In Kerala, a man named U Deepak died by suicide, two days after a video accusing him of sexual harassment went viral. Incidents like this are deeply tragic and raise important questions about due process, misinformation and the dangers of online litigation. However, the social reaction to this case cannot be understood in isolation. It needs to be examined in a larger socio-political context in which Violence against women is widespread, underreported and routinely dismissed. In a country where cases of sexual harassment against women are on the rise and countless women are still denied justice, such incidents – especially when the allegations later turn out to be false or unconfirmed – are deeply worrying. They risk undermining real struggles, weakening public trust and causing irreversible damage.
Public Reaction: Selective Outrage and “Not All Men”
Deepak’s suicide has evoked strong reactions from many men in Kerala. Suddenly there are demands for men’s rights, separate seats on public transport and even a commission for men. But in this moment of outrage, this reaction raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Why does public outrage only become so great when a man is affected, while the everyday suffering of women remains largely invisible? And why do so many men forget their long-held social privilege?
Deepak’s suicide has evoked strong reactions from many men in Kerala. Suddenly there are demands for men’s rights, separate seats on public transport and even a commission for men. But in this moment of outrage, this reaction raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Why does public outrage only become so great when a man is affected, while the everyday suffering of women remains largely invisible?
Violence against women is nothing new. For centuries, women have carried the fear of being touched, groped and raped without consent. Whenever violence is committed against women, society reacts with doubt, silence or Blaming the victim. Few may support her, but many ask, “What was she wearing?” or “Why was she outside at that time?” as if their decisions, and not the actions of the perpetrator, were on trial. Women suffer deep psychological suffering during this process. They become more and more exhausted from constantly having to prove their innocence, and in the midst of it all, their dignity is slowly being eroded.
FII
Another worrying trend is the rise of “not all men” hashtags. Far from contributing meaningfully to the conversation, these slogans often derail it. They function less as a call to reflection and more as a sign of defensiveness, showing how privilege seeks attention rather than responsibility. Algorithms play a crucial role in amplifying outrage against women. In a world driven by capitalist incentives, influencers often benefit from anti-feminist content because controversy and hate generate more engagement than empathy or truth. What many men forget is this: not all men, but almost every woman in the world, has experienced some form of abuse, harassment or harm, but the answer they want to focus on is “not all men.”
Gender Analysis: Performative Misogyny and Privilege
Gender is performative, as is misogyny. Judith Butler says in her book Gender Trouble: “Gender is not something you are; it is something you do, an action… a ‘doing’ rather than a ‘being’.” If gender is constituted through repeated performances, misogyny can also be understood as performative. A repeated display of patriarchal behavior designed to assert masculinity and gain recognition. To say that misogyny is performative is to argue that it is not just an internal attitude or hatred toward women, but a social practice enacted through language, behavior, rituals, and repetitions. The constant attempts by some men to demand their own commission under the pretext of protecting their rights often reflect not equality, but a deep-rooted resistance to women’s struggle and, in many cases, a form of modern misogyny.
The question is, why does the demand for men’s rights become loudest not in response to mental health crises among men, exploitation in the workplace (by men), or social pressure, but especially when women begin to speak more forcefully about their oppression?
How did legal protection for women come about? Why were women’s commissions founded? Why were laws like Section 498A, Sexual Harassment Guidelines and Domestic Violence Act brought into existence? These protections were not privileges granted out of favor; They were the hard-won result of decades of feminist struggles. They emerged in response to systemic violence, entrenched inequality and the long-standing neglect of women’s suffering. These measures are not intended to elevate women above men, but rather to correct an imbalance that society has refused to acknowledge for far too long. An imbalance is so deeply rooted that its effects cannot be eliminated overnight.
What we often see is not a sustained concern for men’s well-being, but a reactionary movement that arises whenever feminism gains visibility. The demand for men’s commissions and the rise of men’s rights activism are associated with misogyny when they are driven not by a genuine concern for men’s welfare but by hostility towards women and feminism.
What we often see is not a sustained concern for men’s well-being, but a reactionary movement that arises whenever feminism gains visibility. The demand for men’s commissions and the rise of men’s rights activism are associated with misogyny when they are driven not by a genuine concern for men’s welfare but by hostility towards women and feminism. In a society where thousands of everyday cases of violence against women remain invisible and unheard, a single tragic case involving a man goes viral and dominates public discourse. This selective outrage reveals the deep-rooted what-something attitude that many men resort to when confronted with the suffering of women. Such a backlash against women is not a pursuit of justice; It is often a public display of defensiveness that ultimately exposes their own unresolved misogyny.
Sociopolitical implications: media, algorithms and power
Today, the public discourse about gender-based violence is shaped not only by social attitudes, but also by political power structures and digital economies. In a society driven by capitalism, the digital ecosystem plays an important role in shaping this discourse. Algorithms reward outrage, not nuance. Content that attacks feminism, mocks survivors, or incites gender bias generates more engagement and is therefore amplified. Influencers and media platforms often benefit financially from polarization. Anti-feminist narratives become profitable. Misogyny is monetized. Meanwhile, stories of everyday violence against women rarely receive sustained attention.
The debate triggered by individual cases must never overshadow the structural reality of gender-based violence. Justice must be based on truth, due process and compassion for all. But justice also demands that we not erase women’s long history of suffering in the name of temporary indignation. Feminist legal protections, social movements, and institutional protections emerged not from privilege but from necessity.
What is urgently needed today is not reactionary defensiveness, but collective introspection, not as a backlash against women’s rights. True equality can only emerge when society is willing to confront its own patriarchal conditioning, challenge performative misogyny, and listen to women’s voices without suspicion or hostility.
Until then, silence will continue to protect violence, algorithms will continue to reward hate, and women will continue to bear the burden of fear. The choice before us is clear: either we move toward a more empathetic society, or we remain trapped in cycles of denial, outrage and inequality.