The Interconnection Between Patriarchy and Masculinity

Why are boys told not to cry? Why is aggression often tolerated – even rewarded – in men, while empathy is labelled a weakness? The answers to these questions lie in the deeply intertwined relationship between patriarchy and masculinity. These two concepts, though distinct in nature, feed into each other in ways that sustain gender hierarchies across every level of society. Understanding how they connect is the first step toward dismantling the rigid gender roles that limit both men and women.

What is patriarchy? 🔗

At its most basic, patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary authority – in political leadership, moral decision-making, property ownership, and family governance. Sociologist Max Weber defined it as a system of government in which men rule society as heads of households, dominating not only women but also younger men within the family structure. Alan Johnson expanded this definition further, arguing that a society is patriarchal to the extent that it promotes male privilege through being male-dominated, male-identified, and male-centred.

Patriarchy does not operate through one single person or one single rule. It works through institutions – families, schools, workplaces, religious bodies, legal systems, and media. Consider how property inheritance has traditionally favoured sons, how family decisions have often rested with male elders, or how women’s participation in paid work outside the home was historically discouraged. These are not coincidences; they are structural features of a patriarchal order.

It is important to note that patriarchy is not static. It evolves, adapts, and takes different forms across societies and time periods. In India, for instance, the way patriarchy functions in an upper-caste, urban household may look very different from how it operates in a rural, agrarian community. But at its core, the principle remains the same – the systemic privileging of male authority and the subordination of women.

Understanding masculinity as a social construct 🔗

If patriarchy is the structural system, masculinity is the set of behaviours, traits, and attitudes that individuals – especially men – are expected to perform within that system. It is not something that men are born with. It is something that is taught, learned, and enforced from a very young age.

From childhood, boys learn what it means to be “masculine” through family, peers, schools, and media. They absorb messages that being a “real man” means being tough, dominant, emotionally restrained, and in control. Phrases like “don’t cry like a girl” or “man up” are not just casual remarks – they are mechanisms of socialisation that shape how boys understand their own identity and their relationship with the world around them.

Sociologist R.W. Connell introduced the concept of hegemonic masculinity to describe the culturally idealised form of manhood that occupies the dominant position in a given society. This is the version of masculinity that is held up as the standard – competitive, aggressive, emotionally stoic, heterosexual, and authoritative. Not all men embody hegemonic masculinity, but all men are measured against it. Those who come closest to it receive social rewards and status; those who deviate from it face ridicule, exclusion, or punishment.

Masculinity is not singular 🔗

One of the most critical insights from gender studies is that there is no single, universal masculinity. Connell’s framework recognises multiple masculinities that vary across time, society, culture, and individual context. What counts as “masculine” in urban Delhi may differ significantly from expectations in rural Rajasthan or coastal Kerala. Upper-caste masculinity might centre on intellectual authority and cultural refinement, while working-class masculinity might revolve more around physical strength and economic provision.

This plurality of masculinities is not a neutral landscape – it is hierarchically organised. Hegemonic masculinity sits at the top, while other forms of masculinity – subordinated, complicit, or marginalised – are arranged below it. This hierarchy among men is just as important to the functioning of patriarchy as the hierarchy between men and women.

How patriarchy and masculinity reinforce each other 🔗

Patriarchy and masculinity are not just parallel systems – they actively sustain one another. Patriarchy provides the structural framework that elevates certain masculine traits, and masculinity, in turn, provides the behavioural norms that keep patriarchal institutions running.

Here is how this reinforcement cycle works. Patriarchal institutions – families, schools, workplaces, legal systems – establish rules and expectations that privilege men. These institutions reward men who display the “right” kind of masculine behaviour: decisiveness, authority, emotional control, and competitiveness. When individual men perform masculinity in these expected ways, they collectively strengthen the very patriarchal structures that rewarded them in the first place.

Take the example of the breadwinner norm. Patriarchal society expects men to be primary earners. This expectation reinforces women’s economic dependence, limits their career advancement, and concentrates financial power in male hands. At the same time, men who fail to fulfil this breadwinner role are often stigmatised as “less than” other men. The expectation does not just subordinate women – it also disciplines men into conformity.

Aggression as a masculine virtue 🔗

One of the clearest points of convergence between patriarchy and masculinity is the valorisation of aggression. When toughness and dominance are treated as core masculine traits, aggressive behaviour gets normalised – in workplaces, in families, and in public life. This normalisation has direct consequences. Research on hegemonic masculinity shows that the expectation of male aggression contributes to domestic violence, workplace harassment, and broader patterns of gender-based violence. When aggression is coded as “naturally masculine,” it becomes significantly harder to challenge.

Emotional suppression and its consequences 🔗

The patriarchal mandate that men suppress all emotions other than anger is another powerful site of reinforcement. Boys are taught from a young age that expressing vulnerability, sadness, or fear is a sign of weakness – something feminine, something lesser. This emotional restriction does more than just harm individual men. It reinforces the broader patriarchal devaluation of emotional labour and care work, both of which are coded as “feminine” and therefore treated as less important. Men who cannot engage emotionally struggle to form deep, empathetic relationships, and they face significant barriers when it comes to seeking mental health support.

The patriarchal dividend: who benefits, and how much? 🔗

One of the most useful concepts for understanding the relationship between patriarchy and masculinity is what Connell termed the “patriarchal dividend” – the advantages that men as a group gain from the overall subordination of women. These advantages are real: greater economic power, more political representation, higher social status, and greater personal freedom.

But here is the critical nuance: not all men receive the patriarchal dividend equally. A man’s access to patriarchal benefits is shaped by his class, caste, race, sexuality, religion, and other social positions. An upper-caste, upper-class, heterosexual man in an urban setting experiences patriarchal privilege very differently from a Dalit man in a rural area or a queer man anywhere.

Caste, class, and unequal masculinities in India 🔗

In India, the intersection of patriarchy with caste makes the picture particularly complex. Research on caste-gender intersections shows that Dalit men are often taunted about their masculinity by upper-caste men for their perceived inability to “protect” women in their community. This taunt serves a dual function – it humiliates Dalit men while also reducing Dalit women’s autonomy to a question of male honour.

Upper-caste men may assert masculinity through intellectual or spiritual authority, while lower-caste men are often pushed toward more physical or labour-based definitions of manhood. The result is a layered system where caste privilege and gender privilege intersect – upper-caste men benefit from both, while Dalit men face caste oppression even as they may exercise patriarchal power within their own households.

Feminist historian Uma Chakravarti coined the term “Brahmanical patriarchy” to describe how the control of women’s sexuality and mobility is central not just to gender oppression but to the maintenance of the caste system itself. In this framework, patriarchy and caste are not separate axes of oppression – they are structurally intertwined.

Sexuality and the policing of masculinity 🔗

Heterosexuality is not merely a sexual orientation within the logic of hegemonic masculinity – it is a requirement for masculine legitimacy. Men who do not conform to heterosexual norms face exclusion from the privileges that the patriarchal order offers. Connell’s work identifies the subordination of gay men as one of the most significant hierarchies among masculinities in contemporary society, involving not just cultural stigma but legal, economic, and physical violence.

This policing of sexuality does not affect only gay or queer men. Homophobia functions as a tool for controlling all men’s behaviour. Any man who displays traits coded as “feminine” – emotional openness, gentleness, disinterest in competition – can be subjected to social punishment. The threat of being labelled “less of a man” keeps all men, regardless of their actual sexual orientation, within the bounds of hegemonic masculinity.

The costs of patriarchy for men 🔗

While patriarchy undoubtedly privileges men as a group, it also extracts a significant cost from individual men. This is one of the most important but often overlooked aspects of the patriarchy-masculinity relationship.

The pressure to conform to rigid masculine ideals leads to poorer mental health outcomes. Studies show that men who adhere closely to traditional masculine norms experience higher rates of anxiety and depression. The inability to express emotions freely creates barriers to seeking help, forming intimate relationships, and processing difficult experiences in healthy ways.

There are also physical consequences. The expectation that men should be risk-takers contributes to higher rates of accidents, substance abuse, and involvement in violence. Men are far more likely than women to die from preventable causes linked to risky behaviour – a pattern directly tied to how masculinity is constructed under patriarchy.

These costs are not distributed evenly. Men who occupy marginalised positions – whether due to caste, class, sexuality, or disability – bear a disproportionate burden. They face the pressures of conforming to masculine ideals while simultaneously being denied access to the privileges that such conformity is supposed to guarantee.

Complicit masculinity: the silent majority 🔗

Most men do not actively or violently enforce patriarchy. They are not the frontline enforcers of gender hierarchy. But they still benefit from it. Connell calls this position “complicit masculinity” – masculinities that gain from the patriarchal dividend without directly engaging in the overt domination of women.

Many complicit men live perfectly decent lives. They respect their wives and mothers, do their share of domestic work, and would never consider themselves part of any oppressive system. Yet by not actively challenging patriarchal norms – by accepting without question the structural advantages they receive – they help maintain the system. Complicity does not require intent; it only requires inaction in the face of structural inequality.

This concept matters because it moves the conversation beyond the idea that patriarchy is only sustained by “bad men” doing violent things. It highlights how ordinary, everyday behaviours and silences contribute to the reproduction of gender inequality.

Redefining masculinity for a more equitable society 🔗

If patriarchy and masculinity are so deeply intertwined, meaningful change requires working on both fronts simultaneously. Structural reforms – better laws, more inclusive policies, equitable economic opportunities – are essential. But they will not be fully effective if cultural attitudes about what it means to be a man remain unchanged.

Education and early socialisation 🔗

Gender interventions informed by the concept of hegemonic masculinity have shown that it is possible to shift men’s attitudes and behaviours when they are given the tools and space to reflect critically on their own gender socialisation. Educational programmes that teach young people to understand gender as a social construction rather than a biological inevitability are powerful starting points.

Schools play a particularly crucial role. When children learn early that there is no single correct way to be a boy or a girl, they develop greater flexibility in how they relate to themselves and others. This does not mean erasing differences – it means expanding possibilities.

Creating space for alternative masculinities 🔗

Men’s groups and support networks that provide safe spaces for men to explore vulnerability, emotional expression, and collaborative relationships have shown real promise. The goal is not to make men “less masculine” but to broaden what masculinity can mean – to include nurturing, empathy, and emotional intelligence alongside strength and resilience.

Media representation matters here too. When films, television, and advertising consistently portray only one narrow version of what a man should be, they limit the collective imagination. Diverse portrayals of masculinity – men as caregivers, as emotionally articulate partners, as collaborators rather than competitors – can gradually shift cultural norms.

Policy and institutional reform 🔗

At the structural level, policies that promote equal parental leave, challenge workplace discrimination, and support survivors of gender-based violence all contribute to weakening the grip of patriarchy. Legal frameworks like the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 represent important institutional steps, but their effectiveness depends on a cultural shift in how we understand and practise gender.

What do you think? 🔗

What do you think? Given that patriarchy harms men too – through emotional restriction, mental health consequences, and rigid expectations – why does the system persist so stubbornly? And can masculinity be redefined without also fundamentally transforming the institutional structures of patriarchy, or must both changes happen together?

References

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372943563_Feminist_Perspective_on_Patriarchy_Its_Impact_on_the_Construction_of_Femininity_and_Masculinity
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0891243205278639
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4706037/
4. https://gender.study/gender-sensitization/patriarchy-masculinity-male-power/
5. https://us2.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/90223_book_item_90223.pdf
6. https://www.alignplatform.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/intersecting_norms_-_south_asia.pdf
7. https://gender.study/gender-based-violence/caste-religion-culture-patriarchy-india/
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity
9. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2104/1/a2013-22.pdf