Post-Misogyny Myths: The Invisible Burden of Hyper-Equality on the Modern Man

Abstract

In an era increasingly shaped by equality narratives, a new paradigm is emerging—hyper-equality—that purports to correct gender injustices but often overlooks the nuanced challenges faced by modern men. This paper interrogates the legal, cultural, and psychological consequences of hyper-equality in a post-misogyny society, where the feminist movement’s successes have inadvertently spawned new gender asymmetries. Drawing on statutory analysis, judicial interpretation, and comparative legal frameworks, this research identifies the evolving burden on men in areas such as family law, sexual harassment proceedings, and domestic violence statutes. While recognizing the historic role of patriarchy, the paper critically evaluates whether legal systems are now inadvertently perpetuating reverse discrimination. It further discusses recent developments, including the growing debate around men’s rights legislation and policy reforms, and offers suggestions for legal and social rebalancing. The goal is not regression but recalibration an equitable legal order that genuinely serves all genders.

Introduction

The narrative of gender justice has traditionally centred around the systemic subjugation of women—a reality well documented and historically validated. However, in contemporary legal and social systems where protections for women have advanced significantly, a new imbalance has emerged. Hyper-equality—a condition in which legal or institutional measures to create gender balance overshoot, inadvertently disadvantaging men—has begun to manifest, often cloaked under the guise of progressive reform. This paper explores how certain legal frameworks, when excessively tilted toward protective feminism, can impose invisible burdens on men, creating asymmetries inconsistent with the very ideals of gender equity.While acknowledging that misogyny and patriarchy have historically harmed women, this paper investigates whether, in some areas, the pendulum has swung too far. The law, which ought to reflect a fair balancing of rights and responsibilities, now risks weaponization—where one gender is institutionally privileged over another in certain scenarios, including custody battles, alimony cases, and false sexual harassment claims. This paper uses doctrinal and comparative methodologies to unpack these issues.

Research Methodology

This research adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, involving:

1. Primary Sources: Statutes, codes, constitutional provisions, and landmark case law.
2. Secondary Sources: Scholarly articles, legal commentaries, international reports, and media analysis.
3. Comparative Method: Examining laws in other jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, and India.
4. Critical Evaluation: Assessing the functionality and fairness of laws from a gender-neutral perspective.
5. Tools: Citation Format (OSCOLA)

Data was collected through online legal databases (Indian Kanoon, Westlaw, SCC Online etc), government portals, and international human rights reports. Case laws were selected for their precedential value and social impact.

Conceptual Framework: From Patriarchy to Post-Misogyny

Post-misogyny does not suggest the absence of gender-based harm to women but indicates a societal evolution where legal reforms addressing historical oppression now coexist with emerging gender-neutral or male-specific vulnerabilities. Hyper-equality arises when legal or institutional structures disproportionately favour one gender to such an extent that they ignore context or equity.

Examples:

• Automatic child custody presumptions favouring mothers.
• Gender-biased domestic violence laws.
• Presumption of guilt in sexual assault cases against men.

Misandry vs. Misogyny: “Misandry is often dismissed as reactionary, yet studies show systemic bias against men in education, criminal justice, and family law. Participants in every category men and women of all races, ages, and social classes were quicker to associate positive attributes with women and negative attributes with men.

The participants were guilty not of misogyny but of its opposite: misandry, a bias against men. This study merely measured unconscious reactions, so it doesn’t prove that they’d discriminate against men. The many critics of implicit-bias research maintain that measures of people’s “unconscious racism” bear scant relation to their conscious behavior. But when it comes to detecting misandry, we don’t need to probe the unconscious to find it. There is overwhelming evidence of conscious, blatant, and widespread discrimination against boys and men in modern societies” by John Tierney, ‘The Misogyny Myth’ (City Journal, Summer 2023)

Statutory Provisions and Constitutional Framework

Indian Context (as a key case study)

• Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Protection of Women):
  • Provides comprehensive protection to women but does not recognize male victims.
• Section 498A, IPC:
  • Criminalizes cruelty against women by husbands or in-laws. Often critiqued for misuse.
• Section 375 & 376, IPC:
  • Defines rape with a gender-specific lens, where only women can be victims.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India
  • The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India
• Article 15(3), Constitution of India:
  • Permits affirmative action for women and children, often used to justify gender-specific laws.

Critique: These laws were essential historically but have not evolved sufficiently to incorporate gender-neutral language or applicability.

Other Jurisdictions

• UK Domestic Abuse Act, 2021: Gender-neutral in drafting and recognition of male victims.
• Canadian Divorce Act (amended 2021): Emphasizes “best interests of the child” over parental gender in custody cases.
• US Title IX Reforms: Recent debates highlight due process concerns for male students accused of sexual misconduct.

Judicial Interpretation

1. Misuse of Legal Provisions:

• Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP, (2017) 11 SCC 507:
  • Facts: Husband and family booked under Section 498A without substantial evidence.
  • Holding: SC issued guidelines against automatic arrests and recommended Family Welfare Committees.
  • Critical Evaluation: Balanced approach acknowledging misuse while preserving women’s rights.

2. Custody and Maintenance Bias:

• Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228:
  • Facts: Challenged father’s right to be natural guardian under Hindu law.
  • Holding: Court interpreted “after” in Section 6(a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as “in the absence of”, allowing maternal guardianship.
  • Issue: Still reflects the tendency to treat women as default caregivers.

3. Presumption in Sexual Offenses:

• State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, (1991) 1 SCC 57:
  • Held that a woman of “easy virtue” is still entitled to privacy and dignity.
  • Critical View: While progressive, such cases also emphasize the automatic trust placed in female testimony, sometimes leading to evidentiary imbalance.

4. Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj is a prominent voice in India raising awareness about men falsely accused under Section 498A (dowry harassment), Domestic Violence Act, and in divorce/alimony cases. She has produced documentaries, interviews, and articles on many such cases.

Here are some notable cases and insights into how some men in India have alleged harassment by their wives in divorce and alimony disputes, with activist Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj playing a prominent role in highlighting these issues:

 Case: Man Wins Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty, Still Pays Alimony

• A man fought a 10-year legal battle and won a divorce on grounds of cruelty.
• Despite his ex-wife earning ₹60,000/month, he was ordered to pay ₹30 lakh in alimony.
• Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj shared this case on social media, questioning whether laws meant to empower women are being misused to exploit men.
• Her post sparked widespread debate, with many questioning the fairness of such rulings and the slow pace of justice.

 Suicide Cases Linked to Alleged Harassment

Several tragic cases have emerged where men died by suicide, allegedly due to false accusations and prolonged legal battles:

• Deepika Bhardwaj’s documentary Martyrs of Marriage (2016), it showed similar kind of stories of male allegedly falsely accused under Section 498A IPC (now BNS 85/86).
• She founded the Ekam Nyaay Foundation, which supports men facing legal harassment.

 Men’s Rights Movement in India

• Activists argue that false domestic violence and dowry claims are weaponized in divorce disputes.
• Public protests and memorials have been held, demanding reforms and protections for men.
• Deepika and others emphasize that the judicial and police systems often overlook male vulnerabilities, leading to emotional and financial ruin.

Critical Analysis

1. Loopholes and Ambiguities

• Presumption of Innocence vs. Presumption of Guilt:
  • Laws like Section 375 IPC inherently presume male guilt once certain thresholds are met, risking fair trial rights.
• No Statutory Recognition of Male Victims:
  • Domestic violence and sexual harassment statutes largely exclude male victims or transgender individuals.
• Custodial Bias:
  • In family law, women are often awarded custody irrespective of the father’s capability or wishes.

2. Comparative Perspective

• UK:
  • Gender-neutral language in domestic abuse laws enables male victims to seek redress.
• Sweden:
  • Recognizes male victims of sexual violence and provides state support.
• India:
  • Still lags in gender neutrality, often guided by protective but outdated notions of female vulnerability.

Recent Developments

• Men’s Rights Movement in India:
  • Increasing calls for a “Men’s Commission” similar to the NCW, led by organizations like the Save Indian Family Foundation, continues to push for gender-neutral legal protections. They highlight cases of abuse and harassment that men face, often without recourse, and advocate for systemic reforms.
• 2022 Parliamentary Debates:
  • Discussions around making domestic violence laws gender-neutral; yet no substantive action taken.
• Media Narratives:
  • Several high-profile cases (e.g., actor Karan Oberoi’s false rape accusation) shifted public perception.
• Judicial Trend:
  • Growing acknowledgment of misuse (e.g., Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273) but legislative inertia persists.

Suggestions

1. Gender-Neutral Legislation:
   • Amend laws like DV Act and sexual assault provisions to include all genders.
2. Men’s Commission:
   • Establish an independent statutory body to address grievances of male victims of gender-biased laws. A statutory body which support and understand the male victims and not manipulative.
3. Mandatory Penal Provisions for False Complaints:
   • Introduce deterrents for misuse of gender laws, without discouraging genuine complainants.
4. Equal Parental Rights:
   • Reform custody laws to reflect equal parenting responsibilities.
5. Due Process Protections:
   • Particularly in sexual harassment cases in educational or workplace settings, where reputational damage is irreversible.
6. Legal Experts:
   • Creating checks by Family law experts before any arrest in matrimonial cases, fast tracking of mendacity complaints, mandatory mediation.

7. Public Discourse:

1. • Public agenda, public debate, social media, legal forum, NGO, mental health organizations are growing and addressing the neglect of male suffering in matrimonial breakdowns.

8. Verifying the credentials:

1. • In matrimonial alliances, due diligence regarding a prospective partner’s personal and legal history is essential, as failure to verify credentials may inadvertently expose individuals to matrimonial disputes, emotional distress, or even litigation; a prior record of marital discord or ongoing legal proceedings, if undisclosed, can significantly compromise the safety and well-being of the other party.

Conclusion

The journey from patriarchy to equality is both necessary and laudable. However, in striving to uplift one gender, the legal system must guard against creating new forms of structural imbalance. Hyper-equality is not true equality; it is an overcorrection that risks breeding silent injustices. This research shows that modern men, though historically privileged, now bear legal burdens that are often invisible in the discourse on justice. It is time for a recalibration—laws that empower the vulnerable, punish the guilty, but never generalize guilt based on gender. Justice, after all, must be blind—not selectively sighted. The principle of gender equality necessitates that both spouses—irrespective of sex—be afforded equal protection under the law, equal access to legal remedies, and unbiased adjudication of rights and liabilities. The administration of justice must remain free from presumptive bias, recognizing that grievances, abuse, or misconduct may arise on either side of the marital relationship. Equity before the law in matrimonial matters is not merely a constitutional mandate but a prerequisite for ensuring substantive justice in familial disputes.”

Reference(S):

1. Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP, (2017) 11 SCC 507. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182220573/
2. Githa Hariharan v. RBI, (1999) 2 SCC 228. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/hindu-law/githa-hariharan-v-reserve-bank-of-india-1999-2-scc-228
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/code-of-criminal-procedure/arnesh-kumar-v-state-of-bihar-2014-8-scc-273
4. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, (1991) 1 SCC 57. https://thelegallock.com/case-brief-state-of-maharashtra-v-madhukar-narayan-mardikar-1991-1-scc-57/
5. John Tierney, ‘The Misogyny Myth’ (City Journal, Summer 2023) https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-misogyny-myth
6. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (India). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655530/
7. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. Constitution of India | Legislative Department | India
9. Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (UK) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Abuse_Act_2021
10. “Martyrs of Marriage”. IMDb. 2016- Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj