3 min readSep 7, 2026 06:20 AM IST First published on: Sep 7, 2026 at 06:20 AM ISTMost of us are indifferent and even averse to feminism, but stay rather curious about feminists. We may not notice this contradiction, let alone admit it, perhaps because we stay engrossed in scrutinising, stereotyping and (most of all) bashing feminism and feminists, as if dissidents deserve harsher judgement. So when a famous feminist passes on, there is a tsunami of judgement. And since no life can be only glorious, even if one is named Gloria (Steinem), criticisms are bound to be recounted. She was roasted, at times understandably, for her stance on sex work, the supposed links with the CIA, etc.Monochrome or nuanced, the ledger of a human life can often miss a vital pivot: Aiming the lens on our own judgement-making. Should it spotlight errors or take a long view to balance judgement? These questions could be useful because to be a feminist – publicly — is to have a dog whistle being constantly blown by the moral police. To make a case about such policing, I deploy Steinem as a placeholder. This piece is not about her but about us vis-à-vis feminists and feminism. Her Revolution from Within (1992) proposed that along with rights-based, social justice work, women dig within to join the dots between inner oppression and outer regimes, then unshackle themselves inwardly and pull up self-esteem. She cited the Upanishads to state that the self was one among the many sites to fight that most stubborn of adversaries, patriarchy. Activism, much like meaningful living, gains when self-awareness aligns with our social radar. The book was a bestseller, but Steinem got flak from her own tribe for downgrading to “self-help”, for having gone “soft”, and losing her way.AdvertisementWhy is talking openly of one’s inner turmoil and personal trauma difficult, if not unacceptable? There seems to be a persistent concern: It is self-indulgent weakness, and distracts us from our grail — outer, structural, and systemic barriers. Inner resilience is indeed a prized asset, but why invisibilise our authentic truths? Because are the (hardest) battles actually not fought inside? And does valorising strength not de-humanise us, like it does for men and masculinity? Perhaps we can use that strength to hold our opinions with less force, to be less harsh when we, our friends, disappoint? Maybe it can make feminism kinder?On the other hand, feminist bashers burrow into the personal lives of feminists to discredit them and their worldview. Steinem’s fulsome life of friendships, love, and marriage seemed like a contradiction to their (mis)understanding of feminism as a men-hating, anti-marriage project. Her response: “I did not change, marriage changed. We spent 30 years in the US changing marriage laws. If I had married when I was supposed to… I would have lost my name, … many of my civil rights. That is not true anymore. It is possible to make an equal marriage”.Since stereotypes swamp popular notions of feminism, judgements by and for feminists deserve care. To be a non-conforming woman imposes greater accountability, more self-reliance, a constant eye at one’s privileges, victimhood, and contradictions. Feminism is an ongoing practice, a cultivation of positions and temperament so we could disagree and still be agreeable.AdvertisementNandy is author of Occupy the Spiritual, Reimagine the Social