Buffet Feminism: The Hypocrisy of Picking Rights While Ignoring Responsibilities

Debopom Ghosh
Social Commentator & Student of Public Administration, CU

Following the death anniversary of Begum Rokeya, who dared to light a candle in a pitch-black room. Yet, scroll through the social media feeds of the 21st-century “enlightened” populace, and you will find a grotesque spectacle where fundamentalists dancing on her grave, branding her a misandrist, blaming her for the collapse of societal morality. It is a pathetic display of historical illiteracy, but their noise distracts us from a much quieter, more insidious crisis brewing in the heart of modern gender dynamics as we are stuck in a deadlock, paralyzed by a biological reality and, refuse to admit and a sociological idealism we refuse to practice honestly.

The Biological Elephant in the Room

A question cutting through the politically correct fluff – Are men and women are the same or not?

No. This isn’t a fundamentalist scripture; it is biological reality. Research consistently highlights distinct variances in physical structure, hormonal baselines, and psychological predispositions. (Ivan et al., 2022) But this does not imply that one gender is the “master” and the other the “slave”, but rather implies and addresses the difference. However, the post-modern world is obsessed with a flat-lined version of “equality” that ignores these differences until it becomes convenient to acknowledge them. We see discrepancies in performance and preference across various fields, not because of a grand conspiracy, but because of this biological divergence.

So, how are we supposed to view a woman in this post-modern chaos? We are torn between two mutually exclusive realities, and the friction between them is tearing the social fabric apart.

The Great 21st Century Dilemma

Here is the binary choice that society is too cowardly to make. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

1. The Ruthless Egalitarian (The True Feminist)

If feminism truly begs for equality, then the bill has come due. A woman who believes and supports this ideology must accept the “Cold Hard Ground.”

• Total Accountability: If a conflict arises, her tears hold no currency. She is judged exactly as a man would be – harshly, logically, and without a safety net.
• Total Labor: She is expected to bear the exact same physical, financial, and psychological loads as a man. No doors held open, no bills split in her favor, no “women and children first.”
• The Reality: In this world, she cannot blame the “Patriarchy” for her failures any more than a man can. If she fails, she fails.
• The Problem: Most self-proclaimed feminists recoil at this. They want the authority of the man but the immunity of the woman. They want the CEO position, but they also want the lifeboat.

2. The Traditional Reformist (The Benevolent Sexist)

This is the “Old World” liberal view. It treats women with kid gloves.

• The Leverage of Sensitivity: This view accepts that women are different i.e. more sensitive, perhaps carrying different burdens (family, biological). Therefore, they are granted leeway/impunity.
• The Impunity Gap: In a conflict, the man is expected to “be the bigger person.” He bears the burden of accountability. The woman is protected, sheltered, and often absolved of guilt because “she didn’t know better” or “she was emotional.”
• The Reality: This is comfortable. It offers women “Princess Treatment.” But let’s be clear: This is a clear admission and recognition of inferiority. You are being treated gently because you are viewed as weaker.

However, what do we see in reality? The 2nd option is far from feminism, or can be termed as convenience feminism.

The Hypocrisy of “Convenience Feminism”

The status quo of the 21st century is a Frankenstein monster of these two ideologies. We have created a culture where women are encouraged to demand the rights of Option 1 while clinging desperately to the privileges of Option 2.

This is not feminism; it is opportunism.

When the check comes, or the draft comes, or the heavy lifting starts, we retreat to “Traditional Reformism.” When the promotion is available, or the podium is open, we scream for “Ruthless Equality” or so-called inclusivity. This inconsistency is what fuels the “misandrist vibe” you sense. It asserts to men – “You must be stoic, provider, and protector (Traditional), but you must also yield your space, your voice, and your authority (Modern).”

Here, men are losing on both fronts. They are stripped of their traditional authority but burdened with traditional responsibility. Is it any wonder there is resentment?

The Rokeya Defense: Satire, Not Misandry

This brings us back to Begum Rokeya, the woman currently being slandered by men who lack the intellect to understand satire.

The fundamentalists crying “Misandry!” because of her novella Sultana’s Dream are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. Rokeya wrote Sultana’s Dream in 1905 not as a manifesto for male enslavement, but as a mirror. She composed an utopian world where she reversed the roles – putting men in the Mardana (seclusion) and women in power – to show men exactly how ridiculous and cruel the system of Purdah was. The conclusion is:

• It was a literary device, not a policy proposal.
• It was a critique of cruelty, not a promotion of it. (Ahmed, 2020)

Her “Ladyland” was a place of science, using solar power and cloud-condensers, favoring brain over brawn. Rokeya’s actual goal, found in Motichur and Padmaraag, was education and economic independence. She didn’t want to destroy men, but rather wanted to destroy the chains that made women useless to society. She wanted women to stop being “dolls” and start being humans – as was seen throughout then status quo – the very context intellectual critics fail to address. (Khatun & Ahammed, 2024) (Begum Rokeya: Tale of a Visionary, Bengal’s Earliest Muslim Feminist | Mohammad A. Quayum, 2025)

Honestly, Rokeya attempted to spread education or at least work as a reformist for the muslim class of women folk. However even ignoring that, relevant fundamentalists bash Rokeya, yet love to cite Fatima al-Fihri to prove something?

Let’s check the receipts? Yes, Fatima al-Fihri founded the Al-Qarawiyyin mosque/madrasa. But she was a wealthy elite, an anomaly of her time. And despite her founding it, the institution did not admit female students for centuries! (Founded in 859 AD, women couldn’t study until 20th century). What’s the point of using an exceptional elite woman from history to mask the systematic degradation of the common woman, moreover, it doesn’t even add up to something in this discourse. (Mosque-University of Al-Qarawiyyin – Madain Project (En), 2021)

The Verdict: A Generation Lost in Translation

So, what is the solution? The dilemma remains unsolved because we lack the courage to pick a lane.

• To the Women: You must choose. Do you want the “Princess Treatment”, where you are protected but ultimately patronized? Or do you want “Equality” where you are powerful but ultimately liable for your own survival? You cannot build a movement on the backs of men you despise while demanding they pay for your dinner.
• To the Society: We are failing the women who actually need feminism. While modern “activists” scream about “micro-aggressions”, trying to expand/spread misandry for the chase of profit & TRP and demand superiority disguised as equality, Afghan women are being erased from existence by the Taliban (UN Women, 2025).

The silence of global feminism on the systematic and official ban on female education in Afghanistan is deafening which proves that the ideology has been hijacked by comfort and profit motives. We are fighting for leverage in corporate boardrooms while our sisters are being sold into servitude.

Conclusion?

If we continue down this path of “Buffet Ideology” of picking and choosing rights and responsibilities based on what feels good, we do not create a just society, but a resentful one. We create a society where men check out because the game is rigged, and where backward women suffer because the “progressive” movement is too busy fighting for privilege to fight for basic human rights. The linkup is for the existing equality activists in our status quo, Begum Rokeya fought for the right to be human, rational, and educated. She did not fight for the right to be a hypocrite.

Editorial Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Gonotaar.