Breaking down the question
The question has two connected parts. The first asks for a definition of patriarchy; the second, carrying the greater weight, asks how patriarchy shapes the way children are socialised in India. A balanced answer defines the concept crisply and then spends the bulk of its length tracing patriarchy's imprint on childhood — how girls and boys are made, not born, into gendered beings.
The analytical link between the two halves is socialisation as the mechanism through which patriarchy reproduces itself. Patriarchy is not sustained by force alone; it endures because each generation internalises its norms in early life. Showing that childhood socialisation is where patriarchy renews itself gives the answer its unifying argument.
How to approach it
Define patriarchy first — a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate and women are subordinated — and refine it with Sylvia Walby's identification of multiple sites of patriarchy and Uma Chakravarti's account of brahmanical patriarchy in the Indian context. Our notes on patriarchy, entitlements and the sexual division of labour develop the concept.
Then turn to socialisation, which is the heart of the answer. Move through its channels — differential treatment from birth, son preference, gendered play and tasks, language and expectation, the sexual division of domestic labour, and the transmission of norms of modesty and mobility. Draw on Leela Dube's work on how girls are socialised into femininity. Close by noting change and its limits.
Model answer
Patriarchy denotes a system of social organisation in which men hold predominant authority and women are systematically subordinated across the family, economy, polity and culture. It is not a single institution but a structure of relations expressed through control over property, labour, sexuality and decision-making. Sylvia Walby usefully identified patriarchy as operating through several interlocking sites — the household, paid work, the state, male violence, sexuality and culture — so that the subordination of women is reproduced at many points at once. In the Indian setting, Uma Chakravarti has described a specifically brahmanical patriarchy, in which caste and gender are intertwined and the control of women's sexuality becomes essential to the maintenance of caste purity and the lineage.
Crucially, patriarchy is not maintained by coercion alone; it is reproduced culturally, generation after generation, through socialisation. It is in childhood that the norms, roles and expectations of a male-dominant order are internalised, so that inequality comes to feel natural. This is where patriarchy leaves its deepest mark on Indian children, and it does so along several channels.
The process begins before and at birth with son preference. A strong cultural and economic premium on sons — as heirs, as bearers of the lineage, as performers of ritual duties and as old-age security — shapes the very welcome a child receives. The birth of a son is celebrated more than that of a daughter, and this differential valuation translates into unequal investment thereafter, in nutrition, health care and schooling. Daughters are frequently regarded as paraya dhan, transient members destined for another household, which discourages investment in them.
Differential treatment continues through childhood. Boys and girls are dressed differently, given different toys and games, and assigned different tasks — girls drawn early into domestic work, cooking and the care of younger siblings, boys allowed greater freedom and play. Through this the sexual division of labour is learned in miniature, and children absorb the expectation that housework and care are female duties while the outer world of work and authority is male. Leela Dube's work on the socialisation of girls in India showed how everyday practices — food, clothing, language, ritual, the marking of the body — actively cultivate femininity and teach girls their place, their duties and the value of self-restraint.
Norms of modesty, obedience and restricted mobility are impressed especially on girls as they approach puberty. They are taught to be modest, accommodating and self-effacing, to guard their sexuality and their family's honour, and to accept marriage as their central destiny. Boys, by contrast, are socialised into assertiveness, entitlement and the expectation of provision and authority. Language and proverb reinforce these lessons, and the family, school, religion and media all carry the same message, so that the child encounters a consistent gendered world.
The cumulative effect is that patriarchy is naturalised. By the time children reach adulthood, the hierarchy of the sexes has been internalised as common sense — girls prepared for subordination and service, boys for dominance and provision — and each is equipped to reproduce the arrangement in the next generation.
This pattern is not static. Female education, urbanisation, smaller families, legal reform and women's movements have begun to loosen it; more daughters are schooled, and rigid role expectations are questioned in many households. Yet change is uneven, and son preference, unequal domestic burdens and gendered expectations persist widely. Socialisation remains the quiet engine through which Indian patriarchy renews itself, which is precisely why its transformation is so central to the pursuit of gender equality.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner looks for a clean two-part answer: a precise definition of patriarchy, sharpened with Walby's multiple sites and Chakravarti's brahmanical patriarchy, followed by a substantial treatment of socialisation that carries the greater weight. The unifying idea — socialisation as the mechanism by which patriarchy reproduces itself — should be explicit.
Strong scripts trace concrete channels rather than generalise: son preference, differential investment, gendered tasks and play, the learning of the sexual division of labour, and norms of modesty and mobility, ideally supported by Leela Dube. A balanced closing note on change and its limits, together with accurate attribution and British spelling, secures the top band.