Is patriarchy a universal phenomenon? Critically examine how does patriarchy affect sexual division of labour in societies. (2013)
Patriarchy is a system in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women (Sylvia Walby, Theorizing Patriarchy, 1990). Whether it is universal decides whether the sexual division of labour is natural or social. The evidence shows male dominance is widespread but not universal, and it shapes, rather than follows from, who does what work.
Is patriarchy universal?
The case for universality
- Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox (The Imperial Animal, 1971) traced male dominance to a genetic “biogrammar” inherited from hunting ancestors.
- Sherry Ortner (“Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?”, 1974) found women culturally devalued in every society, because they are symbolically linked to nature.
The case against
- Gerda Lerner (The Creation of Patriarchy, 1986) dated patriarchy to the rise of the archaic state and private property in Mesopotamia. Anything that had a beginning is not natural.
- Margaret Mead (Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, 1935) found gentle Arapesh men and women, aggressive Mundugumor of both sexes, and dominant Tchambuli women.
- The Mbuti share hunting and childcare. Among the Khasi and Nayar, descent and property pass through women, though matriliny is not matriarchy: authority often lies with the mother’s brother.
On balance, male dominance is near-universal in degree but historically variable in form and intensity. It is not a biological constant.
How patriarchy shapes the sexual division of labour
- Naturalising the division: George Peter Murdock (1949) explained it by male strength and female childbearing, and Talcott Parsons by complementary instrumental and expressive roles. Feminists read these accounts as patriarchal ideology presented as function.
- Defining and devaluing “women’s work”: Ann Oakley (Sex, Gender and Society, 1972; The Sociology of Housework, 1974) used Murdock’s own data. Women did lumbering in 14 societies and land clearance alone in 36, and cooking was shared in 38. Work becomes “female” and unpaid by social definition; cooking and tailoring pay once men do them.
- Appropriating women’s labour: Christine Delphy described a domestic mode of production in which husbands appropriate wives’ work. Heidi Hartmann showed how patriarchy and capitalism cooperate to keep women in low-paid jobs.
- Private to public patriarchy: Walby argued that exclusion from paid work gave way to segregation within it. India shows both forms: women do 289 minutes of unpaid domestic work a day against 88 for men (Time Use Survey 2024). Their labour force participation is 40.0% against 79.1% for men (PLFS 2025).
Critical assessment
- Not patriarchy alone: Ester Boserup (Woman’s Role in Economic Development, 1970) showed that technology matters. Plough agriculture reduced women’s field role, while hoe cultivation kept it high.
- Class and caste: Dalit and tribal women have always done field and wage labour. Seclusion is a status privilege of dominant groups (Uma Chakravarti).
- Change: Nordic paternity leave shows the division can be renegotiated, though Arlie Hochschild’s “second shift” shows how slowly.
Conclusion
Patriarchy is not universal as a biological fact, but it is widespread as a historical structure. It shapes the sexual division of labour by deciding which work is valued and who does it for free. Being social, the division can change, but only as fast as economies and family norms do.