• Lessons from a viral controversy

Every year, from 25 November to 10 December, the world marks the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence (GBV), a period dedicated to reflection, advocacy, and an urgent reminder that violence against women is neither normal nor unavoidable. 

Almost one in three women globally will face violence in their lifetime, and behind every statistic is a real person, a lived experience, and a story often buried under layers of silence or stigma. 

This year’s campaign highlights new World Health Organization (WHO) data and updated global guidance to support communities, governments, and health systems in strengthening prevention efforts. It is a moment meant to re-centre compassion, accountability, and collective responsibility.

And yet, right in the middle of this global call for awareness, Sri Lankan social media found itself caught in a controversy that felt painfully familiar. An online content creator, known for family vlogs and aspirational podcasting, faced widespread criticism when a clip featuring his wife began circulating. 

In the video, she claimed that “men do not harass women unless there is encouragement, either through inviting looks, the clothing they wear, or attention-seeking behaviour”. Although she attempted to clarify that her comments did not apply to rape, the broader implication, that harassment is triggered by women, struck a deep, unsettling chord.

The backlash was swift. Many pointed out that her statements echoed longstanding harmful narratives in Sri Lanka: that women ‘invite’ harassment, that men are helpless responders to external provocation, and that safety and dignity are somehow tied to a woman’s dress or behaviour. 

These beliefs have always silenced survivors, blamed victims, and excused perpetrators. When voiced casually by someone with a platform, they reinforce myths that activists have spent decades trying to dismantle.

In an attempt to address the criticism, the couple released a longer clip where she acknowledged her privilege and noted that she did not experience public transport or the daily vulnerabilities faced by many Sri Lankan women. But this recognition was overshadowed by comments that she felt responsible to dress “modestly” so that her husband would not feel compelled to “protect” her, and that it was her duty to behave in a way that maintained his dignity. 

For many, these sentiments only deepened the concern, especially at a time when global conversations are pushing back against conservative rhetoric and the re-packaging of traditional gender roles as empowerment.

Influencers with large audiences do not speak into a vacuum. Their words shape norms, and norms shape behaviour. And as Sri Lanka joins the world in addressing GBV, it becomes especially important to interrogate how these narratives, even when offered casually, can reinforce structures that harm women and girls.

Far from harmless

Against this backdrop, The Sunday Morning Brunch reached out to several readers to understand how they felt about street harassment, non-consensual advances, and the broader attitude Sri Lanka holds towards these issues. A recurring theme was the insidiousness of casual sexism – the jokes, comments, and cultural assumptions that seem harmless until we look closer.

Kishali Rajadurai shared a story that she said perfectly captured the issue. “There is a real issue with casual sexism in our country,” she said. “One day, we were at an Avurudu celebration and there was a coconut scraping competition with the old-style scraper, the one where you sit on your side. Usually, only women are seen doing this, so the competition was for men. The announcer joked that the men who would win were the ones who had experienced domestic violence. And the crowd laughed, even the women.”

She remembers standing there stunned. “People saw me frown and probably thought I ‘don’t know how to enjoy myself’ or ‘can’t take a joke,’ but how is that funny? We throw around such serious language so casually. The idea that a man can do a household activity only because he has a ‘nagging wife’ or someone forcing him, that’s the narrative we believe. But the truth should be simple: men should be just as capable of doing household tasks as women. Where does it say women are naturally better? It’s not genetic.”

For her, these jokes are far from harmless. “This kind of casual sexism eventually shapes how men view women. If you grow up hearing that women belong in the kitchen, that they nag, that they’re emotional, that they’re objects to be controlled or pleased, then when women step outside those stereotypes, men don’t know how to handle it. And that’s where disrespect begins. That’s where entitlement begins. And in the worst cases, that’s the mindset that leads to non-consensual acts.”

Her point is simple but critical: harmful behaviour does not materialise out of nowhere. It is built slowly, over years, through normalised comments, jokes, and assumptions – the same ones repeated at festivals, in classrooms, and in podcasts. Once internalised, these ideas shape how society treats women, how men respond to them, and even how women view themselves.

A dangerous narrative of victim blaming

This sentiment was echoed by Ashila Lashani, who was blunt about the country’s ingrained culture of victim blaming. 

“This idea that the victim is to blame is so dangerous,” she said. “And it’s so normalised that I don’t even know where to begin when teaching people that we actually have to look at things from the perpetrator’s side.”

She pointed out how media framing reinforced this. “Whenever something happens, the focus is always on the victim. What was she wearing? Where was she? Who was she with? It’s never on the perpetrator. And sure, people will say, ‘Well, we know it’s a man, what more is there to say?’ But isn’t that exactly the problem? If it’s almost always a man, then we need to be looking much more closely at these men, their behaviours, their conditioning. What the victim did is irrelevant.”

Ashila also expressed frustration at the influencer’s remark about dressing modestly to ‘protect her husband’s dignity.’ “I do not know where this idea comes from, that the way we dress has anything to do with dignity or character. Clothes are just clothes. And yet, in Sri Lanka, as well as globally, we have attached so much meaning to fabric. Clothes don’t have gender. Clothes don’t have virtue. They’re for comfort and protection, nothing more.”

She acknowledged that context-specific dress codes existed but emphasised that this could not be used to justify controlling women. “We can come to a balance. But this idea that women dress to attract men, and that if they’re harassed it must be because of what they were wearing, is ludicrous.”

The online discourse, she noted, reminded many of the Susan B. Anthony Project’s What Were You Wearing exhibition. “People kept bringing it up online,” she said. “That installation showcased the actual clothing survivors were wearing when they were assaulted, and it completely destroys the myth. There were T-shirts, jeans, school uniforms, even a baby onesie. So how can anyone, in good conscience, insist that the victim ‘invited’ the violence?”

Her closing remark cut straight to the core: “If your first instinct is to ask what the woman was wearing, rather than why a man felt entitled to touch her, then the problem is with your thinking, not her clothes.”

Conservative thinking in disguise

Another perspective came from Shehani Palihawadana, who spoke about the rise of the ‘trad wife’ trend and its troubling implications. 

“This whole trad wife concept really divides women,” she said. “It creates ‘pick me’ behaviour – ‘Oh, look at me, I’m such a good girl. I’m not like those other wild girls. I behave properly, I do everything my husband wants.’” 

She paused, then added: “This is just conservative thinking making its way back in disguise, and it’s once again about controlling women. It shocks me that more people don’t see through it.”

Shehani emphasised that many women overlooked the hard-won rights that made this very discourse possible. 

“The only reason this content creator is even able to share her thoughts publicly is because women before her were radical,” she said. “They fought tirelessly for their rights. It’s incredible and honestly shocking that some women don’t recognise that the freedoms they enjoy today depend on continuing to fight for equity.”

She also addressed how the language of equality was frequently distorted by those resistant to change. “You have heard this, right? ‘If you want equality, then lift this heavy thing. Do this physical job.’ That’s weaponised incompetence,” she explained. 

“They’re twisting the word ‘equality’ on purpose. What we’re asking for isn’t literal equality in every biological function, it’s equity. It’s being treated as a full human being, with choices and dignity. And we’re still not getting that.”

For her, the way feminism is framed today is deeply concerning. “The idea of ‘radical feminists’ is ridiculous to me,” she said. “There’s no such thing as an extreme feminist, because feminism itself is a basic requirement. If even one of us stops shouting for our rights, then none of us will get them. Without those ‘wild women’ from the past, we wouldn’t be able to vote. We wouldn’t own property. We wouldn’t even be allowed to open a bank account.”

Seeing the trad wife ideology spread by women themselves feels particularly heartbreaking. “It’s shocking,” she admitted. “This kind of propaganda is designed to keep women in their place, and it’s heartbreaking to see women buying into it. I really hope we wake up and break out of this cycle.”

Ensuring meaningful change 

In the end, this controversy is about far more than a single podcast clip. It is a reminder of how harmful ideas seep into everyday conversations when we aren’t paying attention. 

Whether it’s casual sexism passed off as humour, victim blaming framed as common sense, or conservative narratives disguised as empowerment, these messages influence how people think and behave. And when they come from influencers with large audiences, the impact multiplies. 

As we observe the 16 Days of Activism, it’s worth remembering that meaningful change doesn’t come only from policy shifts or global campaigns; it comes from the beliefs we challenge, the harmful ideas we refuse to accept, and the conversations we choose to reframe. If we want a safer, more equitable world for women and girls, then every person with a platform, big or small, has a responsibility to speak with care, awareness, and accountability.