From time immemorial, patriarchy has been deeply embedded into Pakistani society. It is a set of social relations with material base that enables men to dominate women. It is social stratification on the basis of sex/gender, which provides material and non-material advantages to males while simultaneously placing severe constraints on the roles and activities of females. There are clearly defined sex roles, while various taboos and religious extortion ensure conformity with specified gender roles.
Culturally, men do not participate in domestic work including child rearing; such tasks and responsibilities are considered to be the exclusive domain of women. Males are first socialised into and then classed as having the following qualities: strength, courage, self-confidence and the ability to survive in the outside world. These abilities are reflected in the kinds of work that men engage in. Men are responsible for much of what we think of as heavy or manual labor. Men, in short, provide for their families. The roles that women are confined to are limited; women mostly oversee the domestic chores. They run households, process and cook. They are primarily responsible for bearing and rearing of children from birth on; men are only called upon to assist when extraordinary discipline is considered a requisite, especially for boys.
Familial patriarchy is usually referred to as the power dynamic of males over females in a family, or more precisely, domination of father over mother and brother over sister. However, there is a considerable debate and disagreement about the concept of familial patriarchy, both over the precise reference to the concept, and whether or not it proves to be detrimental for the stability of a home. Many take it as a religious thing, while some consider it to be the evolving nature of man and society.
Taking another perspective into consideration, patriarchy is not only limited to oppression of women, it also concerns men in our society. Allan Johnson, a sociologist working in masculinities, calls our male-centred, male-identified and male-dominated social structure ‘patriarchal’ and identifies male distrust and fear of other men as patriarchy’s core motivating force. In Johnson’s words: “What drives patriarchy as a system – what fuels competition, aggression, and oppression – is a dynamic relationship between control and fear. Patriarchy encourages men to seek security, status, and other rewards through control; to fear other men’s ability to control and harm them; and to identify being in control as both their best defence against loss and humiliation and the surest route to what they need and desire. In this sense, although we usually think of patriarchy in terms of women and men, it is more about what goes on among men. The oppression of women is certainly an important part of patriarchy, but, paradoxically, it may not be the point of patriarchy.”
Men growing up without a good gender model grow up with an inflated, hyper-masculine view of manhood and are therefore more prone to violence
While functionalists might disagree, many modern age feminists believe that the nuclear family is functional for a patriarchal society. The institution of family gives men a powerful and a privileged role, so it is a patriarchal institution. South Asian families have sexually divided roles with severe consequences. Traditional gender roles make men the breadwinner and head of the household. Men benefit from family because they have a wife whose expected role is to look after their needs: to cook, clean, support their husbands emotionally, and to put her interests behind those of her husband’s. Families condition both boys and girls into stereotypical gender roles. A son or a male heir, traditionally, inherits more than two hundred percent of what a daughter or female heir does; it is to keep the wealth and power with males.
To the extent of what we have observed, patriarchy in family is the basis of patriarchy in the wider society. The Marxist feminist perspective of conjugal roles in a family helps us reach our conclusion. That perspective is that media promotes the idea that we should all aim for a nuclear family, and state that the alternatives do not work. However, Barret and Mclntosh say that in reality it is the nuclear family that does not work for many people. Their relationships fail because families are unequal and create stress, but people, especially women, are made to feel that they are to blame. Witnessed everywhere that women who work are paid less than men. This is because in the past men argued for pay increases on the grounds that they had to support their families; because of that even today women’s paid work tends to be seen as an extra for her family and be underpaid and undervalued.
The band-aid I concluded from the above-given information is that men regardless of their socioeconomic status need a reorientation. We need gender education to be taught in our institutions, especially as a part of primary socialisation. The need for gender education, enlightenment, awareness and consciousness must target males of all age groups irrespective of their social class. According to a UN research, “Boys as young as three years old are searching for masculine models for their sense of self. Men growing up without a good gender model grow up with an inflated, hyper-masculine view of manhood and are therefore more prone to violence.”
Reorientation of male mindsets via gender education could greatly enhance women empowerment. This can be achieved through organised workshops for men and introduction of gender studies in primary, secondary and tertiary institutions.
The writer is a freelancer