Associate Professor, Institute of Sociological Sciences, Head of Department of Family Sociology and Education, The Cardinal Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland,
Email: mszoltis@gmail.com
Most assessments of women’s status and gender inequality focus on female participation in the public sector and variables such as literacy rates, education levels, labor force participation, health and income, or women’s standing relative to men in social norms, traditions, and family law, using data from national or international agencies. However, a comprehensive monitoring of women’s autonomy and experiences requires that we also have indicators that address gendered power distribution and hierarchy in the private sphere. This is critical given that traditional patriarchal practices in grassroots institutions like families, particularly in the Global South, continue to exacerbate gender bias and discrimination, significantly impacting long-term developmental outcomes across individuals and populations.
This paper introduces the Patriarchy Index (hereafter PI) to the sociological community, emphasizing its relevance in the current disciplinary context. The PI stems from three converging streams of social science analysis. Firstly, the revolution in census and census-like microdata availability created "big data" opportunities to explore co-resident domestic groups worldwide as matrices of statuses, functions, hierarchies, and relationships that influence individual autonomy and agency. Secondly, the recent reconceptualization of "patriarchy" as a multifaceted, historically dynamic social construct encompasses both the stratification of social attainment by sex and the domination of men over each other based on seniority (Therborn 2004; Wiesner-Hanks 2018). Thirdly, efforts to quantify detailed socio-anthropological descriptions of hierarchical family structures (primarily in Eurasia) propose ideal-type derivations for comparative analysis using measurable variables.
Accordingly, eleven quintessential principles of patriarchal family organization were proposed, applicable across various cultural contexts and historical periods, and organized into four domains, capturing key dimensions of the phenomenon: the domination of men over women, the domination of the older generation over the younger generation, the extent of patrilocality, and the preference for sons (see Figure 1 below) : Women do not head households (1), they marry early (at, or soon after puberty) (2), always being younger than their grooms (3), while staying with their natal families until marriage (4). Young men do not become household heads while seniors are alive (5), nor do sons of living fathers establish independent households (6). Some men remain in the family household permanently (7) and elders are not left to care for themselves (8). At marriage, girls move into their husband's or father-in-law's household (9). Parents prefer to raise sons over daughters (10), leading to girls receiving less care (11).
Figure 1: The four major dimensions of “patriarchy”, and their eleven input variables
Based on the above principles, the eleven input variables were operationalized to be computable from routine census microdata, whether historical or contemporary, even if the data is semantically weak. Most variables directly capture various forms of gender and generational biases at the household/family level. Other variables serve as proxies for behavioral patterns not directly observable in the census microdata, such as parental control over marriage, female participation in property devolution and labor force, and gender-discriminatory practices in infancy and childhood.
The PI uses a 10-point scale for each indicator, measuring each regional population on a 0–10 performance scale. The first nine indicators are benchmarked against the highest possible outcome, with the best region scoring 10 and others scoring lower (0 for a natural lowest value). The last two variables, due to their distinct ranges, use neutral proportions of 0.51 and 105 as minimum values, with a similar approach for maximum values. The overall patriarchy measure is a nested average of these 11 indicators across four dimensions, ranging from 0 (minimum) to 40 (maximum) patriarchy points. The index shows good internal consistency, with Guttman’s λ6 values between 0.89 and 0.74, indicating reliability in measuring the underlying construct of patriarchy (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2: Example of the spatial and frequency distribution of the PI across Eurasia
Note: points indicate historical data. Guttman’s λ6: 0.89 for the historical data, and 0.74 for the contemporary data. Source: IPUMS-International census microdata from 857 regional populations in 26 European countries from 1700 to 1926, and 21 Asian/North African countries after 1970 (N=93 mln people)
Basic findings
The PI measures the intensity of patriarchy in family systems across cultures and over time. Figure 2 (above) maps the patriarchy levels in historical Europe and contemporary Asian societies on a common scale. It shows that while all regional populations exhibited some patriarchal features, none were fully patriarchal or completely free of patriarchy. There is considerable variability in PI values within Europe and Asia. However, historical Europe displays more heterogeneous patterns at both ends of the spectrum compared to modern Asia, with the highest and lowest PI values being more characteristic of Europe.
Interpretation
The PI characterizes the situations of women, the aged, and young people based on their access to socially valued resources, without considering their positions relative to normative standards. Thus, the index values represent absolute, not relative, measures of gender and age inequality, aligning more with measures of women's status than with gender-inequality metrics. Importantly, the PI is based on actual behaviors, not behavioral norms, capturing local/regional familial organizational patterns that enforce or mitigate gender and age hierarchies. This corresponds to Walby's "private/domestic patriarchy" or Kocabıçak's "modern domestic patriarchy" domains (Walby 2009; Kocabıçak 2020). However, extant literature and the PI’s validation against other indexes indicate that various aspects of the PI may hinder women’s economic participation and empowerment beyond the family sphere.
Advantages
One of the greatest strengths of the PI) is its simplicity, making it theoretically applicable to any human society with basic data requirements. The PI can be easily calculated from routine census microdata, without complex or specialized statistical techniques. Noteworthy, it has recently inspired similar indexes for Africa, India, and Italy.
The PI offers several advantages. It can provide patriarchy estimates at both country and disaggregated levels, enabling focused interregional comparisons. To date, only the Gender Development Index (GDI) offers similarly detailed estimates. In addition to measuring gender and generational inequalities, the PI can be used to assess the strength of family systems and Gelfand’s "tight" cultures, and to predict demographic behaviors and developmental outcomes. By focusing on household and demographic sources of gender inequality, the PI offers complementary information to existing measures. It is particularly relevant for LMICs, where persistent social practices may hinder progress toward more equitable societies, making it an important tool for researchers and policymakers.
However, the PI may be less applicable in developed societies with nuclear families and cohabitation or in non-Eurasian contexts, such as polygamous societies, without specific adaptations. Moreover, while the PI highlights gendered family systems, its broader applicability to patriarchy, such as in political leadership, requires case-specific assessment and improved data, as recent adaptations in India and Italy demonstrate.
Most relevant literature:
Gruber S, Szołtysek M. The Patriarchy Index: a comparative study of power relations across
historic Europe. Hist Fam. 2016.
Kocabıçak, Ece. 2020. "Why property matters? New varieties of domestic patriarchy in Turkey." Social Politics 28 (4). doi: 10.1093/sp/jxaa023.
Szołtysek M, et al. The patriarchy index: A new measure of gender and generational inequalities in the
past. Cross-Cultural Research. 2017;51(3).
Szołtysek M, Poniat R. Historical family systems and contemporary developmental outcomes:
what is to be gained from the historical census microdata revolution? The History of the Family. 2018;23(3).
Szołtysek M, et al.. Family patriarchy and child sex ratios in historical Europe. Hist Fam.
2022;27(4).
Szołtysek M, Poniat R. European Family Patriarchy in the Past and Contemporary
Developmental Inequalities. Cross-Cultural Research. 2024;0(0).
Therborn, G. 2004. Between sex and power: Family in the world, 1900–2000. London: Routledge
Walby, Sylvia. 2009. Globalisation and inequalities: Complexity and contested modernities. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Wiesner-Hanks, M.E. 2018. Forum Introduction: Reconsidering Patriarchy in Early Modern