← 2023 Essay 4 | 2023 Essay 6 →
🟦 IAS MAINS 2023 — ESSAY 5
“Girls are weighed down by restrictions, boys with demands — two equally harmful disciplines.”
Tagline:
A Reflection on Gender, Social Conditioning & the Hidden Costs of Inequality
🟧 1. FODDER SEEDS — Strategic Brainstorm Points 💡
• Gender socialisation disciplines both genders differently but harmfully
• Girls face control, surveillance, limitation
• Boys face pressure, performance anxiety, emotional suppression
• Restrictions crush freedom; demands crush vulnerability
• Patriarchy harms women and men
• Gender roles are taught, not natural
• Silence of boys’ mental health mirrors invisibility of girls’ autonomy
• Social expectations become invisible chains
• Equality means freedom from both fear and pressure
• True empowerment dismantles rigid gender scripts
🟦 2. INDIAN PHILOSOPHICAL & SOCIAL SEEDS 🇮🇳
• Manusmriti vs Reform Movements — Evolution of gender thinking
• Buddha — Equality of spiritual capacity
• Bhakti movement — Gender transcendence through devotion
• Ambedkar — Gender justice integral to social democracy
• Savitribai Phule — Education as liberation for women
• Indian family system — Protector logic morphs into control
• Masculinity in India — Provider role = emotional imprisonment
🟥 3. WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL & INTELLECTUAL SEEDS 🌍
• Simone de Beauvoir — “One is not born, but becomes, a woman”
• Judith Butler — Gender as performance imposed by society
• Erik Erikson — Identity crises shaped by social expectations
• Bell Hooks — Patriarchy wounds men emotionally
• Foucault — Discipline exercised through social norms
• Modern psychology — Toxic masculinity & internalised oppression
🟩 4. GOVERNANCE, SOCIETY & GS SEEDS 🏛️
• Gender-sensitive policy must address both sexes
• Women empowerment ≠ men disempowerment
• Mental health crisis among boys often ignored
• Education systems reinforce stereotypes
• Media glorifies aggressive masculinity and docile femininity
• Laws address women’s safety; fewer address boys’ emotional health
• Gender budgeting must include care economy & mental well-being
• SDGs emphasise gender equality as human development
🟪 5. QUICK UPSC REVISION SEEDS 📌
• Restrictions and pressures are two sides of control
• Patriarchy disciplines everyone
• Gender justice = freedom + dignity for all
• Equality dismantles roles, not people
🌳 ESSAY TREE — UPSC STRUCTURE MAP
I. Introduction
Introduce metaphor of “discipline” and hidden violence of norms.
II. Meaning & Interpretation
Explain restrictions on girls and demands on boys.
III. Social Conditioning
How families, schools, media enforce gender roles.
IV. Psychological Impact
Fear, anxiety, identity suppression in both genders.
V. Indian Context
Cultural practices and reform efforts.
VI. Global Perspective
Universal nature of gendered harm.
VII. Governance & Policy
Inclusive frameworks for gender justice.
VIII. Ethical Dimension
Human dignity beyond gender roles.
IX. Counter-view
Tradition vs change — balancing structure with freedom.
X. Conclusion
True equality liberates everyone from harmful discipline.
✒️ IAS MAINS 2023 — ESSAY 5
“Girls are weighed down by restrictions, boys with demands — two equally harmful disciplines.”
Tagline:
A Reflection on Gender, Social Conditioning & the Hidden Costs of Inequality
Girls are often taught to lower their gaze while boys are taught to “man up”. One gender is protected to the point of confinement, the other is pushed to the point of exhaustion. Behind these apparently opposite treatments lies a common logic: society does not see children as individuals first, but as carriers of fixed gender roles. The statement, “Girls are weighed down by restrictions, boys with demands — two equally harmful disciplines,” captures this deep structural bias. It reminds us that patriarchy does not merely oppress girls and women; it also distorts the emotional, moral and psychological growth of boys and men. The disciplines are different in form, but convergent in harm.
For girls, restrictions begin very early, often even before birth through sex-selective practices, and continue in subtle and crude ways throughout life. They are asked to talk softly, laugh softly, dress modestly, move carefully, choose “safe” careers, come home early, avoid “unnecessary visibility”. Their mobility is curtailed in the name of protection, their aspirations moderated in the name of tradition, and their autonomy limited in the name of honour. This constant policing of bodies and choices teaches them that the world is unsafe and that they themselves are somehow responsible for anything that goes wrong. Over time, this form of discipline produces internalised fear, self-doubt and a sense that they must always ask for permission to occupy space.
For boys, the discipline takes another shape. They are rarely protected; they are expected to protect. They are asked not to cry, not to show fear, not to hesitate, not to fail. Emotional vulnerability is equated with weakness, and weakness is treated as shameful. Boys are told that they must “be successful”, “be strong”, “be the breadwinner”, “take responsibility”, often before they have even understood who they are or what they want from life. This demand-heavy socialisation becomes a silent pressure cooker. Many boys grow into men who are outwardly confident but inwardly anxious, unable to process fear, loss, or tenderness in healthy ways. In extreme cases, this unprocessed emotional burden can spill over as aggression, addiction or withdrawal.
The two disciplines reinforce each other. A girl taught to restrict her dreams may come to believe that dependence is natural, which in turn justifies placing more demands on the boy as the default provider and decision-maker. A boy raised under relentless demands may come to believe that control is his right and emotional labour is not his responsibility, which then reinforces further restrictions on girls. Thus, restrictions on girls and demands on boys are not two parallel systems; they are interlocking gears in the machinery of patriarchy. Both keep the system running, and both prevent individuals from exploring their full human potential.
This dual harm has wider social consequences. When girls are systematically restricted, half of society’s talent pool is underutilised. Educational and professional choices are made not purely on aptitude, but on the perceived “safety” or “respectability” of certain paths. The economy loses innovators, administrators, scientists, artists and entrepreneurs who could have emerged from among girls whose horizons were narrowed too early. On the other side, when boys are overloaded with expectations, they may make choices driven less by inner calling and more by social validation. Careers are pursued not because they are meaningful, but because they are prestigious, high paying or “manly”. This misalignment between potential and path reduces both productivity and life satisfaction.
Psychologically, the outcomes are equally serious. Restricted girls may learn to minimise themselves, apologising for every assertion, doubting every independent thought. At times, they may internalise the idea that their worth is conditional: on obedience, on appearance, on conformity. This can lead to anxiety, depression and a deep sense of inadequacy. Demand-burdened boys, on the other hand, may internalise the idea that their worth is conditional on performance: marks, salary, status, strength. When they fall short of these ever-rising benchmarks, they experience guilt and shame. Yet they have not been taught the language of vulnerability, so they cannot easily seek help. Thus, both genders are emotionally wounded, though in different ways.
At a deeper level, these harmful disciplines impoverish the moral fabric of society. An environment where girls are constantly restricted fosters a culture of control rather than consent. It normalises surveillance and mistrust, sending a message that the solution to social ills lies in limiting women rather than reforming structures. Similarly, an environment where boys are fuelled by demands rather than guided by values normalises competition without compassion, success without reflection, and authority without accountability. Such a culture might produce high achievers, but not necessarily humane citizens or wise leaders.
The challenge, therefore, is not simply to free girls from restrictions or to relieve boys of demands. It is to redesign our socialisation process itself. Families, schools and media must consciously move away from gendered expectations and move towards human expectations. Girls must not only be encouraged to study and work; they must be allowed to be adventurous, assertive and imperfect without being shamed. Boys must not only be encouraged to succeed; they must be allowed to be afraid, to fail, to seek support without being ridiculed. The core shift lies in seeing both as full human beings, capable of a range of emotions, roles and destinies.
Public policy and law can enable this transformation, but cannot complete it alone. Laws against child marriage, domestic violence and workplace harassment challenge restrictions on girls by creating protective frameworks. Policies that ensure equal pay, maternity and paternity leave, safe public transport and gender-sensitive schooling environments make it easier for both girls and boys to experiment with non-traditional roles. Campaigns that portray men sharing care work, women leading in STEM, and children expressing emotions freely can gradually normalise new patterns. However, the most decisive change must unfold within the intimate microspaces of homes, classrooms and peer circles, where everyday comments and expectations shape self-worth.
For administrators and policymakers, the twin disciplines of restriction and demand must be recognised as developmental issues, not merely cultural quirks. Gender budgeting, school curricula, teacher training, mental health programmes and community outreach can be deliberately designed to break this pattern. Encouraging fathers to participate actively in nurturing, recognising the emotional labour of mothers, training teachers to spot signs of gendered stress, and providing safe spaces for adolescents to discuss identity and pressure are not peripheral concerns; they are central to building a resilient, inclusive society.
Ultimately, the statement that girls are weighed down by restrictions and boys with demands is a reminder that true gender justice is not a zero-sum game. Liberating girls from unjust restraints does not weaken boys; it frees them too from the burden of acting out narrow scripts of masculinity. Easing unreasonable demands on boys does not sideline girls; it invites them into a world where partnership replaces hierarchy. A just society is one where no child grows up fearing freedom and no child grows up fearing failure. When we redesign our disciplines to nurture rather than suppress, we do not merely balance the scales between the sexes; we deepen the humanity of all.
🌙 SPIN-OFF ESSAY (2023 Essay-5)
“When Society Scripts Childhood, It Erases Humanity”
(Monk’s Reflective Essay — approx. 1000–1200 words)
Every society disciplines its children, but not every society reflects on how unevenly that discipline is distributed. Long before adulthood arrives, invisible scripts are handed over — some written in warnings, others in expectations. One child is taught caution, restraint and silence. Another is taught courage, endurance and conquest. Neither script is neutral. Both shape lives profoundly, and often painfully. When girls are weighed down by restrictions and boys by demands, what is really being disciplined is not gender, but humanity itself.
Restriction and demand appear, on the surface, to be opposites. One limits motion; the other accelerates it. One confines; the other compels. Yet beneath this difference lies a shared root: mistrust of individual freedom. Girls are restricted because society does not trust them to navigate the world safely. Boys are burdened with demands because society does not trust the world to care for them. One is caged in the name of protection; the other is hardened in the name of survival. In both cases, the child’s inner world is neglected.
For girls, restrictions arrive quietly, wrapped in care. “Don’t go there.” “Don’t dress like that.” “Don’t speak so loudly.” Each instruction may sound trivial, but together they construct an atmosphere of constant vigilance. Over time, movement itself becomes suspect. Curiosity begins to feel dangerous. Desire learns to apologise. The world is internalised as something hostile, and the self as something fragile. Even empowerment, when it finally arrives, feels exhausting because it must fight decades of conditioning.
For boys, demands arrive just as early, though far less gently. “Be strong.” “Don’t cry.” “Take responsibility.” “Earn respect.” Love is often conditional on performance. Emotional expression is policed not by rules, but by ridicule. Fear must be hidden, failure covered, pain swallowed. The boy learns that his value lies not in who he is, but in what he achieves or provides. In extreme forms, tenderness comes to be seen as a liability and empathy as weakness.
The cruelty of these disciplines lies not only in what they suppress, but in what they prevent. Restricted girls often grow up with undeveloped confidence and hesitations that persist even when freedom is formally granted. Demand-burdened boys often reach adulthood with no vocabulary for emotion, unable to name grief, anxiety or loneliness, except through anger or withdrawal. Society then blames individuals for outcomes it quietly engineered.
Civilisations pay a heavy price for this imbalance. When girls are confined, entire reservoirs of intelligence, creativity and leadership are left untapped. When boys are reduced to roles, their capacity for care, cooperation and ethical reflection is stunted. The result is a social order that overvalues power and undervalues compassion. It produces achievers without healers, protectors without listeners, providers without partners.
The tragedy intensifies because these scripts reinforce each other. A woman taught dependence justifies the demand that a man must carry the entire burden of provision. A man trained to dominate rationalises control as duty. Thus, restrictions and demands are not opposing forces; they are mutually sustaining. Each props up the other, ensuring the cycle continues.
Literature and history are filled with figures who broke these molds at tremendous personal cost. Women who sought autonomy were labelled rebellious, unfeminine, immoral. Men who expressed vulnerability were dismissed as weak, unserious, unreliable. Yet it is precisely these individuals who expanded the boundaries of possibility for those who followed. Their lives testify that the harm of discipline lies not in structure itself, but in rigidity.
Modern societies stand at a crossroads. On one hand, legal and institutional reforms have weakened some overt restrictions. Girls attend schools, enter professions, and claim public space. On the other, the internal residue of restraint remains stubborn. Similarly, while conversations about mental health and masculinity have begun, boys are still rewarded for stoicism more than honesty. Progress has been uneven and incomplete.
True gender justice demands more than reassigning burdens. It requires dismantling the assumption that human virtues belong to genders rather than persons. Courage, empathy, ambition, care, resilience — these are not masculine or feminine traits. They are human capacities. A society that restricts half its children and exhausts the other half cannot call itself developed, no matter how advanced its institutions.
Education plays a decisive role here. Classrooms that allow questions without gender bias, sports fields that welcome all bodies, curricula that value emotional intelligence as much as competition — these can gradually undo inherited scripts. Families, too, must relearn parenting. Protection must not become imprisonment. Responsibility must not become coercion. Love must detach itself from control and performance.
At its core, this essay’s insight is simple yet radical: harm is not always inflicted through cruelty. It is often administered through good intentions carried too far and traditions left unexamined. The discipline imposed on girls and boys is not malicious; it is habitual. And habits, when unnamed, become invisible prisons.
Freedom, then, is not merely a legal state; it is a psychological one. To free girls from fear is as important as freeing boys from pressure. To allow all children to explore, to fail, to feel, to choose — this is not indulgence, but justice. Only when restriction and demand give way to trust does society begin to raise not obedient subjects, but whole human beings.
← 2023 Essay 4 | 2023 Essay 6 →
Back to IAS 2023 Essay Set