Every International Women’s Day, we celebrate “women’s empowerment” with great enthusiasm. But do we pause to rethink one of the most debated words at the heart of this conversation—patriarchy? Derived from the Greek patēr (father) and arkhē (rule), the term literally means “rule of the father.”
In ancient societies, the father was the undisputed head of the family. During the medieval period, religious and legal codes institutionalized patrilineal male inheritance. In the 17th century, Robert Filmer, in Patriarcha, extended paternal authority to justify monarchical power, a view challenged by John Locke. In the 19th century, Friedrich Engels linked women’s subordination to the rise of private property and the state. By the late 20th century, Kate Millett expanded the concept beyond the family, framing patriarchy as a pervasive structure of power embedded in culture, politics, and sexuality.
History makes one thing clear: the term emerged from a male-centered worldview. But in India of 2026, is patriarchy merely a “men versus women” equation? Or has it evolved into a broader system of norms that binds all genders to predefined roles? On International Women’s Day, this question demands urgent reflection.
Male Dominance: The Numbers Speak
The structural imbalance remains evident.
Women’s participation in India’s labour force continues to hover around 25–30 percent in various surveys. Until recently, women’s representation in Parliament lingered near 15 percent, despite the passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill awaiting full implementation. Wage gaps persist, unpaid domestic labour remains largely invisible, and gender-based violence continues to scar society.
Recent reports from the National Crime Records Bureau document hundreds of thousands of crimes against women annually—from domestic violence to sexual assault. Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index consistently places India in the middle to lower tiers globally. Clearly, the historical legacy of patriarchy is far from erased.
MUST READ: Epstein Files, Ambani links, and a sudden India-US trade pact: Is Modi under pressure?
But That Is Not the Whole Story
To say patriarchy burdens only women is an increasingly contested claim. The same system imposes rigid expectations on men: you must be the provider, you must be strong, you must not show vulnerability. Economic instability, unemployment, and debt often translate into psychological distress for men—pressures born of these social expectations.
NCRB data on suicides indicate that over 70 percent of those who die by suicide in India are men, with a significant proportion being married men. Economic strain, family pressures, and social expectations frequently feature among the causes. The unspoken message—“If you do not earn, you are not a real man”—can be as binding as any explicit rule.
While the discourse on domestic violence rightly centers women’s safety, public debates have also surfaced around issues such as false allegations in marital disputes or prolonged custody battles faced by fathers. In matters of caregiving and guardianship, social norms can sometimes tilt in ways that complicate the narrative of one-directional dominance.
Does the Term “Patriarchy” Need Reconsideration?
First, patriarchy literally means “rule of the father.” But today’s webs of power are far more complex. They involve the state, the market, the media, and even digital algorithms. A workplace culture that glorifies 24/7 productivity, political rhetoric that celebrates aggressive masculinity, and social media platforms that commodify women’s bodies—these are contemporary forms of power. Is “rule of the father” sufficient to capture this reality?
Second, patriarchy does not change through individual goodwill alone; it is institutional. The underrepresentation of women in Parliament is not a matter of individual failure but systemic design. Similarly, a man who takes paternity leave and faces ridicule is confronting structural norms, not isolated prejudice. Analytically, therefore, patriarchy must be read as a gendered but system-wide framework—one that shapes expectations for all.
Third, empowerment rhetoric often narrows itself to women’s entry into the workforce. Yet without addressing the redistribution of domestic labour, recognition of emotional work, and men’s mental health, equality remains partial. A “good man” cannot be defined solely as a provider, nor a “good woman” solely as a homemaker. Unless society recognizes these redefinitions, parity will remain cosmetic.
Lessons from History, Equations for the Present
Patriarchy was never confined to the family. Industrialization pushed men into factories and women into domestic spaces. Colonial modernity constructed ideals of the “gentleman” and the “respectable lady.” Post-independence development rhetoric promised women’s welfare but struggled to deliver structural labour market equality.
Today’s India presents a more diverse picture—women pilots, scientists, military officers; men chefs and caregivers. Yet in the social imagination, old scripts still echo loudly. That is why the concept needs updating—call it Patriarchy 2.0: a system that historically privileged men but now disciplines all genders into prescribed performances.
This is not a call to discard the term. It is a call to sharpen it. To remember its historical roots while acknowledging contemporary complexity. International Women’s Day should remind us that empowerment is not about the ascent of one gender alone; it is about rewriting relationships, roles, and expectations.
If equality is truly our goal, we must look beyond slogans and examine structures. Patriarchy is no longer merely the “rule of the father.” It is an algorithm of power—subtle, adaptive, and embedded in our institutions and imaginations. To dismantle it, both women and men must re-examine the social codes they inherit and perform.
Perhaps the real question, then, is not whether patriarchy exists—but whether we are ready to rewrite it for our times.
[/expander_maker]
