I wish Bangalore had autumn, but I guess that’s too much to wish for in 2026. Speaking of, it’s time we have a conversation about feminism. At its nucleus, it is about gender equality — primarily focusing on women’s rights and treatment after centuries of political oppression and reduction. Now before I begin my monologue, I’d like to make a few distinctions: firstly, this article is not endeavouring to substantiate a claim that undermines the suffering of women in the past and present; secondly, this piece is not purposed to suggest that anybody should stop pointing out inequality; and thirdly, this work is not arguing against the notion of gender equality. That said, have we ever observed a situation outside the lens that is sensitive to particularly misogyny? Because I contend that lens is deficient in encompassing unfairness to the fullest extent. What we talk about in most historical contexts is specifically the despotism targeted toward women; they were robbed of the right to vote, the opportunities to work, or the prerogative to own land. This heinous system was established on an immensely sexist ideology, and whilst I do not deny that the motive was built on misogyny — I will, however, argue that the impacts did not remain isolated to women, but rather, most of the general population; not exactly equal in proportion, but indubitably present. Analysing further, the common pattern underlying society was reducing each gender to very narrow identities and projecting that perception onto every individual born into that particular group. Masculinity became a measure of strength, productivity, and income and likewise, femininity became a measure of beauty, fashion, and fragility. These sentiments being perpetuated bled further into the type of suffering each gender had to endure. Whilst I already stated the gist of female oppression previously, what I believe is not emphasised nearly enough is how many men were forced to participate in wars, having to leave their families with no certainty of seeing them again and potentially returning with lifelong trauma if they survived just because they were born as a male. Fashion and beauty being reserved for women made self-expression through that medium extremely difficult for a man if he did not have the wealth necessary for a private tailor as the market offered barely any options — most of the adjustments being for lapel shapes, break length, and button arrangement — and regarding make-up? What’s disappointing is that most men are still unable to escape the scrutiny of society if they dared to use an ounce of make-up on their face. Why? Are male bodies less suitable for fashion and minds less capable of emotion; are female bodies less capable of sports and minds less capable of productivity? If the answer is undoubtedly no, why are we still suffering? You may argue that society rejecting traditionally feminine things is evidence that misogyny continues to persist in modern times — but does that really erase the unfairness experienced by so many men? This corroborates how reduction of identities not only encourages injustice within a group but reflects an injustice back onto the other group. Humanity is undeniably divided into groups — but distorting these groups and generalising them to a slender perception is what plants the seeds of unfairness. This can be prevalent in the most casual, mundane of settings; take for instance a teacher deliberately places the boys strictly in the front and the girls strictly in the back, giving the justification that the boys are inherently rowdier, and therefore placing them in the front allows the teacher to monitor them. Notice something? The same pattern emerges: a group is distilled to one behaviour which does not stop at blaming the boys for something they are not responsible for but also impacts the girls whose education is sidelined and not given equal attention; it is a double effect. This principle is further upheld when, for example, propagating the message that the younger generation is good with technology because they were born in the digital age — in turn, this reduction perpetuates an inverse inference onto the older generation, that they are inherently worse with technology. Moreover, human psychology does not aid to reality, for when generalisations such as this disseminate around society, confirmation bias keeps reinforcing it rather than the truth — which is that the intrinsic quality of age does not directly imply anything about technological skill. This ubiquitous stereotype illustrates how the double effect transcends gender differences and exposes the harm of condensed identities. Humanity will know peace when an individual’s actions are judged in solitude, in lieu of projecting that behaviour onto the entire group they may belong to. This not only avoids the double effect I used in respect to gender or age, but also exposes a broader conclusion: we cannot control humanity dividing into groups of religion, race, gender, and class, but we can, as a society, awaken to the realisation that no matter how much we split, we will always bleed the same red and we all have the capacity to understand that a person — regardless of the group they may pertain themself to — has equal ability to want to experience, or experience things the same as everyone else.
This article possibly one of the most specific origins: I recently started watching Everwood and reached the scene where Delia was forced to sit in the back.
Naturally, I thought of gender inequality but it was only after looking deeper did I realise that it was unfair to both of the groups, not just the girls.
It's the first September edition, hope everyone enjoyed it :)