Feminist Studies on Family: Exposing Inequalities and Power Dynamics

The family is often presented as a safe, nurturing space – a haven from the outside world. But feminist scholars have long argued that this rosy picture hides a more complicated reality. For many women and girls, the family is also a site where inequalities take root, power is distributed unevenly, and patriarchal values are quietly passed down from one generation to the next. Feminist studies on the family peel back these layers, asking uncomfortable but necessary questions about who benefits from existing family structures and who bears the cost.

The problem with the “standard” family model 🔗

Much of mainstream sociological and anthropological research on the family has historically treated the Hindu joint family as the default or standard family type. The joint family has always been considered the preferred family type, and most people at some point in their lives have participated in joint family living. This three- or four-generation household, typically governed by the eldest male, became the reference point for studying kinship, inheritance, and domestic life.

Feminist scholars have challenged this assumption head-on. They point out that treating one model as the norm erases the diversity of family forms that actually exist – nuclear families, single-parent households, matrilineal families, female-headed households, and many others. Communities like the Nairs of Kerala and the Shettys of Mangalore exhibit matriarchal tendencies, and among constitutionally recognised Scheduled Tribes, some are matriarchal and matrilineal, known to be more egalitarian. By using the patrilineal, patrilocal joint family as the benchmark, mainstream research has inadvertently normalised its hierarchies and made alternative family structures look like deviations rather than legitimate ways of organising domestic life.

Leela Dube, one of the most influential feminist social anthropologists, was particularly critical of this blind spot. In her work on the construction of gender among Hindu girls in patrilineal settings, Dube examined how women acquire cultural ideas and values that shape their self-image through rituals, ceremonies, language, and practices within the family. Her work demonstrated that what passes for “the family” in academic literature is really a specific, culturally situated institution – one that works differently for men and women, and for different castes and communities.

Family honour and the control of women’s bodies 🔗

One of the key insights feminist research brings to the study of the family is the concept of family honour – or izzat. In many communities, a family’s social standing is directly tied to the behaviour, sexuality, and perceived “respectability” of its women. This creates a system where women’s choices – about who they marry, what they wear, whether they work outside the home – are not treated as individual decisions but as matters of collective family reputation.

This burden of honour falls disproportionately on women and girls. Patriarchy expresses itself subtly through symbolism – conveying messages of women’s inferiority through legends that highlight the self-sacrificing, self-effacing image of women, and through ritual practices that emphasise their role as faithful wives and devout mothers. Women are trained from an early age not to challenge discrimination or subjugation, and these norms restrict their aspirations beyond marriage.

The consequences are real and sometimes violent. Honour-based practices – from restrictions on mobility to more extreme forms of violence – are rooted in this understanding of the family as a unit whose reputation must be preserved at the expense of women’s autonomy. Feminist scholars argue that until we recognise this dynamic, reforms aimed at improving women’s status will remain superficial.

Gender socialization: how families create “ideal” boys and girls 🔗

Families are the first and most powerful agents of gender socialization. Long before children enter school or interact with the wider world, they absorb lessons at home about what it means to be male or female – lessons that profoundly shape their futures.

Male children are raised to be assertive, independent, self-reliant, and domineering. Females, in contrast, are socialised from an early age to be self-sacrificing, docile, accommodating, nurturing, and to value family above all. This differential socialisation is not accidental. It serves a purpose: it prepares girls for subordinate roles as wives and daughters-in-law and prepares boys to assume authority within the household.

Gender discrimination is promoted in the family through the process of socialisation – activities like playing with dolls or helping with household work are projected as unsuitable for boys, and those who engage in them are labelled “effeminate” by peers and elders alike. Boys are taught that expressing sorrow or vulnerability is not acceptable masculine behaviour. These rigid gender scripts limit both boys and girls, but they disadvantage girls far more by confining them to the domestic sphere and discouraging ambition.

Feminist scholars emphasise that this socialisation is not natural or inevitable – it is a deliberate cultural process that can be changed. When families assign different expectations, freedoms, and resources based on a child’s sex, they are actively producing the gender inequality that will follow these children into adulthood.

Son preference and the devaluation of daughters 🔗

Perhaps no aspect of family life illustrates gender inequality more starkly than the phenomenon of son preference. Families tend to place higher value on sons than daughters for a variety of historical, social, religious, and economic reasons – a custom broadly referred to as son preference. Adult sons traditionally live with their parents and provide financial support to the family.

The roots of son preference run deep. Sons are perceived as having greater social, economic, and religious utility – they carry the family’s legacy, care for parents in old age, and perform religious duties such as lighting the funeral pyre. Daughters, on the other hand, are often seen as a financial burden, especially in communities where dowry practices persist. In a study of rural Tamil Nadu, the majority of parents who did not want a daughter cited the economic cost of dowry as the primary reason for their gender preference.

The consequences of son preference are severe. It manifests in skewed sex ratios due to sex-selective practices, lower investment in girls’ health and education, and unequal distribution of food and resources within the household. About a third of Hindus and an even larger share of Muslims say sons should have greater rights to inheritance. The Pew Research Center’s survey found that while attitudes are slowly shifting, deep-rooted preferences for sons continue to shape family decisions across religious and caste lines.

Unequal distribution of resources within the family 🔗

Feminist scholars have been instrumental in challenging the unitary household model – the assumption, common in economics and policy-making, that the family functions as a single unit with shared interests and equitable distribution of resources. In reality, resources within families are distributed along gendered lines, often to the disadvantage of women and girls.

Bina Agarwal, the development economist, has pointed out that women of landed households are assumed to be well-off even if they have no property of their own, but in reality, there are huge gender inequalities within households in the distribution of resources and tasks, in education and health care, and even in the survival of girl children. Her pioneering work, A Field of One’s Own, demonstrated that women’s lack of independent land rights was the single most significant factor affecting their economic and social position.

Agarwal challenged standard economic models by highlighting the importance of social norms, social perceptions, and property ownership in determining women’s bargaining power within the family. Her research was so influential that it contributed to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, which granted daughters equal rights with sons in inheriting ancestral property. However, social resistance and practical difficulties in claiming these rights persist even today.

Food allocation within families is another telling example. Studies have repeatedly shown that in many households, men and boys eat first, receive larger portions, and are more likely to receive nutritious foods. Women and girls eat last and least. This everyday practice may seem minor, but over a lifetime, it contributes to significant disparities in health outcomes – higher rates of malnutrition and anaemia among women are partly a result of these intra-household inequalities.

The gendered division of labour 🔗

The assignment of domestic work almost exclusively to women is one of the most enduring features of family life, and one that feminist studies have examined in depth. Although women and men both leave the house to earn paid wages, women continue to perform more of the unpaid domestic work at home – a phenomenon referred to as the “second shift.”

This division is not just about who does the cooking or cleaning. It structures women’s entire lives – limiting their time for education, leisure, and paid employment. Women who work outside the home still carry the primary burden of housework, childcare, and eldercare. This “double burden” perpetuates economic dependence on men and reduces women’s bargaining power within the family.

Feminist scholars argue that the gendered division of labour is not a natural arrangement but a socially constructed one that serves patriarchal interests. When household work is treated as women’s “natural” role, it becomes invisible and undervalued. It is not counted in economic statistics, not compensated financially, and not shared equally. From a young age, girls are socialised to conform to traditional gender roles emphasising modesty, obedience, and domesticity, which limits their aspirations and reinforces their subordinate status.

The family as a site of patriarchal reproduction 🔗

A central argument in feminist studies is that the family does not merely reflect patriarchal values – it actively produces and reproduces them. Each generation learns its gender scripts within the family, and each generation passes them on. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle that is remarkably resistant to change.

Patriarchal ideology is formalised and enforced through laws, customs, and rituals, and is evidenced by power relations within households – for example, the vast majority of households are headed by a male, with only about 15% having a female head. This household headship gives men control over familial resources and is a reflection of deeper power imbalances.

All family members are socialised to accept the authority of those ranked above them in the hierarchy – elders rank above juniors, and among people of similar age, males outrank females. Women are especially strongly socialised to accept a position subservient to males and to subordinate their personal preferences to the needs of the family. A newly arrived daughter-in-law has the least authority of any adult member of the household, and her status improves primarily through producing sons.

This analysis also extends to violence against women. Domestic violence, including physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, is a pervasive problem often rooted in patriarchal attitudes that justify male dominance and control. The research on patriarchy and gender inequality reveals that the family is often the primary site where violence against women occurs, shielded by notions of privacy, honour, and family unity.

Diverse family structures and the need for inclusive scholarship 🔗

An important contribution of feminist scholarship has been to highlight that there is no single “Indian family.” Family structures vary enormously by region, religion, caste, class, and community. The heterogeneity of the experience reveals that there are multiple patriarchies, contributing to the existence of multiple feminisms – feminism is not a singular theoretical orientation but has changed over time in relation to historical and cultural realities.

Leela Dube’s comparative analysis of kinship systems concluded that matrilineal and bilateral kinship systems offer women more autonomy than the patrilineal systems dominant in much of South Asia. Communities in the Northeast, Kerala, and parts of Meghalaya organise family life very differently from the patrilineal norm, often offering women greater property rights, inheritance claims, and decision-making authority.

Feminist scholars also emphasise the importance of intersectionality – recognising that gender does not operate in isolation but intersects with caste, class, religion, and region. For Dalit women and women from lower-caste and lower-class backgrounds, the intersection of caste hierarchy and gender hierarchy creates compounded vulnerability that upper-caste feminist frameworks have historically failed to address. A truly inclusive feminist analysis of the family must account for these intersecting inequalities rather than treating all women’s experiences as identical.

Rethinking the family: the feminist call for change 🔗

Feminist studies do not argue that the family should be abolished. Rather, they call for a fundamental rethinking of how families are structured and how power operates within them. This includes demanding equal inheritance rights, challenging the gendered division of labour, ending son preference, and creating legal and social frameworks that protect women from domestic violence.

Legal reforms have been an important part of this effort. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, and the Prohibition of Dowry Act all represent significant legislative steps. But as feminist scholars consistently point out, law alone is insufficient. Feminist scholars criticise the judiciary for not demonstrating enough courage to interfere with personal laws, and the lower courts face criticism for patriarchal and paternalistic attitudes within their institutions. Deep-seated social norms must change alongside legislation for real equality to be achieved.

Research by Bina Agarwal has empirically demonstrated that house or land ownership significantly reduces a woman’s risk of marital violence, improves her economic and physical security, and can offer a tangible escape option in the event of domestic abuse. This finding underscores the link between property rights and women’s well-being – a theme central to feminist studies on the family.

Ultimately, feminist scholarship asks us to look beyond the idealised image of the family and see the structures of power that operate within it. It challenges us to imagine – and build – families where resources, authority, and respect are shared equally, regardless of gender.

What do you think? Can legal reforms alone transform deep-rooted patriarchal practices within families, or does meaningful change require a more fundamental shift in how we socialise our children? And as family structures continue to evolve in an urbanising society, do you think newer family forms – nuclear households, single-parent families, live-in partnerships – offer women greater autonomy, or do they simply reproduce old hierarchies in new settings?

References

1. https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/son-preference-in-india
2. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/03/02/gender-roles-in-the-family/
3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1471-0366.00054
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bina_Agarwal
5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-025-09351-1
6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24730580.2018.1453750