India's patriarchal social structure has long been recognised as one of the most deeply entrenched systems of gender inequality in the world. According to an analysis of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data by the Centre of Economic and Data Analysis (CEDA), in 2024, approximately one registered crime against women occurs every 71 seconds, although these figures likely underestimate the true scale of violence because many cases go unreported. While scholars have extensively examined the oppression of women, comparatively less attention has been paid to how the upbringing and socialisation of Indian boys reproduces patriarchal norms that ultimately harm both women and men.
Researchers studying Indian masculinity discovered that patriarchal values are embedded from childhood. Most cisgender men in India have grown up being told that they are stronger, more capable, and more powerful than women and minority genders, which retains control for men over family resources, decision‑making, and lineage continuity. These beliefs are reinforced through patrilineal inheritance; a kinship system where family membership, surnames, titles and property are traced and passed down exclusively through the male line from father to son. Patrilineality centres the male line as the core of the family; it is closely tied to patrilocal marriage: where the bride leaves her natal home and relocates to become part of her husband’s extended household, which remains aligned with the same male lineage. Collectively these interconnected kinship systems define masculine worth through authority, economic provision, and the protection of family honour. They function as powerful socialising agents that consistently reproduce gendered hierarchies and sustain the imbalance of power across generations.
Patriarchal socialisation begins even before birth. In 2020, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) reported that 46 million girls were “missing” from India over the past 50 years, and each year an estimated 460,000 female foetuses are aborted following gender‑based sex selection. Son preference continues to shape reproductive decisions through prenatal sex selection, driven by dowry pressures, patrilineal inheritance, expectations of old‑age support, and the belief that sons preserve the family line while daughters represent financial liability. Although this pattern has long been recognised in South Asian societies, recent UK data compiled by the Office for National Statistics suggests that hundreds of pregnancies may have been terminated on the basis of sex, despite such practices being illegal. Public commentary has underscored the cultural roots of this bias, with statements such as: “boys in the Indian community have the ‘prince syndrome.’ They are better. This is not just an issue about abortion; it is about gender equality.” Gender inequality therefore begins long before children enter wider society.
Apart from gender-based sex selection, inequality is reproduced within families in another way: marriage. Women who have themselves internalised patriarchal values may expect daughters-in-law to assume domestic labour, while discouraging sons from prioritising their wives over their mothers. A casual observer might see this as a personal failing like a possessive mother-in-law, or a case of the "prince syndrome" where sons are simply raised to believe they deserve priority. Yet this framing misses the structural logic at work. Rather than reflecting individual failings, this illustrates what feminist scholars describe as system justification: the tendency to defend and reproduce social systems, even when they perpetuate inequality. These women are not acting out of personal malice; they are enacting norms they were socialised to believe are correct.
Once the child enters wider society, they get introduced to education that reinforces these norms on a deeper level. This is found in previous research about the pervasive presence of binary gender representations and heteronormative norms within NCERT Grade 8 English textbooks. Likewise, it has also been found that women were overwhelmingly portrayed in domestic or caregiving roles, while men occupied professional, public, and leadership positions. Repeated exposure to these representations encourages children to internalise rigid gender expectations regarding work, emotion, mobility, and authority.
One of the most influential explanations for these patterns is Glick and Fiske's (1996) theory of ambivalent sexism, which distinguishes between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. While hostile sexism openly devalues women, benevolent sexism appears positive by portraying women as needing protection and care, thereby reinforcing traditional gender roles. This distinction is particularly relevant in contemporary India. Indian men score highly on both hostile and benevolent sexism, arguing that benevolent sexism is especially dangerous because it functions as a sugar-coated means to gender discrimination. Rather than disappearing, sexism has increasingly been repackaged through ideals of chivalry, romantic paternalism, and social media trends that celebrate dependence on men. These behaviours are described as “empowering” because they appear to offer women privilege, protection, or special treatment, even though they ultimately reduce autonomy and deepen reliance on male partners. For instance, when a partner handles all physical labour or assumes full financial responsibility, the dynamic is framed as care, but it quietly shifts decision‑making power away from women. Trends like “princess treatment” normalise unequal power relations by presenting male control as desirable. In contemporary Indian media, overt misogyny is often replaced with benevolent sexism: romantic paternalism, gender policing, and idealised heterosexual relationships reinforce male dominance while presenting inequality as affection, protection, or care.
Patriarchal expectations also harm men. Cultural ideals that equate masculinity with emotional stoicism, financial provision, and independence discourage vulnerability and help-seeking, contributing to poorer mental health outcomes. The rise of "dheeth masculinity",; a stubborn, hypermasculine identity promoted through Hindi YouTube culture that celebrates arrogance, emotional detachment, and resistance to criticism while framing women's empowerment as a threat to authentic "desi" manhood, is an example of forms of socialisation that leave many men emotionally unprepared for equal partnerships. Even non-heterosexual and effeminate men are forced into heteronormative marriage, creating what is described as "unavoidable compulsion, captivity and discrete role-playing," with the consequential victimisation of women who become trapped in these arrangements.
Addressing these issues requires more than isolated policy reforms such as Mandating Comprehensive Sexuality Education in Schools and Colleges. Relationship and sexuality education should therefore extend beyond biology to include consent, emotional literacy, healthy relationships, and gender equality, while educational materials should present more balanced and inclusive representations of gender. Additionally, both men and women must understand the harmful effects of benevolent sexism and develop greater awareness of how seemingly positive attitudes reinforce inequality. Ultimately, men's difficulties in forming equal relationships, alienating women’s bodies, or being blinded by injustice are not innate characteristics but products of socialisation. Patriarchy is not sustained simply by laws or institutions; it is reproduced through families, schools, media, and everyday interactions. What has been socially learned can also be socially unlearned. Challenging how boys are raised is therefore not only essential for gender equality but also for raising healthier, more emotionally resilient men and more equitable relationships.
Nishtha Singh
