Often times, throughout human history, a movement starts that changes human mentality and behavior.

In 2017, one of these movements was the feminist focus on sexual assault.

Origin

Feminism is a philosophy that has existed for thousands of years but while the focus has always been on more prominent issues such as voting rights, economic freedom, right to education, not until 2017 did the global focus shift onto sexual ethics, manifesting through various breaking news of celebrities getting exposed as sexual deviants, spreading round social media through various hashtags with the popular #MeToo and the mantra ‘the wall of silence is broken’.

As with any debate, the 21st century debate hall has given rise to two factions of the movement: the aggressive feminist, who is sometimes considered a misandrist; and the non-aggressive feminist, who deploys dialogue and emotional maneuvering to achieve the feminist goal.

Both sides tend not to get along.

Biblical history

Consider the book of Esther in the Bible where the story of two women is expounded in the early chapters: Queen Vashti and Esther.

Vashti was a queen married to King Xerxes, and as a member of royalty she had access to all the beautiful and expensive things she desired; as far as economic privileges go, she had enough.

However, she was enslaved to the King, as was the custom of human relationship at the time (a custom that, until recently, was prominent in human relationships and still is in some countries in the world).

During a routine banquet for the high and mighty in Xerxes’ kingdom, the King summoned that his queen be brought before him and his male cohorts to be admired because Vashti was beautiful and there were fewer ways to establish your prominence as a man than your wealth and how much the woman on your arms could be objectified.

Vashti declined the King’s call.

It makes sense to presume this wasn’t the first time a party such as this happened and Vashti was called to present herself as an object to the King’s friends.

Historically, the power dynamic between both genders informs us that Vashti did not have any other choice than to obey the King’s orders. She was merely a living art, with no recognizable will of her own, taken out to be ogled when it pleased the King.

It makes sense to think she grew disillusioned after a while and chose to take back sovereignty over her life. She took to what qualifies as an aggressive action in terms of the power dynamic of her time by defying the King.

The Book of Esther doesn’t tell us if Vashti was killed for her defiance but her action sprung a reaction from the King and the patriarchal figures by making a decree that further pushed women into servitude of their male owners, or as better known, their husbands.

With Vashti persona non grata, it was imperative the King found a young, beautiful and submissive girl to replace her. Blah blah decree goes out, budget Miss Persia takes place and Esther manifests.

Esther tows the line, plays the silent submissive beautiful queen until a series of events compels her to intervene to save the lives of her people.

Esther, however, took a different approach to Vashti. She rides on her goodwill with the King and engages him in a manner that acknowledges his power and influence.

Esther’s ability to emotionally manipulate the King allowed her to save thousands of Jewish lives and elevate a fellow Jew to the King’s court. Esther had both an ally in power and influence over the King.

A surface consideration of both methods would tell you Esther’s is more effective and Vashti’s is self-defeating, while an in-depth comparison of both methods of protest tells a more complicated story.

What’s most important here is the ability to understand this complication and choose when, who and how to deploy each method to great effect.

One of the mistakes that a lot of people, and by people I mean mostly men, commit is make out the Vashtis of the feminist fight as misandrists who simply want the subjugation and death of the male gender.

Do they hate men? The answer might be yes but the focus shouldn’t be on that; it should be on why they hate men in the first place. When you honestly answer that question, you discover their anger and actions are merely a product of their experiences.

The only problem with being a Vashti is that whatever message you are trying to pass across, whatever reform in male-female interaction you are trying to enforce gets buried under the abyss of being seen as a danger to male ‘rights’ and when an animal feels threatened, it will fortify its security and exert its power on the threat. It’s a biological instinct that manifests from the lowest to the highest animal.

When Vashti committed her act of protest, the male folk did not seek to understand the reason for her action, they instinctively saw it as a threat to their dominance and reacted accordingly. It ended up putting more women under bondage.

It’s easy to see this as just a manifestation of the fragile male ego, but the years of culture of male dominion and inhumane treatment of the female gender has hardwired toxic masculinity into the male psyche such that when that psyche is aggressively challenged, it instinctively doubles down to protect itself. Think of it as boiling a frog, if you throw a frog into a hot water, it will instinctively jump out for self-preservation.

This, of course, doesn’t make the Vashti approach ineffective to the movement. It can be an extremely effective way of raising awareness on feminist agendas.

The #metoo movement gained popularity not because women who were assaulted by Weinstein quietly went to the police and waited for their day in court, it did because a few women went the Vashti route, kicked up a storm and made a few men lose their jobs.

It ended up opening the eyes of many and encouraged others to speak up. The thing, however, is, as for the ultimate goal of making men behave humanely to women, the Vashti method is limited and this is where the Esther method triumphs and ultimately contributes more to the movement.

The understanding of the toxic culture of masculinity as a psychological as well as a physical problem enables the Esthers in developing a systemic method of eroding the impact and existence of toxic masculinity.

Dave Chappelle, in his latest Netflix special, said women have to learn to work with men to achieve their goal; perhaps an uncomfortable truth but it is nonetheless. He goes on to say ‘Peace achieved as a result of fear does not last’.

The Vashti method has exposed and forcefully brought offenders to a form of social justice, making them a deterrent to others but it does nothing to change the underlying philosophy and culture that informed their actions in the first place.

If left this way, potential offenders will simply find more ingenious ways of committing the same offences but the Esther method, which seeks to reform the male psyche, is capable of creating a society where both genders can live in mutual admiration and respect for each other.

After all, when Esther was done with Xerxes, not only did she save the lives of thousands of her people, she had an ally in power and an established influence over the King.

The differences between both approaches to the feminist agenda is a strength and not a weakness to the movement.

The Esthers and the Vashtis of this world are a formidable good cop bad cop tag team that will have a spectacular effect on the feminist goal as soon as they learn to work together.

Written by Seun Adelowokan

Seun Adelowokan is a humanist. Big believer in common sense. Arsenal lover.