• Beyond the binary frame

The discourse on gender has historically been a site of resistance, advocacy, and social transformation. Rooted in centuries of patriarchal domination, gender debates initially emerged as platforms for amplifying women’s voices in societies where they were systematically silenced. 

These movements – feminism, suffragism, and global women’s rights campaigns – played a vital role in correcting entrenched injustices. However, as the term ‘gender’ became institutionalised in academia and policy, it began to be treated as synonymous with ‘women’ – a linguistic shortcut that gradually narrowed its conceptual reach. Gender, in its true analytical sense, is relational – it refers to the social constructions that define roles, expectations, and opportunities for all individuals, not just women. Yet, in the public discourse, men are often portrayed as the unexamined default or as the ‘other side’ of women’s struggles rather than as gendered beings in their own right.

This oversimplification distorts the purpose of gender analysis, which should examine power dynamics, inequalities, and identities across all genders. Men, like women, are bound by social scripts – expectations of toughness, emotional restraint, and dominance that harm both their mental health and their relationships. These pressures, though less discussed, represent genuine forms of gendered suffering that coexist with women’s struggles against discrimination and violence. When gender debates fail to acknowledge this duality, they risk reproducing a partial understanding of justice. True equality requires dismantling stereotypes and hierarchies on both sides, allowing every person – male, female, or otherwise – to exist beyond the constraints of gender roles. The challenge therefore, is not to shift focus away from women but to expand the lens of gender itself, transforming it from a single-issue conversation into a holistic inquiry into human dignity, interdependence, and social change.

The historical origins of gendered imbalance

The roots of associating gender with women lie in the historical trajectory of feminism and women’s rights activism. For centuries, women were denied education, property rights, political participation, and bodily autonomy, necessitating an organised movement for redress. In this struggle, ‘gender’ emerged as shorthand for women’s oppression, serving as a linguistic and political strategy to spotlight inequality. However, this framing also inadvertently cast men as the unproblematic norm, outside the purview of gender analysis. When gender studies entered academia, early scholars largely concentrated on dismantling male privilege rather than examining masculinity itself as a social construct. As a result, men became seen as the subjects of critique, not participants in transformation. This historical lineage helps explain why even contemporary gender debates often presume women as the only gendered category requiring attention, leaving male experiences underexplored.

Moreover, the post-World War II development agenda and the rise of international frameworks such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women institutionalised a woman-centred vision of gender. Global policy discourses in the 1980s and 1990s consistently defined gender equality in terms of women’s empowerment, a necessary corrective to centuries of discrimination. Yet, this corrective became a limitation when men were treated merely as obstacles to women’s progress or as passive beneficiaries of privilege. Such an approach ignored that men too, are constrained by patriarchal expectations, be it through mental health crises, workplace burnout, or restrictive fatherhood roles. Thus, the failure to integrate male vulnerabilities into the gender equality agenda perpetuated a one-dimensional understanding of social justice.

Masculinity as an overlooked construct

While femininity has been dissected, theorised, and reconstructed, masculinity has often been taken for granted or portrayed in monolithic terms. Society tends to view men as naturally dominant, competitive, and emotionally detached, without considering that these traits are culturally produced. The concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’, introduced by the Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell, highlights how certain masculine ideals marginalise not only women but also other men who fail to conform. However, mainstream gender policy seldom applies this analytical lens to improve male well-being or redefine masculine roles. When men are discussed, it is often in contexts of violence or privilege, not in terms of vulnerability or reform. This selective visibility distorts the gender discourse, reducing men to symbols of oppression rather than complex individuals shaped by cultural norms.

Consequently, men’s issues such as suicide rates, educational underachievement, workplace injuries, and post-divorce isolation remain understudied. For instance, data from many countries show that men are less likely to seek psychological help due to stigma surrounding emotional expression. Yet, these issues are rarely framed as ‘gender problems’, reflecting the persistent association of gender with women. True gender analysis must therefore interrogate how masculinity itself is socially constructed and sustained, much like femininity has been critically examined. By failing to do so, gender debates risk perpetuating silence around men’s suffering, thereby undermining the universality of gender justice.

The policy gap: gender mainstreaming without men

Gender mainstreaming, as adopted by governments and international agencies, aims to integrate gender perspectives into all policy areas. In practice however, ‘gender’ in policy documents overwhelmingly refers to women and girls. Programmes on health, education, and development often prioritise female participation while assuming that men do not require targeted interventions. This omission creates a policy vacuum where male-specific challenges like paternal leave, men’s mental health, or boys’ school dropouts, receive minimal institutional attention. As a result, policies fail to recognise that sustainable gender equality depends on transforming both men’s and women’s roles within families, workplaces, and communities.

For instance, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG Five) emphasise women’s empowerment but contain no explicit indicators addressing men’s roles in achieving equality. Such partial frameworks risk reproducing the very hierarchies that they seek to dismantle. By excluding men from gender-sensitive programming, policymakers reinforce the notion that gender issues are women’s business. True inclusivity requires policies that invite men as allies and beneficiaries of social change, not as silent spectators or adversaries. Addressing men’s needs in public policy would contribute to healthier family dynamics, equitable caregiving, and more cooperative social relations overall.

The media and the academia: perpetuating a one-sided narrative

Media representation plays a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of gender. Popular culture, news, and social media campaigns often celebrate female empowerment while portraying male struggles as secondary or self-inflicted. Such representation risks trivialising men’s experiences of exclusion or vulnerability. In the academic discourse too, the focus on feminist epistemologies, though transformative, has often left limited room for critical men’s studies or gender-inclusive research. The result is an intellectual imbalance where masculinity remains largely unexamined as a site of inequality. When men express grievances, they are sometimes dismissed as anti-feminist, which discourages constructive dialogue.

Yet, academic inclusivity does not mean diluting feminist gains but rather expanding analytical frameworks to incorporate all gendered experiences. Incorporating men’s studies alongside women’s studies would not undermine the latter but strengthen its theoretical coherence. Intersectional feminism already acknowledges that gender interacts with race, class, and sexuality; extending this principle to men enriches understanding of how different masculinities intersect with privilege and oppression. Thus, the media and the academia must move from exclusionary to dialogical spaces where men’s and women’s experiences are examined in relation, not opposition.

Towards an inclusive gender discourse

Reimagining the gender discourse demands moving beyond binary and adversarial frameworks. Recognising that both men and women are shaped by gendered expectations opens avenues for mutual liberation. Policies, education, and the public discourse should encourage empathy and shared responsibility rather than competition between the sexes. This can be achieved through initiatives that engage men in gender equality efforts, not as culprits to be corrected, but as partners in progress. Men’s involvement in child care, advocacy against gender-based violence, and emotional literacy training can serve as transformative practices that benefit everyone.

Furthermore, universities and community organisations should integrate inclusive curricula that address both masculinity and femininity as dynamic constructs. By acknowledging male vulnerabilities such as depression, unemployment, or social isolation, gender studies can become a truly holistic field. This shift requires institutional courage to challenge entrenched biases and to redefine equality as a collective human goal. Only then can the gender discourse fulfill its promise of justice and dignity for all.

Conclusion: from a women’s issue to a human issue

Today, gender debates stand at a crossroads between progress and limitation. While decades of feminist advocacy have achieved monumental gains in equality, representation, and awareness, they have also, unintentionally, circumscribed the meaning of gender to one half of humanity. As a result, men’s gendered experiences – mental health struggles, parental alienation, or vulnerability to social expectations – remain peripheral or invisible in mainstream discussions. This narrow framing undermines the foundational principle of equality, which calls for justice across all identities and experiences. It is time, therefore, to move from a gender discourse that is about women and against men to one that is for humanity.

Such a shift requires reimagining gender not as a battlefield but as a bridge between shared vulnerabilities. Recognising that patriarchy harms both women and men, though in different ways, creates the possibility of genuine solidarity. Policies, education systems, and research must incorporate men’s realities without diluting women’s gains, understanding that one group’s liberation cannot come at the expense of another’s humanity. The inclusive gender discourse will demand courage: to challenge stereotypes of masculinity, to allow empathy to replace antagonism, and to frame equality as a mutual project of social healing. When gender ceases to mean women alone, and instead signifies the complexity of all human lives shaped by expectation and inequality, the debate will finally fulfill its moral and philosophical promise to affirm that justice, in its truest form, has no gender.

(The writer is an attorney and a Senior Law Lecturer at the Colombo University)

………………………………………………………

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication