We Don’t Raise Boys to Be Husbands, We Raise Girls to Be Wives — And It Shows
Nidhi | Apr 12, 2025, 12:28 IST
( Image credit : Freepik )
Highlight of the story: This article explores how societal norms and gender conditioning shape the upbringing of boys and girls, with a particular focus on the unequal emotional labor expected of women in relationships. While girls are raised to anticipate and manage emotional needs, boys are often taught to prioritize independence and success, with little expectation to engage emotionally. The article examines how these gendered expectations impact future relationships, creating a cycle where women are conditioned to be wives and men are not taught to be husbands. This thought-provoking piece delves into the deeper implications of these ingrained societal patterns and the subtle ways they continue to shape our understanding of love, marriage, and emotional responsibility.
“Why is she so good at adjusting?”
Because she was trained for it.
“Why doesn’t he know how to emotionally support his partner?”
Because no one ever asked him to learn.
It’s not biology. It’s conditioning. And it’s showing—in marriages, in emotional labor, in expectations, and in the way love itself is often one-sided in terms of effort.
From dollhouses to daydreams about "the big day," girls are often raised with the subliminal instruction that marriage is both a milestone and a measure of their worth. Meanwhile, boys are raised to chase independence, ambition, and strength, rarely handed the emotional tools or responsibilities that come with being a partner. This isn’t a critique of individuals—it’s a critique of a system so normalized that even the most educated, liberal households replicate it without realizing.
The effects? Disproportionate emotional labor, silent resentment, and a societal acceptance of the idea that a good marriage hinges on the woman’s adaptability—her cooking, nurturing, forgiving, and compromising—while men are applauded simply for staying.
Simone de Beauvoir once said, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” The same applies to being a wife or husband. But while girls are shaped into the role with vigilance, boys are rarely given that transformation.
Girls are taught to “adjust” before they even understand what the word really means. From an early age, they’re complimented for being calm, caring, understanding, obedient. They're handed toy kitchens, assigned babysitting duties, and told that their greatest strength is their ability to “hold the family together.”
They are trained not just in chores, but in anticipation — of needs, moods, silences, and tensions. This anticipatory empathy becomes second nature. It becomes identity.
The girl who speaks up too much is warned she may not be “likable.” The one who argues is told she’ll have trouble “settling down.” Love, approval, and worth are braided together with sacrifice.
Not through rules. Through repetition.
From childhood, boys are given space to act out, to pull away, to be “just boys.” Their anger is excused, their distance normalized, their emotional disconnection rarely challenged. They are told — through silence, through unasked questions — that care is someone else’s job.
They are rarely expected to nurture. Rarely taught to listen between the lines. Rarely asked to compromise without feeling emasculated.
No one teaches them to stay present when discomfort arises. No one insists they sit with another’s pain without rushing to fix, or flee.
It’s not just about tasks — it’s about orientation.
Girls are expected to grow into someone else's world. Boys are expected to grow into their own.
Marriage becomes a milestone for women — something to prepare for, aim toward. For men, it’s treated as a phase they arrive at when they’re “done exploring.” She is expected to be ready. He is expected to be convinced.
Women are more likely to initiate hard conversations, carry the mental load, keep track of birthdays, family health, children's needs, moods, silences, and subtleties. Not because they are naturally better at it — but because they were trained to see what others were allowed to ignore.
Girls are taught to notice. Boys are taught to move forward.
This uneven labor — emotional, mental, domestic — becomes so familiar it no longer seems unfair. It just seems... feminine.
She is encouraged to learn patience, compromise, emotional control. He is told to be strong, assertive, and unapologetic. The more selfless she is, the more praise she receives. The more assertive he is, the more respect he earns.
So when partnership begins — in dating, in marriage — she arrives fluent in the language of “we.” He is still thinking in “me.”
This isn’t about villainy. It’s about a vast, inherited imbalance in emotional preparedness.
Marriage rituals around the world still center the woman’s transformation: her name changes, her home changes, her family changes, her attire, her identity — all reshaped. The man, in most cases, remains unchanged. His world is expanded; hers is rearranged.
She adapts. He absorbs.
This is seen not as inequality — but as a norm so embedded it barely registers.
Feminist theorist bell hooks explained this perfectly:
“The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead, patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves.”
And yet, it is women who end up paying the price for this emotional absence in the long run.
Who Was Taught to Carry, and Who Was Allowed to Arrive?
As bell hooks said,
“Patriarchy has no gender.”
This quote underscores the systemic nature of the issue, where women are expected to perform emotional labor while men are rarely asked to share the load. And even when they do, it’s treated as a remarkable feat rather than a necessary act. It’s not that women are naturally better at emotional work; they’ve been conditioned to carry it. So maybe the real question isn’t, “Why are women better at loving?”
Perhaps it’s, “Why did we only teach her how to carry it all?”
Because she was trained for it.
“Why doesn’t he know how to emotionally support his partner?”
Because no one ever asked him to learn.
It’s not biology. It’s conditioning. And it’s showing—in marriages, in emotional labor, in expectations, and in the way love itself is often one-sided in terms of effort.
From dollhouses to daydreams about "the big day," girls are often raised with the subliminal instruction that marriage is both a milestone and a measure of their worth. Meanwhile, boys are raised to chase independence, ambition, and strength, rarely handed the emotional tools or responsibilities that come with being a partner. This isn’t a critique of individuals—it’s a critique of a system so normalized that even the most educated, liberal households replicate it without realizing.
The effects? Disproportionate emotional labor, silent resentment, and a societal acceptance of the idea that a good marriage hinges on the woman’s adaptability—her cooking, nurturing, forgiving, and compromising—while men are applauded simply for staying.
Simone de Beauvoir once said, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” The same applies to being a wife or husband. But while girls are shaped into the role with vigilance, boys are rarely given that transformation.
1. The Making of a ‘Wife’ Starts Early
Idol Wife
( Image credit : Freepik )
Girls are taught to “adjust” before they even understand what the word really means. From an early age, they’re complimented for being calm, caring, understanding, obedient. They're handed toy kitchens, assigned babysitting duties, and told that their greatest strength is their ability to “hold the family together.”
They are trained not just in chores, but in anticipation — of needs, moods, silences, and tensions. This anticipatory empathy becomes second nature. It becomes identity.
The girl who speaks up too much is warned she may not be “likable.” The one who argues is told she’ll have trouble “settling down.” Love, approval, and worth are braided together with sacrifice.
Not through rules. Through repetition.
2. Boys Are Rarely Taught to Belong Emotionally
Ego
( Image credit : Pexels )
From childhood, boys are given space to act out, to pull away, to be “just boys.” Their anger is excused, their distance normalized, their emotional disconnection rarely challenged. They are told — through silence, through unasked questions — that care is someone else’s job.
They are rarely expected to nurture. Rarely taught to listen between the lines. Rarely asked to compromise without feeling emasculated.
No one teaches them to stay present when discomfort arises. No one insists they sit with another’s pain without rushing to fix, or flee.
3. The Language of Gendered Readiness
Bride
( Image credit : Freepik )
It’s not just about tasks — it’s about orientation.
Girls are expected to grow into someone else's world. Boys are expected to grow into their own.
Marriage becomes a milestone for women — something to prepare for, aim toward. For men, it’s treated as a phase they arrive at when they’re “done exploring.” She is expected to be ready. He is expected to be convinced.
4. Emotional Labor Is Gendered — and Invisible
Gender Roles
( Image credit : Freepik )
Women are more likely to initiate hard conversations, carry the mental load, keep track of birthdays, family health, children's needs, moods, silences, and subtleties. Not because they are naturally better at it — but because they were trained to see what others were allowed to ignore.
Girls are taught to notice. Boys are taught to move forward.
This uneven labor — emotional, mental, domestic — becomes so familiar it no longer seems unfair. It just seems... feminine.
5. Girls Are Groomed for Endurance, Boys for Autonomy
Rituals in Indian Relatio
( Image credit : Freepik )
She is encouraged to learn patience, compromise, emotional control. He is told to be strong, assertive, and unapologetic. The more selfless she is, the more praise she receives. The more assertive he is, the more respect he earns.
So when partnership begins — in dating, in marriage — she arrives fluent in the language of “we.” He is still thinking in “me.”
This isn’t about villainy. It’s about a vast, inherited imbalance in emotional preparedness.
6. The Cultural Scripts Run Deep
She adapts. He absorbs.
This is seen not as inequality — but as a norm so embedded it barely registers.
7. Even the ‘Progressive’ Are Not Immune
Wedding
( Image credit : Freepik )
Feminist theorist bell hooks explained this perfectly:
“The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead, patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves.”
And yet, it is women who end up paying the price for this emotional absence in the long run.
Who Was Taught to Carry, and Who Was Allowed to Arrive?
Indian Wedding
( Image credit : Freepik )
As bell hooks said,
“Patriarchy has no gender.”
This quote underscores the systemic nature of the issue, where women are expected to perform emotional labor while men are rarely asked to share the load. And even when they do, it’s treated as a remarkable feat rather than a necessary act. It’s not that women are naturally better at emotional work; they’ve been conditioned to carry it. So maybe the real question isn’t, “Why are women better at loving?”
Perhaps it’s, “Why did we only teach her how to carry it all?”