Explain how the pattern of patriarchy is being altered in a family and at the workplace in the present context.

Breaking down the question

The question asks you to trace change, not to define patriarchy in the abstract. The key verb is explain, and the analytical anchor is the phrase how the pattern of patriarchy is being altered. Two arenas are specified — the family and the workplace — and the qualifier in the present context signals that examiners want contemporary, empirically grounded observation rather than a purely classical account.

Patriarchy, in sociological terms, is a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women. Sylvia Walby's formulation is useful here because she treats patriarchy not as a single thing but as six interlocking structures — household production, paid work, the state, male violence, sexuality and culture. Change in any one of these structures alters the overall pattern, and her distinction between private patriarchy (based in the household) and public patriarchy (based in employment and the state) offers a ready-made scaffolding for a question that pairs family with workplace.

The word altered is deliberately cautious. It does not say abolished. A strong answer holds two ideas in tension — patriarchy is being reconfigured in significant ways, yet it persists in newer forms. Reading the question as a simple story of women's liberation would miss the sociological nuance the examiner is testing.

How to approach it

Structure the answer around the two arenas named in the question, then close with a synthesis that resists a one-sided reading.

Begin with a crisp conceptual anchor — patriarchy as a structure rather than individual male attitudes — drawing on Walby and Ann Oakley's demonstration that the sexual division of labour is socially constructed rather than biologically given. This sets up the claim that if it is constructed, it can be reconstructed.

For the family, discuss the shift from private patriarchy towards more negotiated conjugal relations — declining joint family authority, women's education, delayed marriage, greater say in reproductive and financial decisions, and the slow entry of men into caregiving. Balance this with persistence — the continuing burden of unpaid domestic labour, son preference and the resilience of patriarchal ideology within intimacy.

For the workplace, discuss the feminisation of the labour force, women in professions and public life, legal protections such as those against workplace harassment, and rising economic autonomy. Then complicate it — occupational segregation, the gender pay gap, the glass ceiling, the double or dual burden, and precarious informal-sector work where most women are actually employed.

Weave in the Indian context throughout — self-help groups, reservation in local governance, and the visibility of gig and platform work. Use thinkers as tools, not decoration.

Model answer

Patriarchy is best understood not as a set of male attitudes but as a system of structures through which men command resources, authority and women's labour. Ann Oakley showed that the sexual division of labour is socially learned rather than biologically fixed, and Sylvia Walby argued that patriarchy operates across several structures — the household, paid work, the state, violence, sexuality and culture. Because it is structural and constructed, it is also open to alteration. The present context reveals precisely such alteration in the family and at the workplace, though the change is uneven and incomplete.

Within the family, the classical pattern of private patriarchy — where the senior male controlled property, mobility and decision-making — is being reworked. Rising female education, delayed marriage, smaller households and women's entry into paid employment have shifted the balance of conjugal power. Women increasingly participate in financial and reproductive decisions, and the nuclear household weakens the authority once held by patrilineal elders. Men, in a limited way, are drawn into caregiving and domestic tasks that were earlier defined as feminine. Movements against domestic violence and marital cruelty have made the once private household a site of public scrutiny.

Yet the alteration is partial. Time-use data show that women continue to perform the overwhelming share of unpaid domestic and care work, producing what feminists call the dual burden. Son preference, control over women's sexuality and the persistence of dowry indicate that patriarchal ideology adapts rather than disappears. R. W. Connell's idea of a shifting gender order is apt — dominant forms of masculinity are being contested but reassert themselves in new guises.

At the workplace, the change is equally visible. The feminisation of the labour force, women's presence in the professions, education, services and public administration, and legal safeguards against harassment have expanded women's economic autonomy. In India, self-help groups and reservation in panchayats have brought poorer women into public economic and political roles.

Here too patriarchy reorganises rather than vanishes. Occupational segregation channels women into lower-paid, less secure work. The gender pay gap and the glass ceiling limit advancement, while most women remain concentrated in the informal and unpaid economy. The dual burden means that entry into employment often adds to, rather than replaces, domestic obligation. Walby's concept of a move from private to public patriarchy captures this well — control shifts from the individual household to the market and the state, but control remains.

In sum, the pattern of patriarchy is genuinely being altered — its overt, household-centred form is giving way to more negotiated relations and greater female participation in public life. But the alteration is a transformation of form more than a dissolution of substance. Recognising both the real gains and the resilient inequalities is the sociologically honest conclusion.

Examiner's perspective

Examiners reward answers that treat alteration as a nuanced process rather than a triumphalist narrative of women's emancipation. The strongest scripts do three things — they define patriarchy structurally, they address both arenas named in the question with concrete illustration, and they consistently balance change against persistence.

Common weaknesses include listing women's achievements without sociological framing, ignoring the workplace half of the question, and forgetting the Indian empirical context. Deploying Walby's private-to-public shift as an organising thread, and citing Oakley and Connell as analytical tools, lifts an answer from descriptive to analytical. For a fuller conceptual grounding, see the note on patriarchy and the sexual division of labour. A measured conclusion that acknowledges reconfiguration without declaring victory signals the maturity that top marks require.