselves against what they imagine will be an ideological attack.
The designation Director of the Centre for Women’s Studies only thickens the stereotype. Women in such positions are routinely presumed to be aggressive, unreasonable, or hostile to men—labels that function as pre-emptive delegitimisation.
When I entered the training hall, I was struck by a simple fact: nearly the entire room was filled with men.
This, however, did not unsettle me as much as one might expect. I have long believed—both personally and professionally—that feminism is not gender-exclusive. There are deeply feminist men, just as there are women who reproduce patriarchal logics with alarming efficiency. My own upbringing and years in academic institutions have only reinforced this conviction.
Still, discussions on gender require care. The task is not to provoke antagonism, but to unsettle certainty without foreclosing dialogue. With that intention, the session unfolded not as confrontation, but as conversation. Participation was active; resistance softened into engagement.
While discussing legal frameworks, I briefly introduced the POSH Act, 2013. Time did not permit detailed legal analysis, but one point was made unambiguously clear: knowledge of the law is not optional, and it is not gendered. Every employee, regardless of identity, bears responsibility for understanding it.
From Sensitisation to Structure: Inside the Internal Complaints Committee
The second encounter with feminism’s misrepresentation came through my appointment as an External Member of an ICC.
I remember expressing my hesitation clearly. I stated that my direct experience with POSH cases was limited and even suggested alternative names. Yet the appointment went through. Only later did I understand why.
It became evident that I was chosen not despite my reputation—but because of a certain assumption about it. Those involved seemed to believe that I would be accommodating, flexible, and—most importantly—aligned with the comfort of those “who mattered” within the institution.
This assumption proved incorrect.
I approached the role with seriousness, ensuring that the inquiry process was careful and that the final report reflected the evidence honestly. Yet, despite the clarity of the findings, no action was taken against the respondent—even when the offence was evident.
The lesson was sobering.
What the ICC Revealed About Institutional Feminism
Serving as an External Member revealed several structural failures that deserve articulation:
First, legal illiteracy within ICCs is alarmingly common. When committee members—especially chairpersons—do not fully understand how sexual harassment is defined, complaints are reduced to narrow ideas of physical assault. The law, however, recognises harassment as far more pervasive, structural, and psychological.
Second, feminist commitment does not follow gender lines. In this case, it was a male member of the committee who stood most firmly with the aggrieved woman, insisting on procedural integrity and justice. His interventions were crucial—not incidental.
Third, institutions often manipulate the requirement that a senior woman head the ICC. Too often, the “nicest” woman is chosen—not the most informed or sensitive one. Niceness here functions as a managerial strategy: complaints are handled gently, sanitised politically, and neutralised institutionally. What emerges is a version of feminism that comforts power rather than questions it.
The Illusion of Law Without Practice
Perhaps the most troubling realisation is this: the existence of a law does not guarantee justice.
Without sustained training, awareness programmes, and institutional commitment, ICCs become symbolic structures—present on paper, hollow in practice. Compliance replaces care. Procedure replaces accountability.
In such contexts, feminism is tolerated only so long as it does not disturb institutional equilibrium.
Conclusion: Feminism as Discomfort, Not Decoration
If feminism is still heard as hostility, it is because it continues to do what it was always meant to do—make visible what institutions prefer to keep invisible. It unsettles comfort. It names inequality. It insists that all is not well when systems claim otherwise.
To reduce feminism to male-bashing is not a misunderstanding.It is a strategy.
Comments
Post a Comment