This paper describes patterns of gender socialization among youth in India and evaluates how these patterns are associated with their mental health. Data come from the Youth in India: Situation and Needs Study (
Listed as one of the eight Millennium Development Goals, the goal of ameliorating gender inequality and empowering women is well recognized as a critical tool for advancing population health, improving life chances, and bringing economic prosperity to low- and middle-income countries. Nonetheless, the obstacles to achieving this goal are daunting, given that gender inequality is often entrenched at all levels of society and, thus, requires changing both institutional structures and individual behaviours. That is, gendered norms govern what is deemed to be acceptable behaviour for the sexes and become the basis upon which girls and women throughout the world are systematically given fewer resources and opportunities than boys and men. When these restrictions are condoned by political and legal systems, women and girls become powerless to protect themselves from harm and are made vulnerable to disease, mental disorder, and death [
Linking these broad structural forces to individual health outcomes, however, requires researchers to pay greater attention to the microlevel processes that reproduce gender inequality. Moss [
While gender norms are broadly reinforced culturally and institutionally, it is within the household that children first learn about gender roles, equating maleness with power and authority and femaleness with inferiority and subservience. Boys learn how to exercise their authority over girls, whereas girls learn to submit. Consequently, gender socialization entails learning how to perform the behaviours that are consistent with one’s gender. Moreover, both males and females are held to account for that performance, such that social sanctions follow when one engages in behaviour that deviates from what is expected for one’s gender [
In India, households are a primary site in which male privilege and control over women are expressed. Despite being banned since 1994, selective abortion of female foetuses has become increasingly common and excess female mortality among children under age 5 years is seen in all parts of the country [
Gender socialization occurs not only through the acquisition of gender-appropriate behaviours, but also through observing adults in the household, who are role models to children. When the household is characterized by family violence, children encounter another form of gender socialization. That is, children who witness fathers beating their mothers may become conditioned to accept violence in their relationships. Research in India has already established that violence is transmitted across generations, showing that married men who, as children, witnessed their father beating their mother were significantly more likely to condone and commit acts of violence against their own wives [
By positing that chronic strains and stressful life events threaten an individual’s adaptive capacity, stress process theory provides a useful conceptual framework for linking patterns of gender socialization to the mental health of male and female youth in India [
Second, it is likely that gender unequal practices within households produce their intended effect. When obstacles on the path to success are removed for males without regard to the cost for female children, male children should benefit while female children must work harder to keep up. Thus, in households where there is greater gender inequality, male youth should be expected to report fewer mental health problems. For female youth, living in a household with higher levels of gender inequality should be associated with greater mental health problems.
Finally, stress process recognizes that stressors arise when male and female youth engage in behaviour that is inconsistent with the expectations for their gender. For example, when male youth engage in domestic chores within the home, they are performing activities that are coded as feminine. In a society that clearly demarcates differences between the sexes, youth whose conduct is inconsistent with one’s gender are at risk for social sanctions [
Although Indian society is marked by deep gender inequality, evidence linking gender socialization to mental health problems among youth is sorely lacking. Indeed, there are only a few studies that evaluate the links between gender socialization and youth mental health. In their analysis of predictors of common mental disorders in Indian youth aged 15–24 from state of Goa, Fernandes et al. [
This small amount of evidence on the Indian context lends support to the idea that gender socialization is linked to mental health problems in male and female youth. As such, the current study had two aims. The first goal was to describe differences in gender socialization by comparing youth-reported family experiences, independence, and gender role attitudes. It is hypothesized that male youth will experience more freedom and privileges than female youth in their households. Differences in recognizing gender-discriminatory practices within households and gender egalitarian attitudes between male and female youth were also examined.
The second goal was to apply insights from stress process to test whether gender socialization was associated with mental health problems among male and female youth. Experiences that are stressful (exposure to family violence and restrictions to independence) are hypothesized to be equally detrimental to the mental health of male and female youth. Because gender-discriminatory practices afford advantages to males while simultaneously blocking opportunities for females, it was hypothesized that higher levels of gender-discriminatory practices within household will be associated with fewer mental health problems among male youth. Conversely, higher levels of gender-discriminatory practices should be associated with greater mental health problems among female youth. Finally, it was hypothesized that behaviours that contravene gender-specific norms, such as when females engage in male-typed chores and males perform tasks that are coded feminine, will be associated with worse mental health.
Data for the present paper comes from the “Youth in India: Situation and Needs study,” a subnationally representative study conducted in six states (Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu) undertaken between 2006 and 2008 [
The survey employed a multistage sampling design, initially selecting 300 primary sampling units (PSUs) in each state, split equally between rural and urban areas. In rural areas, the 2001 Census villages served as the sampling frame, with selection proceeding in two stages. First, villages were selected systematically from a stratified list (based on region, village size, caste composition, and female literacy), with selection probability proportional to size. The 150 PSUs selected were then ordered by district and
Once the PSUs were selected, household selection involved systematic sampling using a self-weighing design that took into account the target sample. There was no replacement for households that could not be contacted or refused to participate. Of 186,152 selected households, 174,037 agreed to participate, with a household response rate of 93.5%. A household schedule was administered in participating households to determine whether there was an age-eligible youth living in the household. In households where there were multiple age-eligible youth, the Kish table was used to select one married and one unmarried youth, resulting in a maximum of two interviews per household. No replacement of a selected youth was allowed. In all, 45,555 male and female youth aged 15 to 24 participated, with individual response rates ranging from 84% to 90%. Although two individuals could be interviewed in a given household, few households contributed more than one observation. Specifically, 1834 households contained two interviewed respondents and 43721 households contained one interviewed respondent, resulting in a trivial amount of clustering (1.04).
The survey tools were informed by existing surveys and an intensive presurvey with youth, parents, and key stakeholders, both before and after it was translated into four languages (Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, and Telugu, reflecting the major language groups of selected states). Approximately 75 locally trained and regularly supervised field investigators collected data over a six- to eight-month period. Informed consent was obtained from all respondents as well as parents of unmarried minor youth. To preserve confidentiality, consent forms were detached and stored separately from completed questionnaires. Complete details on all aspects of the survey are available elsewhere [
After removing youth who were missing on the key variables of interest, analysis was conducted on a final sample of 44,769 youth (98.3% of total sample).
The dependent variable, mental health problems, was assessed with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire inventory (GHQ-12), originally developed in the United Kingdom to screen for nonspecific psychiatric morbidity in the general population [
All models control for a wide range of demographic variables including age (in years), urban versus rural, region (north, west, and south), religious affiliation (Hindu, Muslim, and other), and caste (general castes, scheduled castes, scheduled tribe, other backward castes, and not known). Marital status has four categories: single/never married, married and currently living with spouse, married and currently not living with spouse, and married, no
Gender socialization in the present paper is conceptualized in terms of family experiences, independence, and gender role attitudes. Family experiences consisted of three variables: gender-discriminatory practices, performing chores inside and outside the home, and family violence.
Finally, two variables for
Independence assessed the youth’s ability to make decisions, express an opinion, move about freely, and access money.
Gender egalitarian attitudes were assessed with seven questions (see Table
Data were analyzed using Stata12. In preliminary analysis (not shown), correlation matrices confirmed that variables used in this study did not exhibit multicollinearity. Bivariate chi-square tests were used to test gender differences across all variables. Because the dependent variable, youth mental health problems, exhibited a marked positive skew, violating the assumptions of OLS regression, Poisson regression models were estimated instead. In a Poisson model, regression coefficients (
Table
Sociodemographic characteristics of Indian youth by gender (“Youth in India: Situation and Needs Study,” 2006–08 (
Characteristic | Female | Male |
---|---|---|
Age | ||
15–19 | 52.5 | 53.2 |
20–24 | 47.5 | 46.8*** |
Place of residence | ||
Rural | 70.5 | 69.7 |
Urban | 29.5 | 30.3*** |
Region | ||
South | 36.0 | 33.0 |
West | 30.2 | 32.4 |
North | 33.8 | 34.6*** |
Religion | ||
Hindu | 83.4 | 85.3 |
Muslim | 10.0 | 10.0 |
Other | 6.6 | 4.7*** |
Caste | ||
General caste | 21.3 | 21.4 |
Scheduled caste | 20.5 | 19.7 |
Scheduled tribe | 7.0 | 9.3 |
Other backward castes | 50.4 | 48.8 |
Not known | 0.8 | 0.8*** |
Marital status | ||
Single/never married | 46.1 | 80.1 |
Married, living with spouse | 47.2 | 17.5 |
Married, not living with spouse | 5.0 | 0.9 |
Married, no |
1.7 | 1.5*** |
Work status | ||
Paid only | 24.0 | 53.9 |
Unpaid only | 9.7 | 7.3 |
Both paid and unpaid | 6.1 | 6.2 |
Neither paid nor unpaid | 60.2 | 32.6*** |
Years of schooling | ||
<5 years | 32.0 | 14.3 |
5–9 years | 37.8 | 43.5 |
10–12 years | 21.9 | 31.1 |
>12 years | 8.3 | 11.1*** |
Family type | ||
Nuclear | 46.9 | 51.4 |
Nonnuclear | 53.1 | 48.6*** |
Wealth quintile | ||
Quintile 1 (poorest) | 16.5 | 12.2 |
Quintile 2 | 18.3 | 18.8 |
Quintile 3 | 20.7 | 20.9 |
Quintile 4 | 22.3 | 25.0 |
Quintile 5 (wealthiest) | 22.2 | 23.1*** |
Mean (SD) mental health problems | 1.02 (1.82) | 1.01 (1.60) |
|
30704 | 14065 |
Note: ***
Gender socialization experiences (“Youth in India: Situation and Needs Study,” 2006–08 (
Indicators | Female | Male |
---|---|---|
% youth whose families: | ||
Gave sons’ education more importance | 33.2 | 46.3*** |
Allowed sons greater freedom | 52.2 | 68.6*** |
Expected less domestic work from sons | 51.0 | 52.4*** |
% youth who never: | ||
Cooked/cleaned in homes | 1.5 | 30.1*** |
Did any tasks outside home | 20.6 | 3.7*** |
% youth who ever: | ||
Witnessed parental violence | 21.1 | 22.8*** |
Beaten by parents after age 12 | 18.8 | 47.2*** |
% youth able to make independent decision on: | ||
Choosing friends | 90.4 | 94.5*** |
Spending money | 49.2 | 72.4*** |
Buying clothes and so on for self | 33.3 | 65.7*** |
% youth who are often able to: | ||
Express opinion before elders (aside from parents) | 30.4 | 38.4*** |
Confront the person who wronged them | 34.0 | 43.3*** |
% youth with unescorted mobility inside village/neighborhood: | ||
A shop/market | 66.9 | 94.9*** |
Visit a friend/relative | 63.0 | 89.9*** |
Attend any program | 17.3 | 75.8*** |
% youth with unescorted mobility outside village/neighborhood: | ||
Visit a friend/relative | 22.3 | 82.0*** |
Attend any program | 6.1 | 67.1*** |
Entertainment | 5.1 | 66.1*** |
% youth who: | ||
Owned and operated account | 6.0 | 13.4*** |
Owned but did not operate account | 5.2 | 1.4*** |
% youth who believe: | ||
Educating girls is as important as educating boys | 77.8 | 62.6*** |
Husband alone should not decide on spending household money | 74.7 | 67.0*** |
Girls should be allowed to decide when they want to marry | 73.7 | 57.3*** |
Woman does not need husband’s permission for most things | 35.0 | 28.4*** |
Girls are usually as good as boys in studies | 81.2 | 76.6*** |
Boys should do as much domestic work as girls | 44.3 | 43.0*** |
Girls do not deserve to be teased if dressed provocatively | 57.7 | 46.2*** |
|
30704 | 14065 |
Note: ***
Table
The first set of columns in Table
Poisson regression model for gender socialization and mental health problems among females and males (“Youth in India: Situation and Needs Study,” 2006–08 (
Indicators | Females ( |
Males ( | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
(se) |
|
|
(se) |
| |
Age | 0.02 | (0.01)** | 1.02 | 0.03 | (0.01)*** | 1.03 |
Residence (ref. = rural) | ||||||
Urban | −0.22 | (0.03)*** | 0.81 | −0.20 | (0.04)*** | 0.82 |
Region (ref. = south) | ||||||
West | 0.50 | (0.04)*** | 1.65 | 0.37 | (0.05)*** | 1.45 |
North | 0.33 | (0.04)*** | 1.39 | 0.26 | (0.05)*** | 1.30 |
Religion (ref. = Hindu) | ||||||
Muslim | −0.01 | (0.04) | 0.99 | 0.05 | (0.06) | 1.05 |
Other | −0.01 | (0.05) | 0.99 | 0.07 | (0.07) | 1.07 |
Caste (ref. = general caste) | ||||||
Scheduled castes | 0.09 | (0.04) | 1.09 | 0.05 | (0.06) | 1.05 |
Scheduled tribe | 0.08 | (0.05) | 1.08 | 0.18 | (0.06)** | 1.19 |
Other backward castes | −0.01 | (0.03) | 0.99 | 0.08 | (0.05) | 1.08 |
Not known | 0.06 | (0.13) | 1.06 | 0.25 | (0.21) | 1.28 |
Marital status (ref. = single/never married) | ||||||
Married, living with spouse | −0.03 | (0.04) | 0.97 | −0.19 | (0.06)** | 0.83 |
Married, not living with spouse | −0.02 | (0.07) | 0.98 | 0.23 | (0.16) | 1.26 |
Married, no |
0.00 | (0.09) | 1.00 | −0.38 | (0.15)** | 0.68 |
Work status (ref. = paid only) | ||||||
Unpaid only | 0.00 | (0.05) | 1.00 | −0.08 | (0.07) | 0.92 |
Both paid and unpaid | −0.11 | (0.06) | 0.90 | 0.19 | (0.07)** | 1.20 |
Neither paid nor unpaid | −0.05 | (0.03) | 0.95 | 0.03 | (0.05) | 1.04 |
Years of schooling (ref. = >12 years) | ||||||
10–12 years | 0.05 | (0.03) | 1.05 | −0.10 | (0.05) | 0.90 |
5–9 years | −0.09 | (0.05) | 0.91 | −0.15 | (0.06) | 0.86 |
<5 years | −0.12 | (0.07) | 0.89 | −0.10 | (0.08) | 0.90 |
Family type (ref. = nuclear) | ||||||
Nonnuclear | 0.02 | (0.03) | 1.02 | 0.08 | (0.03) | 1.08 |
Wealth quintile (ref. = Q5, wealthiest) | ||||||
Quartile 4 | −0.08 | (0.04) | 0.92 | 0.12 | (0.05) | 1.13 |
Quartile 3 | −0.08 | (0.04) | 0.92 | 0.16 | (0.06)** | 1.17 |
Quartile 2 | −0.06 | (0.05) | 0.94 | 0.18 | (0.06)** | 1.19 |
Quartile 1 (poorest) | −0.11 | (0.05) | 0.90 | 0.26 | (0.07)*** | 1.30 |
Families discriminated between sons and daughters in education, freedom to roam, and household work (ref. = no gender-discrimination in all 3 matters) | ||||||
Gender-discrimination in 1 matter | 0.30 | (0.04)*** | 1.35 | −0.12 | (0.05) | 0.89 |
Gender-discrimination in 2 matters | 0.31 | (0.04)*** | 1.36 | −0.28 | (0.05)*** | 0.76 |
Gender-discrimination in all 3 matters | 0.42 | (0.04)*** | 1.52 | −0.24 | (0.05)*** | 0.79 |
Youth did household chores inside home (ref. = never) | ||||||
Performed housework | 0.01 | (0.11) | 1.01 | 0.15 | (0.04)*** | 1.16 |
Youth did household chores outside home (ref. = neither shopped nor did other outside chores) | ||||||
Either shopped or did other outside chores | 0.10 | (0.03)** | 1.11 | −0.15 | (0.09) | 0.86 |
Both shopped and did other outside chores | 0.14 | (0.04)*** | 1.15 | −0.31 | (0.08)*** | 0.73 |
Ever witnessed violence between parents (ref. = no) | ||||||
Yes | 0.33 | (0.03)*** | 1.39 | 0.25 | (0.04)*** | 1.28 |
Not asked—either/both parents deceased | 0.19 | (0.04)*** | 1.20 | 0.07 | (0.05) | 1.07 |
Ever experienced parental violence after age 12 (ref. = no) | ||||||
Yes | 0.24 | (0.03)*** | 1.27 | 0.12 | (0.03)** | 1.12 |
Do not remember | 0.30 | (0.11)** | 1.35 | −0.13 | (0.26) | 0.88 |
Able to make independent decision—choosing friends, spending money, buying clothes, and so on (ref. = yes, all 3) | ||||||
Yes, 2 of 3 items | 0.05 | (0.04) | 1.05 | 0.04 | (0.04) | 1.04 |
Yes, 1 of 3 items | 0.13 | (0.04)*** | 1.14 | 0.02 | (0.05) | 1.02 |
Unable to make independent decision on any item | 0.37 | (0.05)*** | 1.45 | 0.26 | (0.10) | 1.29 |
Able to often express/confront (ref. = express and confront) | ||||||
Either express or confront | 0.06 | (0.04) | 1.06 | 0.37 | (0.05)*** | 1.44 |
Neither express nor confront | 0.14 | (0.03)*** | 1.15 | 0.22 | (0.04)*** | 1.25 |
Unescorted mobility inside V/N (ref. = yes, all 3 places) | ||||||
Yes, only to 2 places | −0.06 | (0.04) | 0.94 | 0.02 | (0.06) | 1.02 |
Yes, only to 1 place | 0.29 | (0.05)*** | 1.34 | 0.22 | (0.08)** | 1.25 |
No, cannot go to any place | 0.24 | (0.04)*** | 1.27 | 0.55 | (0.09)*** | 1.73 |
Unescorted mobility outside V/N (ref. = Yes, all 3 places) | ||||||
Yes, only to 2 places | 0.18 | (0.10) | 1.20 | 0.21 | (0.06)*** | 1.23 |
Yes, only to 1 place | 0.08 | (0.09) | 1.08 | 0.09 | (0.06) | 1.09 |
No, cannot go to any place | −0.02 | (0.09) | 0.98 | 0.03 | (0.07) | 1.03 |
Access to money (ref. = owns and operates account) | ||||||
Owns but does not operate account | −0.04 | (0.08) | 0.96 | 0.28 | (0.11) | 1.32 |
Does not own an account | −0.02 | (0.06) | 0.98 | 0.16 | (0.06)** | 1.17 |
Egalitarian gender role attitudes (ref. = 6 or more items) | ||||||
Gender-equitable on 5 items | 0.09 | (0.04) | 1.09 | 0.16 | (0.07) | 1.18 |
Gender-equitable on 4 items | 0.18 | (0.04)*** | 1.20 | 0.29 | (0.07)*** | 1.34 |
Gender-equitable on 3 items | 0.24 | (0.04)*** | 1.27 | 0.37 | (0.07)*** | 1.44 |
Gender-equitable on 0–2 items | 0.34 | (0.05)*** | 1.41 | 0.38 | (0.07)*** | 1.46 |
Notes: **
Family life experiences were significant predictors of mental health problems among females; females whose families engaged in gender-discriminatory practices reported significantly more mental health problems than those whose families did not engage in such practices. Females who performed household tasks outside the home reported significantly more mental health problems than those who did not. Females who witnessed parental violence reported significantly more mental health problems than those who did not. Females who had been beaten by a parent after the age of 12 as well as those who could not remember being beaten reported significantly more mental health than those who had not been beaten.
Females who had independent decision-making in none or in only one of the three areas reported significantly more mental health problems than females who exercised independent decision-making in all three areas. Females who could neither confront nor express their opinion reported mental health problems that were, on average, 15% higher than those who could do both. Mental health problems were significantly higher for females who could go unescorted to one of three places inside their village/neighbourhood and for females who could not go to any place inside their village/neighbourhood unescorted relative to females with no restrictions. Compared with females who subscribed to egalitarian gender role attitudes on six or more items, females who subscribed to egalitarian attitudes on four or fewer items reported significantly more mental health problems.
The second set of columns in Table
Males who grew up in families engaging in gender-discriminatory practices that favoured sons reported significantly fewer mental health problems than those who grew up in families that did not engage in gender-discriminatory practices. Males who engaged in domestic tasks inside the home had on average 16% more mental health problems than those who did not. Males who did domestic tasks outside home reported 27% fewer mental health problems than those who did not. Males who witnessed parental violence reported on average 28% more mental health problems than those who never witnessed parental violence. Male youth who had ever been beaten by parent(s) after the age of 12 reported on average 12% more mental health problems than those who had not been beaten.
Males who could either express their opinions or confront others and males who could neither express nor confront reported significantly more mental health problems than those who could do both. Compared to males with no restrictions on their mobility inside their village/neighbourhood, mental health problems were 25% higher for males who could go unescorted to one of the three places and 73% higher for males who could not go unescorted to any place. Males who were able to go to two of the three places outside their village/neighbourhood reported significantly more mental health problems than males with unlimited mobility. Males with no access to money reported significantly more mental health problems than those who had both access and control. Males who subscribed to four or fewer egalitarian gender role attitudes reported significantly more mental health problems than those who subscribed to six or more.
Poised to have one of the largest pools of young people in the world, youth will play a pivotal role in building the future of the Indian society. As youth enter adult roles and prepare to parent the next generation, there is a pressing need to understand how gender socialization has shaped their experiences and how these experiences are connected to their mental well-being. As the first to address these issues in the Indian context, the current study makes the following contributions.
First, findings confirm that fewer female youth in India enjoy the same privileges afforded male youth, providing a comprehensive portrait of their family lives. Both male and female youth indicated that gender-discriminatory practices within their households were common, with sons given preference in education, freedom to roam, and household tasks. In all instances, male youth were more likely to identify gender-discriminatory practices within households than female youth. This is a troubling finding as it suggests that female youth lack awareness that they are disadvantaged by their gender.
Female youth also faced greater barriers to independence than male youth as they were less likely to engage in independent decision-making in their day-to-day lives, faced greater restrictions on their mobility, and lacked access to money. To the extent that these are key stepping stones for success in adulthood, observed deficits among female youth are likely to limit upward mobility and contribute to persisting gender inequalities throughout adulthood.
Despite household practices that favoured male youth over female youth, mobility, independent decision-making, and access to money were not universal among male youth. Fewer than half of male youth could express their opinion to elders (aside from parents) or confront others who had wronged them. Most male youth did not have access to money. Thus, there is considerable room for improving independent behaviour among male youth as well.
Finally, a greater proportion of females than males subscribed to gender-egalitarian attitudes. This finding is interesting when contrasted with the finding that a greater proportion of males than females identified gender-discriminatory practices within households. What this suggests is that while males generally recognize that females are not afforded the same privileges as males, they do not see these arrangements as problematic.
A second contribution of this study is that it confirms links between gender socialization and youth mental health. Indeed, drawing on stress process, support was found for all three hypotheses linking gender socialization to the mental health of male and female youth. First, the results of this study show that stressful experiences are harmful to the mental health of both male and female youth. Consistent with prior research [
Importantly, this study shows the association between gender-discriminatory practices and mental health operates in different directions for male and female youth. For male youth, the higher the level of household gender-discriminatory practices, the lower the amount of mental health problems. In contrast, females reported higher mental health problems as the number of gender-discriminatory practices in their households increased. The household environment emerges as a key setting in which gender inequality becomes insinuated in the fabric of social life, with corresponding influences on mental health and well-being. As such, this study is able to connect the microlevel practices of the household to the diverging destinies of male and female youth and their mental well-being [
Finally, consistent with the hypothesis that violating gender norms would be associated with worse mental health, performing household tasks
Although not the focus of this study, results also affirm sociodemographic characteristics including caste and wealth quintiles as predictors of mental health [
Our analysis underscores that gender-discriminatory practices and lack of independence are linked to youth mental health, revealing an unmet need for programs that are inclusive of male and female youth, their parents, and key community players. Such programs should encourage them to question gender stereotypes and develop independent thinking and behaviour, which are necessary for a healthy transition to adulthood. Although the Government of India has made efforts [
First, data for the analysis come from six states in India. Although this captures well-known social-cultural diversity within the country, it excludes unique aspects of states in northeastern India. A population-based survey of Indian youth does not yet exist, but should be a goal of future research. Furthermore, the data were cross-sectional, limiting causal inference. In addition, the gender composition of the household could not be established, making it difficult to know its role in gender socialization and mental health outcomes. Thus, instead of between-family comparisons, future studies should incorporate a within-families approach to better understand the ways in which male and female youth in the same household are affected by gender-discriminatory practices [
Despite these shortcomings, this study provides critical insight into the lives of a contemporary cohort of Indian youth, revealing the extent to which female youth are at disadvantage due to their gender. With far less freedom and independence relative to male youth, female youth are poorly equipped to enter adult roles with the skills they will need to be successful adults in the twenty-first century. It also clear that these social arrangements serve the interests of men. Indeed, by organizing households in ways that reinforce and promote gender-discriminatory practices within households, the mental health of male youth is enhanced at the expense of female youth. Moreover, to the extent that male youth were more likely than female youth to identify gender-discriminatory practices within households, but less likely than female youth to see these arrangements as inequitable makes clear that there remain formidable obstacles to improving the status of women in Indian society. Until both men and women see these arrangements as unjust, it is unlikely that gender inequalities will disappear in the short term.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
An earlier version of the paper was presented at the “22nd Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development (ISSBD 2012) during 8–12 July, 2012, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and the authors are thankful to the participants for their feedback and suggestions. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation supported the “Youth in India: Situation and Needs Study.” Usual disclaimer applies.