When women become enforcers of patriarchy

We all know how society teaches boys from childhood to be “angry,” “manly” or “emotionless,” and how this can eventually develop into what is known as “toxic masculinity.”

Society constantly teaches them that proving their masculinity means getting angry and fighting, asserting authority over women, and suppressing or destroying their human qualities in order to live their entire lives simply as “men.”

We have repeatedly discussed how men, after physically assaulting women, resort to various tactics to present their actions as “justified” or “sanctioned by religion.” We have also highlighted how many men entertain themselves every day by engaging in character assassination of female friends or colleagues, both familiar and unfamiliar, under the guise of casual conversation.

A patriarchal society creates the notion in the minds of many men that they are entitled to receive service, attention, love, sex and respect from women. When women refuse to provide these things or instead assert their own rights, they may face physical and psychological attacks from their partners or husbands, something reflected in the statistics we see every year.

From January to August this year, 27,911 complaints of violence against women were received through emergency services. Of these, 62 per cent involved allegations of violence against husbands or partners.

But it is also important to discuss how this “patriarchal social system” inevitably affects the women around us and prepares some of them to become among the principal agents in perpetuating patriarchy.

When men subject women to physical, psychological or economic violence, other women, alongside men, can consciously or unconsciously contribute to the process of socially legitimising such violence by accepting it, concealing it in the name of “family honour” or blaming the woman who has been victimised.

Let us therefore talk today about how women, alongside men, continue to pass patriarchal norms from one generation to the next.

2.

Think about what we see and hear as we grow up from childhood. It is difficult to find anyone who has never heard phrases such as, “Boys are naturally more prone to anger,” or “Girls need to be more patient and learn to adjust.”

Likewise, the practice of giving boys toy guns and rifles while giving girls Barbie dolls and kitchen sets has existed for generations.

Before a child can even understand what is happening, society begins imposing gender-based roles on them. Boys are taught not to cry “like girls,” while girls are taught not to sit with their legs spread “like boys” or laugh loudly.

In trying to become the “good girl” society expects, we unconsciously stopped thinking of ourselves simply as human beings and gradually came to think of ourselves as “women” in the restrictive sense defined by society.

Have we ever stopped to consider whether, by internalising patriarchal norms, values and power relations and then trying to impose those same norms on other women, we have ourselves become harmful to them?

Contemporary feminist philosopher and Cornell University associate professor of philosophy Kate Manne has taken the concept of misogyny beyond its conventional definition and explained it from an entirely new, structural perspective.

In her influential 2017 book Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, she argues that misogyny is a social and political system, not simply an individual “hatred” of women by men; rather, it operates in society like a “police force.”

In other words, whenever a woman tries to break rules created by a patriarchal society, this “policing system” punishes, humiliates or attempts to suppress her in various ways.

In our society, we often see girls subjected to derogatory comments about their clothing or behaviour on the streets in the name of “moral policing.” Attempts to push working women back into the home continue in similar ways.

Manne shows how women can unconsciously internalise the fear of such punishment and humiliation. To protect themselves or gain recognition as “good women” in the eyes of society, they follow patriarchal rules and begin criticising women who do not.

For example, a woman may follow the strict patriarchal rules of society, restricting herself or showing unconditional obedience, so that she can receive economic security, social respect and protection from the men in her family.

Or consider how, in our country, after a certain age, being married is often treated as a measure of whether a woman is “successful” or has achieved fulfilment in life. Among married women, those who have children are considered even more successful; among mothers, those who have sons are often accorded still greater “value” by their families and society.

Conversely, can society really regard women who remain unmarried, who do not have children or who have only daughters as occupying an equal social and familial position to the women in the first category? Do women, alongside men, not also play a role in maintaining and reinforcing this hierarchy?

3.

The world-renowned Turkish-British feminist writer and sociologist Deniz Kandiyoti is also well known for her concept of “patriarchal bargaining.” In her 1988 essay Bargaining with Patriarchy, she introduced the concept and explained that women in patriarchal societies are not merely passive victims.

Rather, to survive within this discriminatory system and secure their own safety and opportunities, women may consciously or strategically accept and negotiate with certain patriarchal rules.

Let us explain this with an example. In South and East Asian societies, women are not always treated as equals; rather, these social systems create hierarchical relationships among women themselves.

On the basis of age, marital status and family relationships, some women acquire authority or power over others, giving them greater “status” and access to material resources and various privileges.

For example, if a woman occupies a relatively “lower” position within her family, giving birth to a son may enhance her status to some extent. Because of their own insecurity and vulnerability within family and social life, when a man in the family behaves violently towards his wife, other women in the same family will often justify the abuse or pretend not to see it. It would not be wrong to say that they may adopt this strategy out of fear that protesting against the violence could cost them their own position or privileges.

When women engage in this kind of bargaining with patriarchy, they can themselves begin working to sustain the system. In the South Asian context, Kandiyoti discusses a recurring pattern in which a woman who occupies a subordinate position as a daughter-in-law at one stage of her life may later, as a mother-in-law, exercise authority over less powerful women within the family.

In other words, a woman who was once subject to patriarchy may later strengthen her own position by imposing some of its rules on other women. That is why we often hear women say, “I endured it when I was a daughter-in-law. Why shouldn’t she?”

This is also why news reports of women dying as a result of domestic violence so often mention not only the husband’s involvement but also that of his mother or sister.

4.

We therefore need more discussion about how patriarchal norms are reproduced through the actions of both women and men and how they function as drivers of violence against women. We also need to examine why women still have to pay dowry or give birth to sons to increase their value in the eyes of their families and society.

Until we ask ourselves these questions, until we determine our own place and worth for ourselves, we too will remain, unknowingly, guardians of patriarchy.

It is clear that women are not merely victims of patriarchy; over time, they can also become reproducers of the same system. Although they may not resort to direct violence in the way men do, women can help keep the poisonous tree of patriarchy alive by imposing its so-called norms on other women or by ignoring violence against women.

Women, too, therefore need to engage in self-reflection and consider whether, directly or indirectly, we are creating obstacles to another woman’s journey within our families, among our friends or in our workplaces, or whether we are inadvertently justifying violence against women. Rather than becoming guardians of patriarchy, what we should strive for is to become companions and sources of empathy for one another on this difficult journey.

*Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Dhaka

*The opinions expressed are the author’s own.