Families give us more than just our dad’s determined hairline or grandma’s cheekbones. There’s something far more powerful, quieter, yet deeply carved into the way we grow up. Generations don’t only pass down heirlooms; they hand over invisible scripts. People don’t usually give these out in a lecture; they just happen in everyday life.
Imagine a toddler who can barely put words together but is already picking up on many invisible instructions while laughing at the world. They start hearing things like “Boys don’t cry” or “Let your brother carry that”, along with learning how to talk or tie their shoes. And just like that, the story starts. These simple-sounding remarks? They’re anything but.
Layered over time, they turn into powerful mental blueprints of what it supposedly means to be a boy or a girl. Long before a child can spell “gender,” their brain has already filed away clues, hints, and repeated scripts. Psychologists call this implicit learning—a sneaky, unconscious process where we start to absorb patterns just by being around them (Reber, 1993). The twist? These mental maps often operate behind the scenes, setting limits we don’t even know exist, shaping how we think, dream, and define ourselves.
Read More: Gender Norms and Self-Concept in India
Learning by Watching: No Manual Required
Kids aren’t handed a gender manual at birth, but they might as well be. A huge chunk of what they come to “know” about gender isn’t told; it’s shown. Albert Bandura (1977) called this observational learning, and it’s exactly what it sounds like: children becoming belief sponges just by watching the world around them. If a little boy sees Dad balancing chequebooks and Mom managing diapers and dinner, he logs that pattern as natural, unquestionable.
Likewise, a passing comment from a grandmother, “Men just aren’t wired for emotions,” can stick like gum to the mind, quietly cementing beliefs about who feels what and who doesn’t. These early exposures eventually crystallise into gender schemas: mental filing systems for sorting behaviour into “boy stuff” and “girl stuff” (Bem, 1981). And here’s the kicker: this isn’t a conscious choice. The brain replicates what it sees because it is constantly looking for order.
Read More: Why Blue is assigned to boys and Pink to girls?
Where the Wiring Begins
Here’s the science: Dopamine, the brain’s little happy dance chemical, is released when a child shows gender-conforming behaviour and receives praise (Schultz, 1998). And so, a girl who helps Mom cook dinner feels acknowledged; her brain starts coupling the act of caring with belonging. When a boy heeds a dare or wins a wrestling match, he gets cheers and a dopamine squirt, as well as a powerful surge of purpose and self-assertion that may also provide a moral compass and a sense of resolution. Similar to a slot machine with invisible levers, these small emotional rewards promote the behaviour.
Now zoom out. Think about everyday language. Boys? They’re called “strong,” “brave,” and “little heroes.” Girls? “Sweet,” “polite,” “so pretty.” These small nuances of praise aren’t inherently harmful, but over time, they serve as directional signals, pointing children toward a less harmful or more harmful sense of self. Even chores reflect the division: girls are the ones cleaning dishes, and boys are the ones mowing lawns. And emotions? That gets split, too. Moms are often the emotional translators, handling household feelings, while Dads stick to practical fixes. These patterns may look mundane, but they’re doing deep psychological landscaping.
Read More: Because It Is Beyond Dolls For Girls And Cars For Boys!
When Belief Becomes Self
By age five to seven, kids have built a fairly locked-in sense of what “boy” and “girl” are supposed to mean. These gender schemas now double as mirrors: children start measuring their own worth against them. A girl fascinated by robots might suddenly wonder, “Wait… is this for boys?” She hasn’t been told she doesn’t belong; she feels it deep in her bones. If she keeps going anyway, she might hit a wall of discomfort called cognitive dissonance: a psychological tug-of-war between what she loves and what she thinks she should love (Festinger, 1957). Boys face their own prisons. Expressing vulnerability? Not manly. Tears? Off-limits. These unspoken laws encourage emotional shutdown long before boys even realise they’re happening.
Beyond the Living Room Walls
These ideas don’t stay locked inside the house. The world outside just picks up where the family left off. Media, for instance, is a masterclass in repetitive gender training. Commercials, TV series, and books; they all affirm these same binaries: Women care for others, and men protect or make the decisions. This phenomenon, known as perceptual priming (Bargh, 1996), occurs when people are repeatedly exposed to a message to the point that their brains are essentially trained to automatically expect (and thus accept) these ideas as commonplace.
Then there’s school. The teachers may be unknowingly playing into gender stereotypes. Girls receive praise, presumably, for being neat and compliant; boys for being bold and creative. They’re not the grand injustices, but they are the tiny tributaries that feed kids’ self-beliefs. Dweck (2006) showed that if children are praised for their effort or their ability, it can affect the child’s mindset. When girls are tidy and boys are smart, they come to fixed lanes, one for competence and identity.
And don’t forget the jungle of peer groups. The second a child steps out of their gender “lane,” there’s often teasing or cold shoulders. That fear of social rejection? It’s called social identity threat (Steele, 1997), and it’s powerful enough to make many kids fall right back in line.
Read More: Debunking the Alpha Myth: Gender Stereotypes and the Psychology of Power
Wounds You Can’t See
These norms influence behaviour not just shape but carve into the soul. For girls and women, being socialised into a system that instructs them to put others first can result in a lifetime spent trying to please everyone and to be constantly on the lookout for everything that might go wrong. Constantly checking how you’re perceived? That’s self-objectification: seeing yourself through someone else’s eyes (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). And it’s not just mentally exhausting; it saps the very thing that helps us focus, makes us feel strong, and reinforces our self-esteem: energy.
And for boys? Emotional repression doesn’t disappear—it just mutates. Many boys grow up emotionally tone-deaf, a condition called alexithymia—the inability to recognise or articulate one’s own feelings (Levant et al., 2006). What doesn’t come out in words might come out as aggression or irritability. Underneath the bravado? Often, a pile of unspoken sadness (Jakupcak et al., 2003).
Read More: Recognizing Cognitive Biases in Mental Health Diagnosis
Why Challenging the Script Feels So Hard
Why don’t more people reject these old scripts? Because change messes with our mental harmony. We like our beliefs to line up neatly with our experiences—this need is called cognitive consistency (Heider, 1946). When new ideas threaten that alignment, the brain resists. Instead of revising the belief, what frequently becomes modified is the reality itself to conform to the old system. It’s like slapping duct tape over a crack rather than fixing the wall.
Far cuter is that folks engage in system justification, people’s defence of unequal systems, even when those systems oppress them (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Why? Because it is less painful to believe the world is fair, which we do, even when it’s not, than it is to reckon with inequality head-on. It’s also about identity preservation. We have been indoctrinated in them to such an extent that to begin to question them can feel as if you are pulling a thread that could potentially unravel your entire sense of self. The brain treats these disruptions like immune threats, defending its old version of “you.”
Read More: Gender Sensitivity in Mental Health Practice
The Legacy We Can Choose
But here’s the hope: every moment is a chance to rewire. Fathers opening up about their feelings? That shows boys that strength includes softness. Mothers who talk about career highs and lows? They model ambition without apology. These actions light up mirror neurons in kids’ brains (Rizzolatti, 2004), giving them a broader emotional vocabulary and permission to be whole.
The goal isn’t to raise perfect children or to parent flawlessly. It’s to interrupt the autopilot. “Toughen up” becomes “Talk it out”; “Girls don’t do that” is substituted by “What do you love?”, altering more than just language but also wiring. It paves the way for kids to be able to be themselves all the way, not just what society wants them to be.
Because when we trade up on the scripts that have grown legible and instead live open-ended stories, we shift culture not just for ourselves but for everyone who comes after us. And that’s a legacy, to be honest, worth passing on.
FAQs
1: Why do families pass down harmful patriarchal beliefs?
Transmission happens unconsciously through observational learning and system justification. Parents replicate familiar patterns to reduce cognitive effort and anxiety, mistaking them for “natural” norms.
2: Can mothers transmit patriarchal beliefs?
Yes. Internalised oppression leads mothers to enforce restrictive norms (e.g., appearance/career limits), seeking safety or approval. This reflects ingrained gender schemas from their upbringing.
3: Do men benefit from patriarchal inheritance?
Systemic advantages exist, but psychological costs are high: emotional suppression (linked to 3.5x higher suicide risk), relational isolation, and identity fragility tied to rigid “provider” roles.
4: How to recognise patriarchal beliefs in myself?
Watch for automatic discomfort with role reversals (e.g., stay-at-home dads), justification thoughts (“That’s just how things are”), or defensiveness when norms are challenged.
5: Can therapy break this cycle?
Absolutely. Schema Therapy restructures internalised gender “lifetraps,” while Feminist Therapy analyses power dynamics. Both rebuild self-concept beyond inherited scripts.
6: One practical step to disrupt transmission?
Use action-focused praise (“How creatively you solved this!”), not trait-based labels (“You’re so smart/strong”). This decouples achievement from gendered expectations.
References +
American Psychological Association. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organisation. The Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275
Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2003). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford University Press.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230
Schultz, W. (1998). Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1998.80.1.1
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
