Gender in the roaring 2020s
Following the recent Will Smith-Chris Rock fiasco at the Oscars, a few weeks back this meme started doing the rounds on social media.
When I first saw it, I found it funny. On reflecting further, however, I realised that I could not unequivocally decide whether the meme was really that funny or was it more likely patriarchal, sexist, misogynistic, chauvinistic, feminist, or perhaps some other, more applicable, label existed out there? I figured that it could be any one of those, or a combination thereof, entirely dependent on one’s sociocultural context. Note that I invoke ‘culture’ here through a wide lens.
With the Oscar event fresh in memory, my mind went into an additional thought process:
“If a husband/boyfriend demonstrates toxic masculinity as a means of supporting his wife/girlfriend then should that behavior be celebrated and vilified? I wonder what a sociologist would say. I wonder what a feminist would say. I wonder what a sexist would say.”
A lot of wondering you may say, but that’s how I am.
To figure out what exactly I should make of that meme, I gave free reign to diving deep into the problem statement that I had generated above.
“Chris Rock as the comedian hosting the event was simply doing his job, and even if the joke was in bad taste, Will Smith did not have any right to slap him.” Said one voice within.
“Persistent focus on political correctness has made us an ultra-sensitive flaky society. However, in the case of Will Smith, he took his reaction to an extreme; far removed from any political correctness. He couldn’t manage his anger and reacted in a way that society disapproves.” Said another voice.
“Could he have defended his wife in a different way - assuming she needed to be defended? Might it be an assumption that women need their men to defend them? Voice number 3 chimed in.
“Can women also exhibit signs of toxic masculinity, misogyny, and patriarchy or are those only within the purview of men?” The fourth voice asked (also from within).
On mulling over the several questions and comments, for that last question in particular, I felt that the answer was likely a definite yes, as behaviors that are inherently sexist when internalised by women can then be manifested by them against themselves or other women.
More recently, I came across a phrase ‘white fragility’ mostly used for Caucasian males because of the sensitivity that they have apparently acquired owing to society’s over calling of toxic masculinity. To me it sounded like a defense mechanism. But is it only restricted to white men? Apparently not! White women have also started demonstrating white fragility. Sooner or later, we will hear the phrase white fragility being attributed to non-white folks too (irrespective of gender).
So, what’s the point really of this rambling essay? I think the main objective is to focus on the potential problem with overemphasising gender parity. By constantly declaring a need for gender parity, are we interested in moving towards a society in which gender is less or more important? If more important, then it defeats the purpose, in my opinion. Read below, for why I said this. If less important, then are we envisioning a gender-less or gender-neutral existence? Per that token, maybe one approach towards gender parity is recognising that both masculine and feminine traits are present in each human being. And therefore, part of the process might be to reach equilibrium between perceived extremes of gender. But then there’s a problem with that too: prior to achieving gender parity, by defining gender very narrowly (i.e. only binary), are we diminishing inclusion and diversity in society, to the detriment of those who identify themselves as non-binary (or LGBTQ+)?
Perhaps then gender needs to be considered simply a social construct that is ready to be transcended. It may bring more diversity and open more avenues of thought, without posing an existential threat to a specific group. In the very well-researched and insightful book ‘21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Harari makes a cogent case for gender fluidity. Interestingly, my own understanding of not being too stuck on gender came in a much unexpected manner. Several years back while I was still living in the US, I was enrolled in a Salsa class. Salsa, as you may recall, is a couple’s dance. In that cohort, the number of men and women wasn’t equal, hence you ended up partnering with any gender (or lack thereof) that was available. There were moments when you would have to do the ‘salsa male lead’ moves, followed by the ‘salsa female follow through’ moves. The fluidity that you acquired because of flipping between male and female moves, enhanced your skillset. And you were comfortable dancing with men, women, or genderless people, without batting an eye. Salsa, as I experienced it, became a great teacher for me. It was a beautiful demonstration of a partner dance with gender transcendence functionality to it, which helped me look past rigid gender identities.
To conclude, I do not intend to trivialise gender related issues. They are serious problems. I do feel though, that a fresh simplified outlook, sans the sexism, chauvinism, feminism, or other ism, may help us navigate this contentious issue. Zooming out of gender and looking at it much more holistically, perhaps even transcending it that way, as woke millennials and post-millennials seem to be doing, may be the more meaningful approach that us dinosaurs need to consider as well.
The author is an ER physician-researcher-innovator at Aga Khan University. He writes on topics ranging from healthcare and education to humor and popular culture. He authored 'An Itinerant Observer' (2014) and ‘MEDJACK: the extraordinary journey of an ordinary hack’ (2021).