Manoj Jinadasa

25/07/2025

Gender and Child Abuse: Are Men or Women More Often the Perpetrators?

Who abuses children – men or women – today?

Why Are Women More Involved in Modern-Day Child S*xual Abuse?
Why Is Child Abuse by Women Purposely Neglected in Today’s Sri Lankan Gender-Centered Child Abuse Conferences?
Is It Culturally Vacant and Neglected?
Who Abuses Children More — Men or Women?
Why Are Men More Frequently Accused of Culturally Indecent, S*xually Abusive, and Harmful Behavior?
Why Are Men Marginalized and Vilified by Women in Sri Lankan Gender Discourses? If This Is True, Why Is It So Pervasive—even in Global Gender Dialogues?

Why Are Men Harassed, Discriminated Against, Tortured, and Abused by Women and Girls Today? This Is a Hot Topic in the Study of Masculinity and Manliness at the Intersection of Gender, Ideology, Critical Culture, Feminism, and Modern-Day Critical Cultural Sciences.

Theoretical Preamble

Contemporary understandings of child abuse have long been dominated by narratives positioning men as the primary perpetrators and women as passive victims. This perspective is deeply rooted in traditional feminist and patriarchal frameworks (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Kelly, 1988). However, recent feminist scholarship urges a more nuanced view that recognizes women’s capacity to perpetrate abuse, especially within institutional and familial contexts, thereby challenging hegemonic assumptions of female innocence (Bourke, 2007; Mullender & Morley, 2010).

Intersectionality theory further reveals how overlapping social identities—including gender, age, and postcolonial histories—influence both the experience and societal acknowledgment of abuse, often marginalizing cases where women are the abusers (Crenshaw, 1989; Mohanty, 2003). Social learning theory explains how abusive behaviors may be transmitted through cultural and social environments, highlighting the cyclical nature of abuse regardless of the perpetrator’s gender (Bandura, 1977).

Additionally, gender role theory and emerging discussions of toxic femininity illustrate how societal expectations and stereotypes contribute to the invisibility or minimization of female-perpetrated abuse (Eagly, 1987; Coffey, 2019). Critical criminology points to the role of institutional power and systemic failures in allowing abuse by female authority figures to go unchecked (Adler & Adler, 2012). Finally, trauma-informed frameworks emphasize the complex dynamics between victims and perpetrators, recognizing that women who abuse children may themselves have experienced trauma. This complicates simplistic binaries and necessitates a holistic approach to understanding and addressing child abuse (Herman, 2015).

These theoretical insights collectively underscore the need to critically reassess prevailing discourses on child abuse, especially within postcolonial societies like Sri Lanka, where cultural and institutional biases continue to obscure the full spectrum of abuse dynamics.

Body

S*xually transmitted diseases, HIV, child abuse, violence, and aggression are among the modern public health concerns heavily featured in popular media discourse. These terms are often used primarily to condemn men, reflecting a typical hegemonic, toxic, and dominant cultural narrative that scapegoats men. Within this framework, public health discourses frequently misuse women’s positions by attributing all these negative behaviors to men as a cultural norm.

In reality, more child abuse is committed by women than is often acknowledged. For example, recent Sri Lankan cases—as well as global evidence—reveal how elder women s*xually exploit younger men and boys. This form of child s*xual abuse by elder women is frequently overlooked. In Sri Lanka, some elder women, such as school teachers and managers in both private and public sectors, have been accused of s*xually abusing boys.

My argument is that, in the complex postcolonial context, blame and stigma are disproportionately placed on men, casting them as the sole abusers and erasing other forms of abuse. This singular focus obscures the involvement of women as perpetrators in many cases.

Secondly, child abuse cases often undermine the reality that almost all human beings experience some form of abuse—verbal or physical—at some point before reaching adulthood. One notable study conducted by a forensic medical professor formerly at Ruhuna Medical Faculty found that over 85% of young people entering Sri Lankan national universities have experienced some form of s*xual abuse during early adolescence.

Globally, regionally, and locally, more evidence is emerging to confirm that a large majority (over 85%) of the population experiences s*xual and child abuse during adolescence. Such abuse becomes embedded as a form of biological and cultural socialization, contributing in complex ways to personality development and social integration.

This controversial and intense debate, however, is neglected in today’s local, regional, and global academic dialogues, which tend to focus narrowly on child abuse through a gendered lens. This focus overlooks the need for a more careful and clinical cultural investigation into the wider dynamics of abuse, including the roles of women as perpetrators and the broader societal patterns that perpetuate abuse.

Conclusion

Child abuse is not only about s*xual abuse but also includes verbal, physical, psychological, and professional abuse—from parenthood to family life, from mothers to wives, from workplace senior managers to clinical medical consultants and university professors. Women today are involved in more abusive behaviors toward men across these domains. This evolving gender debate engages with how women, in parental roles, romantic partnerships, and professional settings, exert verbal, mental, physical, and even s*xual power over men. Even in daily situations—whether on public transport, at home, or in the workplace—women’s abuse of men is becoming a significant topic of global academic discussion.

Furthermore, within contemporary feminist rights and emancipation movements, women’s increased subservience in society paradoxically coexists with their growing exercise of power—verbally, mentally, and physically—over men. This dynamic, observed from the global North to the global South, permeates private and public spheres and is increasingly evidenced in the complex politics of gender and s*xuality.

Also, from motherly treatment in early childhood to adolescent care by elder sisters, from romantic relationships with female partners to married s*x life, and from workplace duties to official roles, more men are subjected to abuse, torture, and harassment by women. This organizational and institutional gendered s*xual and bodily power dynamic is clearly evident in contemporary Sri Lankan s*xual and institutional politics.

References
Adler, F., & Adler, P. (2012). Criminology (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bourke, J. (2007). Female s*xual abuse of children: The ultimate taboo. Palgrave Macmillan.
Coffey, C. (2019). The limits of toxic femininity: Gendered perspectives on female violence. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(3), 270–283.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and s*x. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. Free Press.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). S*x differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Erlbaum.
Herman, J. L. (2015). Trauma and recovery (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving s*xual violence. Polity Press.
Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. Duke University Press.
Mullender, A., & Morley, R. (2010). Women who abuse children: From the shadows to the front line. British Journal of Social Work, 40(6), 1876–1883.

…………………

Image source; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55338745

24/07/2025

22/07/2025

Copycat Curricula and the Crisis of Education: Reclaiming Human-Centered Learning for a Sri Lankan Future

This article is informed by critical pedagogy, decolonial theory, postcolonial education critique, and affective learning theory to interrogate the structural crisis in Sri Lanka’s education system. Paulo Freire’s (1970) theory of critical pedagogy emphasizes that education must move beyond mechanical instruction and foster dialogical engagement, where learners are empowered to reflect critically on their realities. Echoing this, bell hooks (1994) highlights that education should be an experience of freedom, not one of domination or alienation. In the context of postcolonial societies like Sri Lanka, Walter D. Mignolo (2011) and Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2014) argue that the persistent imitation of Western curricula reflects the coloniality of knowledge, which suppresses local epistemologies and leads to an educational system that is both uncritical and irrelevant to local cultural needs. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1993) further critiques postcolonial education as a site of “sanctioned ignorance,” where the voices and values of the subaltern are erased in favor of globalized, elite narratives. This results in what Homi K. Bhabha (1994) calls “mimicry,” a condition where colonial subjects adopt foreign forms of knowledge that ultimately estrange them from their own contexts. Furthermore, Gert J.J. Biesta (2010) and Brian Massumi (2002) provide insights into the affective dimensions of learning, emphasizing that genuine education must go beyond qualification and measurable performance to embrace the emotional, creative, and human aspects of the learning process. Together, these frameworks support the article’s central argument: Sri Lankan education must shift from a technocratic, Westernized, and alienating model to one that is culturally rooted, dialogical, aesthetic, and human-centered.

What Happened to Our National State Education?

One observation I have made is that there is an unnecessary workload imposed within national state universities in Sri Lanka. Both undergraduate and postgraduate students, along with academic staff, are burdened with excessive schedules and assignments. However, very few actually enjoy the process of learning or teaching. Why is this the case?

Our current education model appears to be a superficial "cut and paste" approach, primarily shaped by the demands and requirements of international donor agencies such as the World Bank, IMF, the UN, and UNICEF. While these agencies provide financial assistance to enhance the capacity and resources of national education systems, they often require us to adapt and adopt Western-centric education models—predominantly from the USA, UK, and other dominant global powers.

The failure to successfully implement these models lies in the fact that our educational leaders and consultants tend to adopt these foreign frameworks only at a surface level, without engaging deeply with their underlying pedagogical values or cultural contexts. As a result, across primary, secondary, tertiary, and postgraduate levels, our education system has increasingly become a mechanical imitation. We have adopted semester systems, mid-semester exams, and other procedural structures without critically adapting them to our own realities.

Consequently, our curricula have become a kind of “fruit salad,” assembled through fragmented and uncritical incorporation of diverse course units—ranging from IT, gender studies, s*xuality, and culture to language and religious studies. Despite this variety, neither students nor teachers seem to experience genuine job satisfaction or personal fulfillment in the processes of learning or teaching. This is a critical point worth exploring further in the discourse on national education reform.

________________________________________

A Critical View of Schooling, Tuition, and the Crisis of Imagination in Sri Lankan Education

Another significant issue is that from early childhood through to school education, children are subjected to an unbearable workload. This burden begins with the expectations placed by parents, families, and teachers, and is driven by an education system that is largely a superficial imitation—merely a "cut and paste" of so-called Western or globally developed educational models. These models emphasize surface-level performance and appearance rather than cultivating deep learning or contextual relevance.

A third and even more alarming concern is the widespread abuse and exploitation of children by the mafia-like private tuition industry. This black market in education, which operates unchecked, has effectively hijacked the entire learning process. The government and respective state institutions have failed to regulate or restrict this sector, allowing private tuition businesses to flourish at the cost of children's cognitive and emotional development.

From early adolescence to postgraduate levels, students are trained to memorize and reproduce prefabricated answers solely to obtain high grades in competitive exams such as the O/L and A/L. This approach stifles creativity, independent thinking, and imagination. By the time students enter university, many are unable to think critically or creatively. Even at the university level, the system pressures undergraduates to mechanically fill forms and submit technical assignments according to rigid semester and mid-semester timelines, leaving little space for reflective or transformative learning.

As a result, our youth are being overworked, mentally exhausted, and psychologically tormented during what should be the most vibrant and exploratory period of their lives. Consequently, not only students, but also parents, teachers, and the general public have become disillusioned, suppressed, and depressed by the condition of Sri Lanka’s national state education system. What we are left with is a fake, unproductive, and unnecessary enterprise—one that produces degree-holders without real capacity or vision, across fields ranging from medicine and engineering to the arts and social sciences.

________________________________________

Are We Still Human in Our Education System? A Reflection on Cultural Alienation and Institutional Failure

What I observe is deeply concerning: children, teachers, and even parents are no longer treated—or treating themselves—as human beings within the education system. They are trapped in a cycle of relentless competition, depressive mental states, and a complete absence of human sensibility, aesthetic appreciation, leisure, and the simple pleasures of life. All this occurs during what should be the most meaningful and vibrant period of their lives.

This brings me to a critical question: Is this truly the aim and vision of our national state education system? Despite the government and the state allocating significant financial resources, time, and international grants to improve national education, the core human and cultural purpose of education appears lost. This is my fundamental interrogation.

Take, for instance, the field of media studies. As a discipline, media and journalism theories predominantly originate from Western countries—especially the USA, UK, and Europe. Consequently, what we teach and learn in Sri Lankan classrooms tends to mimic Western frameworks and industry models. However, this imitation often yields little to no meaningful results—either in the classroom or in the actual media industry.

Why? Because these theories are rooted in the specific cultural, political, and historical contexts of the West. We attempt to transplant them into a South Asian context without critically adapting them or developing alternative models that suit our own cultural, social, and intellectual realities. There is little effort made to ask: How can we build media theories and practices that reflect the lived experiences, needs, and consciousness of the Asian person?

In other words, our educational system—from medicine to engineering, from arts to management and social sciences—rarely explores or integrates our own cultural heritage, social structures, or ways of thinking. Instead, it continues to adopt and copy foreign, culturally alien models and theories that are often irrelevant to our context. This uncritical importation of Western knowledge not only undermines intellectual autonomy but also estranges us from the possibility of building a truly localized and humanized educational practice.

________________________________________
Toward a More Humane and Creative National Education: A Call for Reform

As a remedy to this troubling situation, my first suggestion is that our national education system must begin by creating better human beings—individuals who experience aesthetic fulfillment, emotional freedom, and mental liberation in their learning environments. Classrooms should be places of ease, inspiration, and joy in both teaching and learning, rather than sites of suppression and depression caused by an overwhelming and often unproductive technical workload in the name of evaluation.

Instead of relying solely on rigid examinations and heavy written assignments, we should adopt more holistic and meaningful methods to assess what students have genuinely learned. Evaluation should take place through in-class tests, outdoor learning, group debates, creative dialogues, and real-world problem-solving scenarios. Students should be encouraged to engage with their environments and communities in ways that develop critical thinking, creativity, and cooperative skills.

Yet, what we continue to follow is an outdated and mechanical model—paper-based, time-bound end-semester exams conducted in examination halls, alongside a constant stream of written assignments. This method fails to recognize or reward the capacity to address real-world challenges creatively or to apply aesthetic and emotional intelligence in practical, collaborative ways. Both students and teachers are trapped in isolated, individualized modes of performance and assessment, which limits their ability to experience collective joy and intellectual freedom.

In short, I strongly argue that we must urgently reform our national education setup to create more space for leisure, recreation, and human flourishing. If we fail to do this, we risk creating a generation of mentally exhausted, emotionally disconnected individuals who might one day populate our schools and universities with symptoms of psychological distress—perhaps even resembling “nutcases” or inmates in a lunatic asylum. This would be a tragic contradiction to the original aims and vision of our national state education system: to uplift and empower human potential, not diminish it.

________________________________________

Creating a Locally Rooted and Purpose-Driven Curriculum: A Critical Call for Educational Reform

First and foremost, we must rethink and reconstruct the kind of curriculum we truly need—one that is sustainable, relevant, and grounded in the economic, social, and cultural needs of our own country. For far too long, we have blindly followed a "copy-and-paste" model of education, transplanting foreign theories and frameworks without carefully asking ourselves: What is the purpose of our education system? Whom do we aim to produce? What are our actual targets and desired outcomes for our students? And more importantly, how should our teaching and evaluation systems reflect these aims?

What we witness today is a system overwhelmed by performative workloads. Teachers and students, from early morning until midnight, are buried under endless assignments, exams, and documentation—yet devoid of real intellectual life, joy, or human development. Whether in the faculties of medicine, engineering, sciences, management, arts, or social sciences—from primary and secondary schooling to tertiary and postgraduate education—there is little evidence of personal fulfillment or educational satisfaction.

Instead, both students and educators seem to be trapped in a state of disconnection, stress, and mental exhaustion—almost hallucinated or anesthetized—by an education system that is alien to their lived realities. This system, largely imitative of foreign and incompatible Western models, fails to resonate with the cultural and societal needs of South Asian, and specifically Sri Lankan, contexts.

Our obsession with becoming a “world-class” education system has resulted in an uncritical adoption of Western theories and structures, while neglecting the urgent need to develop our own national educational philosophy and practice. What we need is an education system that genuinely reflects our local priorities—one that fosters good citizenship, civilizational consciousness, and meaningful public development suited for the 21st century.

We must move beyond imitation and toward innovation—creating and implementing curricula and policies that align with our local values, aspirations, and the collective well-being of our people.

………………….

Image Source; https://crpe.org/resilience-hope-and-the-power-of-the-collective-what-puerto-rico-can-teach-the-states-about-education-reform/

21/07/2025

Who Owns the University? Power, Trust, and the Personal Politics of Public Education in Sri Lanka

Who Decides the Trust of the Public and the Power of the People in Sri Lankan Universities?

Who determines the trust of the public and the distribution of power in academic and administrative decisions within Sri Lankan universities? Why are the voices of the people—students, staff, and citizens—so often neglected, while power is exercised arbitrarily to serve institutional interests, donor agencies, and bureaucratic convenience? Why is there so little regard for democratic participation when decisions are instead made clandestinely by a small circle of individuals or committees with unchecked authority?

Who truly governs our national education policy? Is it the Sri Lankan state, the people, or external financial and regulatory bodies from the Global North? Are decisions made to satisfy the expectations of international donors, or do we genuinely aim to meet the educational aspirations of our local, regional, and national communities—particularly in the context of modern higher and secondary education?

Why is it that when a chief executive officer or top administrator unilaterally takes decisions affecting public institutions, we fail to consider the people’s preferences and needs? Too often, such decisions are made to consolidate personal power, secure future positions, or fulfill individual ambitions, rather than to ensure institutional well-being or public accountability.

From my observation—especially within the humanities and social sciences—many senior academic leaders from older generations tend not to listen to the voices of the youth. They resist engaging with the evolving expectations, ideals, and ways of life that young people bring into the university space. This generational disconnection fosters frustration and disengagement, weakening the very institutions meant to serve the next generation.

Why is it that once individuals ascend to positions of power in academia, they become dismissive of the very communities they are meant to serve? Students, lecturers, administrative staff, and external stakeholders are treated as passive recipients of top-down decisions. When these individuals express dissent or request inclusion in decision-making processes, they are often labeled as troublemakers or penalized.

Even in 2025, we witness the continued marginalization and trivialization of youth voices by institutional leaders funded by public money. Those who challenge outdated political ideologies or resist authoritarian managerial styles are frequently ostracized or silenced. It is disheartening that leadership in public institutions can still be shaped by such narrow personal or political interests.

Despite our public declarations about democracy, social justice, and the value of free education, many decision-makers continue to act in service of institutional hierarchies, self-promotion, and performative authority. This tendency is not exclusive to the public sphere—it is mirrored in the private conduct of many officials who treat leadership as a means of domination rather than service.

We must reflect on how leadership at all levels—particularly in universities—treats those closest to them. Students, educators, and staff are not pawns to be managed, but partners in education. Yet, from history to the digital present, we continue to trivialize, silence, and exploit those who seek meaningful engagement.

People, however, still hold the capacity to think critically and act with dignity. We must learn to respect each other, even when disagreement arises. Educators, administrators, and university leaders—especially those shaping curricula and institutional governance—must exercise their power ethically and with accountability. Institutions must foster leadership that serves justice, inclusion, and meaningful reform.

It is time to move away from exploiting youth labour and time for selfish ambitions, political schemes, or even personal romantic or s*xual gratification by individuals in power. Educational and institutional spaces should never become playgrounds for personal gain—especially not under the guise of administrative authority or academic legitimacy.

Instead, we must liberate these spaces by building authentic, ethical, and participatory structures of governance. The future of Sri Lankan education depends on trust, transparency, and the empowerment of collective voices. Institutions must reflect the people’s values—not the idiosyncrasies or indulgences of a few.

Universities must embody public accountability, ensuring that both international stakeholders and local communities can contribute meaningfully, with dignity and in genuine partnership. Only by aligning our institutions with the broader cultural, social, and economic aspirations of the people can we achieve the true goals of higher education—intellectual growth, national development, and human flourishing.

In other words, public, tax-funded national education institutions are not private homes or personal territories where individuals are free to impose selfish or arbitrary decisions. These institutions exist to serve the collective public interest. Leadership must therefore be guided by honesty, dignity, and a commitment to justice and peace. It is unacceptable for officials to perform political theatrics or pursue personal interests under the guise of public service, while the very people who fund and rely on these institutions are denied their rights and voices.

This contrast becomes even more troubling when we observe how many top professionals—doctors, professors, and university administrators—who often migrate to the West, adapt themselves obediently to those systems, respecting public trust and legal frameworks abroad without protest. Yet, these same individuals remain silent about or participate in the corruption, exploitation, and mismanagement they helped perpetuate back home. It is Sri Lanka—and particularly its youth—who bear the cost of these institutional failures, which are driven by colonial residues, feudal mentalities, and deeply entrenched oligarchic power structures.

To overcome this, we must decolonize our institutions, democratize our decision-making, and reorient our educational values toward the people. Only then can we reclaim our universities as places of integrity, truth, and collective empowerment.

Put simply, if our state-run education system continues to harm the very people it is meant to serve—particularly poor, rural taxpayers and their children—how can we expect genuine social or structural change? Can these changes truly be led by the same corrupt, outdated, and authoritarian elites who continue to dominate our institutions?

The time has come to change our own mindsets. We must ask whether we ourselves contribute to this harm through our performative displays of power—or whether we can shift toward a professional, ethical, and impersonal management culture. A culture where leadership is not about control, but about empowering people without prejudice, discrimination, or the selfish pursuit of authority.

Sri Lanka has long awaited a system of national education that is fair, just, and excellent. That transformation will only happen when we move beyond power for its own sake and begin to center the public good at the heart of every educational institution.

We must recognize how our own psychological patterns—our internalized colonial subservience, our need for dominance, and our emotional suppression—are not only harming others but deeply damaging our own inner peace and ethical clarity. Why do we continue to violate the natural beauty and harmony of humane academic governance in this country?

Ultimately, whether we serve institutions or ourselves is determined by the mindset we cultivate. Only when we pursue inner liberation can we enable collective emancipation—transforming institutional cultures into ethical, inclusive, and people-centered spaces of learning.
……………………

Image source; https://www.shutterstock.com/search/arbitrary-decision

18/07/2025

When Gender Studies Becomes Gendered Power: Women’s Hegemonic Subjectivities and the Policing of Male and Non-Heteros*xual Identities in Sri Lankan Universities

Is gender discourse an extremist and imbalanced domain dominated by woman-centric perspectives? If so, why and how is it formed and constructed?

Why are gender centers in Sri Lankan state universities dominated by women’s subjectivities, often hegemonic? Is gender discourse framed as an expression of anger and extremist subjectivity rooted in personal conflicts with males, marital partners, or socially stigmatized non-heteros*xual intimacies? Why do women dominate gender discourse and gender centers, shaping it as a woman-centric ideology? Is gender discourse reduced to a form of womanizing personal politics centered on s*x and male suppression? Why are males underrepresented and marginalized in the current critical cultural discussions on gender and s*xuality? Additionally, why do some males feel alienated by perceptions of females being accused of same-s*x behavior, homos*xuality, or s*xual misconduct within state universities?

Is gender studies an individual personal quarrel between male and female rights in the heteros*xual family? What makes gender so important today?

Today, I aim to offer a theoretical revolt against these ontological skepticisms and to explore a critical cultural epistemology that includes women marginalized by dominant gender discourse and men accused of incongruence with hegemonic heteros*xually metamorphosed utopian gender dialogues in Sri Lanka’s state universities’ institutional gender politics.

This article explores how colonial s*xual morality continues to shape gender studies centers in Sri Lankan academia, despite the field’s global reputation as progressive and inclusive. Rooted in outdated colonial-era laws and heteronormative patriarchy, these institutions often replicate exclusion and moral policing rather than fostering true s*xual citizenship. Using postcolonial feminist and q***r theory, and drawing on scholars such as Puar (2007), Menon (2012), and Berlant (2011), the article reveals how liberation efforts are constrained by lingering colonial power structures. It argues for a critical deconstruction of these legacies and calls for an intersectional, inclusive reimagining of gender justice that embraces diverse identities and s*xualities beyond colonial frameworks.

________________________________________

Theoretical Context: Gender Studies, Feminist Hegemony, and Male Underrepresentation

The phenomenon of gender studies as a predominantly female domain is well-documented globally. Feminist theory historically catalyzed gender studies as a critical field, emphasizing women’s experiences to disrupt patriarchal structures (Scott, 1999; Butler, 1990, 2004). This focus positioned women as both subjects and agents of feminist critique.

However, recent critiques, notably by Raewyn Connell (2005) and Michael Kimmel (2017), highlight risks of “feminist hegemony” when men and masculinities are marginalized or framed problematically as antagonists. Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity reveals how certain masculinities become culturally dominant yet fractured, necessitating an inclusive discourse engaging men without reinforcing binaries or adversarial relations.

In Sri Lanka, the underrepresentation of men in gender studies centers can be understood through intersectional feminist critiques (Crenshaw, 1991), which highlight how gender, race, class, and postcolonial legacies intersect to shape academic participation. Female dominance may reflect local socio-cultural dynamics and visible political activism by women’s rights movements but exposes institutional challenges in integrating masculinity studies or engaging male scholars.

Postcolonial feminist theorists like Nivedita Menon (2012) and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1988) urge consideration of how colonial and neo-colonial academic structures shape gender studies content, access, and power dynamics. These legacies often enforce rigid identities, excluding nuanced discussions of male vulnerability, q***r identities, and non-normative s*xualities, contributing to women’s subjectivities predominating while men remain marginalized or misunderstood.

Understanding male underrepresentation in Sri Lankan gender studies requires situating it within this broader theoretical context: the evolution of feminist discourse, critique of hegemonic gender relations, and postcolonial shaping of academic and social power. This enables critical examination of how gender studies might transcend a “womanizing” narrative toward an inclusive, intersectional field engaging all gendered experiences.

________________________________________

What Is Gender Studies?

Is gender studies merely a form of anger expressed by suppressed women reacting against socially imposed heteronormative roles? Does it reflect frustration over failing to conform to birth-assigned cisgender roles? Is it a voice for those whose experiences do not align with normative gender expectations—cisgender or otherwise? Does it challenge stereotypical binary gender as male or female assigned at birth?

This essay explores gender studies as a critical, interdisciplinary field emerging in the late 20th century as a response to lived gendered realities. Rooted in struggles against s*xual, social, and institutional hierarchies imposed by heteronormative patriarchy, gender studies examines how identities are constructed, regulated, resisted, and reimagined beyond binaries.

________________________________________

A Critical Reflection on Gender Studies in Sri Lanka: Whose Voices Are Heard?

Why is Sri Lankan gender studies still predominantly dominated by women rather than reflecting an inclusive space for men, women, and non-binary individuals? Shouldn’t it offer a holistic framework to discuss s*xual and gender rights representing diverse human experiences?

A close colleague shared a story highlighting this imbalance: a male senior lecturer invited to speak at a gender workshop was disinvited due to an unverified accusation of soliciting a same-s*x relationship with a student. This exclusion based on rumor exemplifies how gender discourse in Sri Lankan academia is shaped by exclusionary hegemonies. These spaces lack critical self-reflection on internal hierarchies; ironically, some women within these spaces are disillusioned by dominant voices asserting ideological authority rather than fostering inclusivity.

Gender studies risks narrowing to women’s rights within heteros*xual families, sometimes adopting extremist views portraying men as inherently oppressive. Critiquing patriarchy is essential, but gender studies must avoid replicating exclusionary power through censorship or moral absolutism.

Are we in Sri Lanka genuinely engaging with evolving global, regional, and local gender discourses? At its best, gender studies cultivates empathy, expands understanding of diverse identities, and promotes collaborative human development, recognizing emotions, desires, and relationships beyond birth-assigned gender or societal norms.

Inclusion means more than symbolic representation; it demands engaging marginalized voices—gender nonconforming, same-s*x desire, trans identities, and non-hegemonic heteros*xual masculinities—and challenging heteronormative, patriarchal, and elitist academic norms.

Ultimately, gender studies should be a space of liberation—for body and mind—not exclusion or moral policing, fulfilling its true purpose: cultivating a just, empathetic, and inclusive world.

________________________________________

The Need for Inclusive Gender Discourse in Sri Lanka: Beyond Heteronormative Censorship

Sri Lankan gender discourse urgently needs to address the exclusion of men or gender nonconforming individuals accused of misconduct, challenging heteros*xual patriarchal norms. Gender centers must approach such cases with nuance and ethical clarity, not moral panic or punitive exclusion.

Misconduct allegations must be taken seriously, but disqualifying individuals from academic participation solely based on discomfort with their same-s*x intimacy or non-normative gender expression risks reinforcing colonial penal codes and Victorian moral frameworks, not justice or human rights.

Gender studies centers acting as moral gatekeepers—excluding those transgressing heteronormativity without inquiry—undermine their transformative mission. Their role is to challenge binary colonial definitions of masculinity and femininity, opening space for liberation and diversity.

Contemporary gender discourse, globally and increasingly in Sri Lanka, recognizes s*xual and romantic experiences as existing along wide spectra beyond heteronormative categories, shaped but not limited by cultural, religious, and legal contexts.

Silencing or excluding those who deviate denies modern s*xual citizenship complexity. Scholars like Diane Richardson, David Evans, Lauren Berlant, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Nivedita Menon, Uma Chakravarti, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Malathi de Alwis, Kumari Jayawardena, Savitri Goonesekere, and Selvy Thiruchandran emphasize engaging diverse lived experiences across caste, class, s*xuality, and identity.

Gender studies is not only academic—it is political and ethical. It must create inclusive, intersectional spaces where all individuals express their truths, reshaping norms, deepening understanding, and supporting collective liberation.

________________________________________

Colonial Legacies and the Crisis of Gender Discourse in Sri Lankan Universities

If we continue criminalizing or dismissing individuals—especially marginalized ones—for expressing s*xual or emotional identities incongruent with colonial romance and gender constructs, gender studies in Sri Lanka risks becoming regressive rather than emancipatory.

University gender centers labeling individuals “abusers” or “immoral” for homos*xuality or gender nonconformity often do so through the lens of the 1883 British colonial penal code, grounded in Victorian-Christian s*xual “abnormality.” This law no longer holds scientific or moral credibility but persists in institutional s*xual conduct interpretation.

If public university gender centers fail to confront these colonial legacies, they cannot foster meaningful, scientific, socially transformative spaces. They must dismantle patriarchal, heteronormative, feudal, culturally distorted moral frameworks to offer truly inclusive understandings of s*xuality, romance, and intimacy in postcolonial Sri Lanka.

It is disheartening that colonial anxieties continue to manifest as stigma, fear, and moral panic toward same-s*x desire, trans identities, and non-normative intimacy, infiltrating universities, policies, and discourse.

As Derrida and Foucault emphasized, gender and s*xuality are shaped by power, discourse, and institutional regulation. Gender politics’ core struggle is confronting these systems, often upheld by those from patriarchal, heteronormative family structures. Without deconstruction, genuine liberation is elusive.

Gender centers must cease reinforcing outdated colonial labels (“homos*xual,” “abuser,” “deviant”) and become spaces of liberation and dignity, celebrating emotional authenticity, bodily freedom, and s*xual diversity.

Otherwise, they risk becoming liberal facades cloaking colonial moral control—old wine in new bottles—suppressing the futures of youth seeking genuine liberation.

………………………..

Image Source;

A crop of new books reconsiders feminism’s stance toward men.