Society has increasingly descended into a state of gender competition. Modern interpretations of masculinity and feminism have, in some instances, engraved the idea of a gender war into the minds of their adherents. In an attempt to address historical and contemporary gender inequalities, society has created a dichotomy in which individuals increasingly see themselves as either male or female before seeing themselves simply as human beings.
Yet, in the truest sense, humanity should come before gender.
The danger of extreme gender identification lies in the tendency to perceive each gender as a distinct collective whose experiences are fundamentally incomprehensible to the other. A woman may emphasise the unique difficulties associated with childbirth, recognising that a man cannot physically experience that pain. Conversely, a man may emphasise the social responsibilities and pressures imposed upon men by a society that often expects strength, provision and emotional rigidity from them. Both experiences are real, but neither should become the foundation for a permanent division between human beings.
Human beings naturally seek belonging. This desire can sometimes transform legitimate solidarity into a form of collective defensiveness, where individuals instinctively support members of their gender even when the conduct in question ought to be condemned on universal moral grounds. The justification may be that the opposing gender lacks the lived experience necessary to understand the matter. Yet this reasoning can become dangerous when experience is treated as a prerequisite for moral judgment.
The same problem can occur in reverse. Men may judge the conduct of women according to standards derived entirely from male experiences, assuming that because a particular behaviour would be unacceptable or irrational to a man, it must necessarily be so for everyone. In both circumstances, the fundamental error is the same: identity becomes more important than principle.
The phenomenon often described as “women supporting women” illustrates this tension. Solidarity among women can be valuable, particularly where women face discrimination or structural disadvantage. However, solidarity should not become an obligation to defend wrongdoing merely because the person responsible belongs to the same gender. The same principle must apply to men. “Men supporting men” cannot become a justification for excusing misconduct simply because the accused is male.
The problem, therefore, is not solidarity itself. The problem arises when solidarity becomes gender loyalty at the expense of moral judgment.
This becomes particularly concerning when the logic of gender competition enters the legal system. Law cannot function effectively where guilt, innocence, credibility or the seriousness of an offence is determined primarily by the gender of the persons involved. The identity of an accused person or victim may form part of the circumstances of a case, but it should never replace evidence, legal principle and objective judgment.
A society divided permanently into competing male and female camps cannot achieve genuine social progress. The answer is not to deny gender or pretend that men and women have identical experiences. Rather, we must acknowledge those differences while maintaining the more fundamental truth that precedes them. We are human beings before we are members of a gender.
Men and women, persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities, and people from different social circumstances are all entitled to equal human dignity and fundamental rights.
We should therefore judge conduct by its substance, intention and consequences, rather than by the identity of the person who committed it. An attack against one gender should not merely be understood as an attack against that gender. Where the principles of human dignity and justice are violated, the injury should concern humanity as a whole.
This, in my view, is what feminism, masculinity and every serious movement concerned with human dignity should ultimately seek to achieve, not a victory of one gender over another, but a society in which our common humanity remains greater than our differences.
No comments yet. Start the conversation.