Affinity and Moods

Clothing Rules as Boundary Tests in Patriarchal Families

“Will she let us decide what she does with her body?”

Many clothing rules imposed upon women who marry into patriarchal families. This is rarely spoken out aloud, and the argument is often framed as modesty, respect, safety or family values.

The dress itself is seldom the issue.

The real and the underlying issue is authority.

Clothing becomes an early and socially acceptable site for testing whether a woman’s body will ultimately belong to herself or to others. What may seem like a harmless tradition, is often a training ground for obedience.

Clothing Is Never Just Clothing

In patriarchal families, rules about how women, especially daughters-in-law, should dress are frequently defended as “traditional” or “harmless.”

When something is called “traditional”, it means:

• The authority to enforce the rule is inherited
• The rule predates you and therefore needs no justification or proof of correctness.
• You are not supposed to challenge it
• Obedience is framed as respect
• Resistance will amount to disrespect.

When something is called ‘Harmless’, it implies there is no harm in following it because:

‘It’s familiar’

‘That’s what we grew up with’

‘Everyone followed it’

‘It didn’t kill anyone.’  

And ultimately:

“This rule need not make any sense to you. You just need to follow it.”

The word “Harmless” also automatically dissolves any resistance, implying that the woman is overreacting or being unreasonable. It’s a milder way of stating:

‘We don’t want to look into the power dynamics involved,’

which appropriately shuts down meaningful questions before they can even be asked and prevents confrontation with the source of power.

Questions like these are never allowed to surface:

1. Is the woman comfortable wearing this?
2. Does she have a meaningful choice?
3. Can she say no without punishment?
4. Do these rules apply to boys as well?

What is really being protected?

When families say a rule is ‘Harmless,’ what they are really protecting is:

1. Adult authority
2. Gender hierarchy.

The woman receives little protection, rather it is the ‘Rule’ that is protected from scrutiny.

Similarly whey they say ‘Its traditional’, what they really mean is:

• “The system existed before you; your discomfort is irrelevant.”
• “Questioning this threatens family honour or culture.”

Control is repeatedly framed as care, but it’s not care, rather ‘Power’ that is really being preserved.

Why these rules exist in the first place?

These rules function as boundary tests.

They assess how much a woman entering the family will allow herself to be conditioned.

When a woman is told she cannot wear clothes she feels comfortable, confident or happy into, say jeans, pants, churidars etc, an unspoken boundary test is taking place, which checks:

1. Will she obey, even if she feels the rule is regressive?
2. Will she prioritise family approval over bodily comfort?
3. Will she accept that her body connotes family honour rather than personal agency?

So, the test really is not about her skirt, hair or sarees. It’s about how much she can further be controlled, bent, conditioned and used to serve their family needs.

The Language of control: ‘It’s For Your Own Good’

These rules are rarely enforced harshly at first. They come wrapped in concern:

“It’s for your own safety.”

“We’re just teaching you how to respect elders.”

“This is just how good girls behave.”

“We only want the best for you.”

The language is soft but the consequences are hard.

From Clothing to Compliance

The rules usually begin with visibility of the body.

“Women in our families only wear sarees.”

“Churidar is allowed only on holidays.”

“Hair should not be left loose.”

“After marriage, jeans and shirts are not allowed.”

If we reframe the question from
“Is this outfit appropriate?”
to
“Who has the right to decide what happens to her body?”
the power dynamic becomes clear.

What Happens When a Woman Questions the Rules:

A woman may wonder:

• I am educated, capable, and have lived a full life. Why should my clothes suddenly define my worth?
• Why am I being asked to give up things that bring me comfort and confidence?
• What do hair and clothing have to do with morality or character?
• Why does marriage require shrinking myself?

These questions are often dismissed as rebellion because resistance threatens:

• Adult authority
• Gender hierarchy norms
• Intergenerational power transfer
• Social reputation
• The illusion that ‘control equals care’

How Non-Compliance is Punished

Accusations

When a daughter-in-law resists, open discussions rarely happen, instead, it triggers accusations of:

1. Disrespect
2. Rebellion
3. Moral failure
4. Ungrateful

Shame

Shame, a powerful tool of control, trains women to self-monitor posture, clothing, speech, behaviour, until fear of judgement is internalised into the self.

These accusations may look like:

 “You’re embarrassing us.”

 “What will people think?”

 “You’re being disrespectful.”

Guilt (Often via the Husband)

“You are breaking the family.”

“After all that we have done….”

Silent punishment

When overt control fails, silent punishments follow, usually delivered by the mother-in-law, sometimes reinforced by the son himself, in a passive manner, in the form of:

• Withdrawal – acting ‘hurt’ rather than angry
• Coldness – withholding warmth
• Exclusion – not speaking, not including

Why silent treatment and why not open conflict?

Silence maintains moral superiority while avoiding exposure of control mechanisms. If the daughter-in-law speaks up, she is labelled as:

• Rude
• Arrogant
• Ungrateful
• Disrespectful
• Rebellious
• Modern (in a derogatory way)
• Immoral or influenced by ‘bad ideas’

The issue is not what she said.
It is that she dared to speak at all.

Why Resistance Looks Threatening:

Resistance threatens hierarchy. They think, ‘If she can decide what to do with her body, we don’t know, what she might decide tomorrow.’

The son and in-laws may emotionally withdraw from the wife. The son is often pressurised to ‘control’ her. His credibility is questioned, and her intentions are misunderstood.

Tradition is not a choice here. Tradition is followed to enforce and maintain ‘control.’

What happens when she complies?

If they find her compliant, the system discovers something:

Her boundaries are negotiable.

Slowly this will move on to other things like:

• Restrict movement from home
• Reduce independence and social freedom
• Deference to male authority
• Silence around discomfort or violation
• Prioritizing other’s comfort over her own all the time.

Her nervous system learns

Obedience = belonging

Assertion = punishment.

Eventually, she begins to self-police, anticipating shame, suppressing desire, monitoring herself.

Initially the compromises will seem minor.

1^st compromise: ‘Ok I’ll dress dress up differently here.’

Then another: ‘I’ll visit my parents less.’

Then another: ‘I won’t argue today.’

None of them are catastrophic. But over time, her decision-making muscle weakens, eroding self-trust, exhaustion becomes permanent and resistance becomes dangerous.

Eventually, the internal message becomes:

“To belong here, I must obey.”

Long Term Consequences For Women

In the long term, this conditioning can lead to:

• Difficulty asserting boundaries
• Confusing control with care
• High tolerance for coercion in relationships
• Disconnection with bodily autonomy (touch, labour, sexual, reproductive).
• Emotional exhaustion and depression
• Loss of Self

This is not adjustment.

This is gradual erosion of her identity, which is dangerous.

Role of Mother-in-Law

Patriarchal families are very particular about maintaining internal structure and hierarchy. The Mother-in-law is often the gatekeeper of approval. She must validate and ‘approve’ everything, as only then acceptance, peace and status in the family is ensured. The father-in-law may appear silent but structurally reinforces patriarchal traditions, by default.

Mother-in-law is often a competitor for emotional primacy with the son.

How are sons conditioned before marriage?

Sons in patriarchal families are often raised with a sense of entitlement masked as duty. They:

• Obey parents unquestioningly
• Are shielded from labour
• Avoid conflict with elders
• Confuse duty with entitlement

They are made to feel morally superior under the cloak of ‘tradition’ or ‘dharma’, thus creating a hierarchy within the family set up. The son is praised for obedience, not emotional maturity and taught that women’s sacrifice is natural and virtuous. Mother is often the primary source of authority and wife is never a part of the decision-making process. Son remains more protective towards the mother.

He may appear gentle, intellectual, and non-confrontational but struggle to individuate and transition to selfhood. He will avoid taking clear stands, expect his wife to ‘adjust’, minimise her distress and relay parental expectations instead of shielding her. Disagreement feels like disloyalty. He will feel victimized when asked to choose.

When asked to take a stand, they say:

“I’m stuck in the middle.”

Whereas he will benefit from the imbalance.

What the Daughter-in-Law Is Expected to Be

She is expected to:

• Absorb into the husband’s family identity
• De-prioritize her natal family
• Serve without complaint
• Manage household labour invisibly
• Be sexually available but socially modest
• Produce children quickly

The woman is disarmed from her support system, education and autonomy, made dependent, labour extracted, and praise used as currency with a ‘Good Daughter-in-law’ reward. The daughters-in-law of such families often end up feeling like an outsider or intruders and lead a quiet, invisible existence, without any freedom to do as they please, and constantly being under strict control and supervision, taking care of the labour work of the house. Guilt is often used as a bonding mechanism, and disagreements are treated as betrayal.

Her worth is measured by:

• Compliance
• Sacrifice
• Silence
• Emotional labour

Love becomes conditional.

This may not be always, but most often, this is the case in such families and that is why it is dangerous.

How A Woman Is Treated After Marriage

Early phase (honeymoon control):

• Excessive monitoring disguised as “care”
• Advice framed as guidance, not coercion
• Comparisons with idealized women
• Subtle erosion of autonomy

Later phase:

• Gaslighting (“We only want your good”)
• Guilt induction
• Policing of behaviour, dress, speech
• Emotional triangulation via the son
• Silent punishment for resistance

The long-term outcomes of patriarchy in families will look like:

• The woman becomes compliant and loses autonomy
• Chronic emotional exhaustion and depression
• Ongoing marital dissatisfaction
• Conflict escalating after children
• The woman blamed for “breaking the family.”
• Son never emotionally matures
• Intergenerational repetition of control

Systemic Problem

Patriarchy in families is not about culture, caste, or creed, rather embedded within the structure, rules or culture of a system in a deep-rooted manner.

It is solely about control.

Patriarchy rarely announces itself through violence at first. It begins with rules that appear reasonable, loving, and harmless. It begins by asking women to make small adjustments “just this once.” Clothing becomes the first concession, obedience the second, silence the third. By the time the damage is visible, autonomy has already been traded for belonging. When a family claims the right to decide what a woman wears, it is asserting ownership over her body and rehearsing how far that ownership can extend. She is being asked to surrender far more than clothes, she is being asked to surrender herself.

This is not cultural preservation; it is power maintenance. And every time a woman is told that compliance is respect, she is being trained to disappear. Clothing is never the end point. It is the first line of conquest. The quiet question that underlies it all is:

“Will she let us decide?”