Gender Violence:

Undressing Patriarchy to Include

Changing Masculinities in India
Lucas Neo
U1130788D
HS4020 Individual Project
11th March 2014

Keywords: India, gender violence, patriarchy, masculinity

Lucas Neo (U1130788D)

INDIAS SHAME
The place of women in Indian society has, in recent years, received much attention from both local and
international media agencies. In 2012, the brutal gang-rape of a young physiotherapist on a bus in New
Delhi ignited a furore across the country that spurred thousands of demonstrators to gather in protest of
the widespread mistreatment of women (Burke 2012). Indeed, gender violence occurs with disturbing
regularity in India; between 20022012, crimes against women increased by 70.8% while the incidence
of domestic violence rose by 116.3% (NCRB 2013:195-196). Constituting 43.6% of all crimes against
women in 2012, violence in the Indian household is certainly a disconcerting issue that requires
attention.
Seeking to expound on the elevated rates of gender-based crimes, some authors have relied on the wellestablished concept of patriarchy to argue that gender violence is a result of womens subordination
(Johnson and Johnson 2001; Niaz 2003; Ahmed-Ghosh 2004). Postulating that this notion in its
unrefined form associates male dominance with the propensity for violence and generalizes all men as
patriarchs (Hunnicutt 2009:554), this paper proposes that a re-theorizing of patriarchy which accounts
for mens differential position within the patriarchal system in addition to the advancing status of
women is crucial for understanding the proliferation of gender violence in India.

PATRIARCHY
Conceptualized by Sylvia Walby (1990:20) as an arrangement of social relations where men dominate,
oppress, and exploit women, patriarchy is theorized to consist of distinct social structures that have
identifiable sets of patriarchal practices which shape the patterns of gender relations in society. One of
the structures particularly pertinent to this article is male violence, and Walbys (1990:129) book
chapter on this topic adequately describes several theoretical approaches.
Writing from the radical feminist standpoint, Brownmiller (1993) suggests that societys glorification
of male strength promotes the use of violence to settle disputes and encourages men to exert physical
force as a form of social control; likewise, Hanmer and Saunders (1984) also employ this premise in
their inquiry of domestic violence to claim that it is a consequence of male power. These opinions are
further echoed in India where researchers have documented the correlation of patriarchal norms with
violence levels and conclude that the asymmetrical gender arrangements of patriarchy is integral to the
perpetuation and legitimation of gender violence (Jejeebhoy 1998; Sharma 2005; Go et al. 2003).

Male Stature
While the research presented in the preceding section is compelling and sufficiently clarifies why
women are the primary targets of violence, the scholars portrayal of patriarchy is unsuccessful in
accounting for inflations in gender-based crime rates (Walby 1990:145); to elucidate, if violence is an
Page | 1

outcome of womens subjugation, the advancements of female access to various forms of power should
result in a reduction of violence rather than the observed escalation in India.
Utilizing an alternative perspective to evaluate this phenomenon, violence can be perceived to be a tool
for gaining greater control over women; drawing from OBriens (1971:695) study which reports
persistent incidents of abuse in marriages where husbands lack definite economic and educational
advantages over their spouses, it is gathered that men are more inclined to use violence to reassert their
supremacy when the conventional forms of power are unavailable to them. Under these circumstances,
it becomes apparent that gender violence stems not just from womens subordination, but from the
progressive empowerment they have in comparison to the men in their lives.
Additionally, it should be acknowledged that these families do not exist independent of the collective
environment and other social factors, as OBrien has observed, do impinge on mens status; introducing
class analysis as another viewpoint, Wilson (1983) explains that men at the base of the class hierarchy
are under intense economic stress and vent their resentment on those closest to them. Supplementing
this argument, Amir (1971) adds that men from the lower social strata develop an alternate set of values
that is different from the dominant culture; these values, which gravitate towards physical superiority
and machismo, are more attainable to the men from these groups and serves as a catalyst for violence.
Upon consideration of these authors contributions, it is clear that a mans position within the social
hierarchy vis--vis other men is an equally important element that should not be discounted.

Employing Masculinities
Observant of the prevailing feminist assertion that male authority is a central trigger of gender violence,
the review of other relevant literature has revealed that factors such as womens relative stature to men
as well as a mans standing in the social order are two distinctive yet complementary explanations for
gender-based violence; where the former focuses on gender inequality while ignoring social hierarchy,
the converse is true for the latter. Nevertheless, integrating both determinants and applying them in
combination extends the comprehension of gender violence to include an interpretation for the recent
upsurge.
Recognizing that the concept of gender order intertwines with the analyses above, Connells (2005)
Masculinities emerges as an appropriate approach for building on the current hypothesis as it is
concerned with a gender hierarchy consisting of multiple masculinities instead of just male and female
categories. Beginning first with a brief introduction to masculinity, the following sections will examine
several aspects of India to show that mens masculinity is necessary for comprehending gender violence.

Page | 2

Lucas Neo (U1130788D)

MASCULINITIES
In her seminal book on masculine identity, Connell (2005:76) reasons that adopting men and women as
simple categories for characterizing gender is restrictive because it assumes the existence of a single
masculinity, and overlooks the presence of multiple masculinities each associated with varying degrees
of power. To construct the prime patterns of masculinity, Connell (2005:77) begins with hegemonic
masculinity and elaborates that it encompasses a specific configuration of gender practices and values
which possess the capacity to sustain female submission in a society; though the normative standards
of this culturally exalted form are satisfied by only a minority, men who do fit the criteria are able to
claim the most prestige and authority over their peers and women.
At the lower end of the hierarchy, marginalized masculinity refers to men who adhere closely to the
norms of hegemonic masculinity but are denied access to its benefits because of the interplay with
structures such as class or race (Connell 2005:80). Lastly, complicit and subordinate masculinity are
also components of Connells framework, but it is conceded that these two types of masculinity go
beyond this papers scope will not be discussed. Instead, the remainder of the essay will explore some
facets of Indian society that interact with mens masculinity and ascertain the ability of such interactions
to have repercussions on gender-based crime rates.

Caste & Class

As a system of social stratification, caste in India consists of many hierarchically ordered groups which
individuals are ascribed to at birth (Berreman 1972:389). Even though the government has legislated
laws against caste bias and enacted social initiatives to improve the socioeconomic standing of the
Dalits who make up the lowest ranks (Government of India 2012), caste-related violence and
discrimination is still prevalent in India (Human Rights Watch 2007). Analyzing this social structure
with regard to masculinity, men from the most privileged caste are thought to possess hegemonic
masculinity whereas the Dalits membership of the untouchable castes relegates them to the position
of marginalized masculinity. Correspondingly, these men would be more prone to exhibit acts of
violence as a diversion of the frustration at their circumstances, thereby explaining the statistics that
report the pervasiveness of gender violence amongst the lower castes (Kavitha 2012; Krishnan 2005).
However, although caste is a plausible ingredient of violence, one shortcoming underlying its use is its
historical persistence; since caste has long been integrated with Indian society, its minimal shift in recent
times renders it insufficient for explaining the bourgeoning crime figures.
Switching the focus to Indias economic development, it is recognized that a class hierarchy has
surfaced in parallel to the nations stellar growth; while India does have the tenth largest GDP (World
Bank 2013), the doubling of income inequality in the last two decades indicates that there is a
polarization of socioeconomic status in the country (OECD 2011). Given that it is the norm for men in

Page | 3

India to hold responsibility for being the breadwinner of the household (Kelbert and Hossain 2014),
a mans ability to provide is deduced to have an influence on the type of masculinity he obtains. For
example, hegemonic masculinity is attained by men who satisfy the economic requests made by their
spouse, but marginalized masculinity is ascribed to men at the periphery who struggle to provide
sustenance for the family (Gadkar-Wilcox 2012). Subsequently, the widening income gap and the
increasing visibility of men who have it vis--vis the men who do not would be a source of tension
that has the probability to manifest itself in violent acts by marginalized men seeking to compensate for
their situation (Rogers 2008). Furthermore, this tendency for lower class men to be perpetrators of
gender violence has been corroborated by studies in India that evidences the correlation of wealth with
domestic violence (Dalal and Lindqvist 2012; Kimuna et al. 2012), thus affirming the role of class in
impinging on Indian mens masculinity and affecting gender-based crimes.

Female Empowerment
Aside from caste and class, female empowerment is likewise acknowledged to encroach on males
masculinity and this potentially prompts violence from males wanting to reassert their dominance.
Drawing from the work of various researchers, it is established that women who have a better education
then their spouses (Ackerson et al. 2008), seek employment (Krishnan et al. 2010), and participate in
occupational training courses (Rocca et al. 2009), are at a greater risk for gender violence. To explicate
further, the augmented capacity for these women to be economically independent, knowledgeable, and
skilled poses a challenge to mens masculinity that is tied to his gender roles; as a response, men may
subconsciously perceive this as a threat to their superior position and utilize their physical strength to
discipline women and ensure their continued subservience. Although female empowerment is a
determinant of gender violence that should be taken into consideration, caution must be taken not to
misinterpret this opinion as a justification for inaction in improving womens standing; rather, it is
essential to realize that advancements in womens status should be accompanied with work on men to
simultaneously address gender issues from both ends (Das and Singh 2014).

CONCLUSION
Beginning with the argument that patriarchy is an inadequate concept for untangling the sustained
proliferation of gender-based crime rates, this paper has sought to construct a new framework for
understanding gender violence by employing Connells theory of masculinities. Proceeding from this
foundation, it is discovered that changes in aspects of contemporary society such as class and female
empowerment can be interpreted through this framework to produce a more refined view of violence
that accounts for a mans relative position to women as well as other men in the hierarchy. Indeed,
rather than been a simple outcome of male supremacy, gender violence is evidently a consequence of
the negotiation of male masculinity with many other facets of Indian society.
Page | 4

Lucas Neo (U1130788D)

REFERENCES
Ackerson, Leland, Ichiro Kawachi, Elizabeth Barbeau, and S. V. Subramanian. 2008. Effects of
Individual and Proximate Educational Context on Intimate Partner Violence: A Population-Based
Study of Women in India. American Journal of Public Health 98(3):507-514.
Ahmed-Ghosh, Huma. 2004. Chattels of Society: Domestic Violence in India. Violence Against
Women 10(1):94-118.
Amir, Menachem. 1971. Patterns in Forcible Rape. Chicago University Press.
Berreman, Gerald. 1972. Race, Class, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social Stratification.
Race & Class 13(4):385-414.
Brownmiller, Susan. 1993. Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. New York: Ballantine
Publishing Group.
Burke, Jason. 2012. India Gang Rape: Six Men Charged with Murder. The Guardian. Retrieved Feb
22, 2014 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/29/india-gang-rape-six-men-chargedmurder).
Connell, R. W. 2005. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dalal, Koustuv and Kent Lindqvist. 2012. A National Study of the Prevalence and Correlates of
Domestic Violence Among Women in India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 24(2):265-277.
Das, Abhijit and Satish Singh. 2014. Changing Men: Challenging Stereotypes. Reflections on
Working with Men on Gender Issues in India. Institute of Development Studies 45(1):69-79.
Gadkar-Wilcox, Sujata. 2012. Intersectionality and the Under-Enforcement of Domestic Violence
Laws in India. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change 15(3).
Go, Vivian, Sethulakshmi johnson, Margaret Bentley, Sudha Sivaram, A. K. Srikrishnan, David
Celentano, and Suniti Solomon. 2003. Crossing the Threshold: Engendered Definitions of Socially
Acceptable Domestic Violence in Chennai, India. Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International
Journal for Research, Intervention and Care 5(5):398-408.
Government of India. 2012. Obtain Caste Certificate. Indian Government Archive. Retrieved Mar
10, 2013 (http://www.archive.india.gov.in/howdo/howdoi.php?service=4).
Hanmer, Jalna and Sheila Saunders. 1984. Well-founded Fear: A Community Study of Violence to
Women. London: Hutchinson.
Human Rights Watch. 2007. Hidden Apartheid: Caste Discrimination against India's
"Untouchables". Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York.

Page | 5

Hunnicutt, Gwen. 2009. Varieties of Patriarchy and Violence Against Women: Resurrecting
"Patriarchy" as a Theoretical Tool. Violence Against Women 15(5):553-573.
Jejeebhoy, Shireen. 1998. Wife-Beating in Rural India: A Husband's Right? Evidence from Survey
Data. Economic and Political Weekly 33(15):855-862.
Johnson, Pamela and Jennifer Johnson. 2001. The Oppression of Women in India. Violence Against
Women 1(9):1051-1068.
Kavitha, V. R. S. 2012. Spousal Domestic Violence of Married Women in India. Journal of
Sociology and Social Anthropology 3(1):7-13.
Kelbert, Alexandra and Naomi Hossain. 2014. Poor Man's Patriarchy: Gender Roles and Global
Crises. Institute of Development Studies 45(1):20-28.
Kimuna, Sitawa, Yanyi Djamba, Gabriele Ciciurkaite, and Survarna Cherukuri. 2012. Domestic
Violence in India: Insights From the 2005-2006 National Family Health Survey. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 28(4):773-807.
Krishnan, Suneeta. 2005. Gender, Caste, and Economic Inequalities and Marital Violence in Rural
South India. Health Care for Women International 26(1):87-99.
Krishnan, Suneeta, Corinne Rocca, Alan Hubbard, Kalyani Subbiah, Jeffrey Edmeades, and Nancy
Padian. 2010. Do Changes in Spousal Employment Status Lead to Domestic Violence? Insights
from a Prospective Study in Bangalore, India. Social Science & Medicine 70:136-143.
NCRB. 2013. Crime in India 2012. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home
Affairs, New Delhi.
Niaz, Unaiza. 2003. Violence Against Women in South Asian Countries. Archives of Women's
Mental Health 6(3):173-184.
O'Brien, John. 1971. Violence in Divorce Prone Families. Journal of Marriage and Family
33(4):692-698.
OECD. 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD Publishing.
Rocca, Corinne, Sujit Rathod, Tina Falle, Rohini Pande, and Suneeta Krishnan. 2009. Challenging
Assumptions About Women Empowerment: Social and Economic Resources and Domestic
Violence Among Young Married Women in Urban South India. International Journal of
Epidemiology 38:577-585.
Rogers, Martyn. 2008. Modernity, 'Authenticity', and Ambivalence: Subaltern Masculinities on a
South Indian College Campus. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14:79-95.

Page | 6

Lucas Neo (U1130788D)

Sharma, B. R. 2005. Social Etiology of Violence Against Women in India. The Social Science
Journal 42(3):375-389.
Walby, Sylvia. 1990. Theorizing Patriarchy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Wilson, Elizabeth. 1983. What is to be Done About Violence Against Women? Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
World Bank. 2013. GDP (current US$). The World Bank. Retrieved Mar 10, 2014
(http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD).

Page | 7