The current backlash surrounding the American actor Sydney Sweeney’s The advert for US sports prediction company Novig, which uses the sexist marketing strategy “Sex Sells”, has been described as a setback for feminism by years. It has also been criticized by female athletes and women around the world for sexualizing women in sports after years of fighting for equality and recognition in the field, reducing them to their bodies.
Sydney Sweeney in an advertisement for Novig. Photo credit: Novig
The thing about patriarchy is that it is extremely adaptable; It is not so overwhelmed by the pressures of social conflicts or movements that it is deprived of its power. What these movements and conflicts do is simply change the language of patriarchy, allowing it to adapt and assimilate to the language of each generation while maintaining its original form and hierarchical structure.
Different time zones, same patriarchy
While the United States debates whether profiting from the male gaze is liberating or regressive, a similar debate is unfolding in India, albeit in a different context. The main difference is that a woman is not shown in various stages of her dress, but rather in fully covered suits and saris as she wakes up at 5am to start her day in the kitchen.
Both are the product of a patriarchal mindset that feeds their respective cultures. In both cases, women are rewarded for the same thing: compliance. This indulgence may be referred to as agency or divine feminine, but the underlying principle remains the same. One rewards women for conforming to the demands of the male gaze, while the other rewards them for conforming to the demands of India’s patriarchal family structure.
This emerging Indian tradwife culture can be seen in posts from young women in their early 20s who wake up at sunrise, touch their in-laws’ feet, prepare for daily religious practices in traditional clothing, and then go to the kitchen to “serve” their families. This online phenomenon presents young women with the image of the “ideal wife” – a woman who chooses to stay at home and serve her family – under the premise that submission equals power.
In the West, tradwife culture emerged as a “rebellion” against 9-to-5 work stress, while in India it has long been standard practice. However, its romanticization diminishes the struggles of millions of Indian women trying to free themselves from the domestic shackles imposed on them. Indian women are still fighting for basic social rights, and promoting a lifestyle confined to the home of their in-laws and under the banner of freedom of choice only makes it more difficult for women to break out of the vicious circle of oppression. This culture romanticizes the “adarsh bahu” lifestyle as an empowering choice, completely ignoring the reality that many women face.
Serving the male gaze with a dash of liberation
The rise of Electoral feminismbased on the idea that every decision a woman makes is inherently feminist simply because it is hers, has become one of the greatest defenses against the social media backlash directed at both Sweeney and Tradwives. The problem is that there are no choices in silos; they have a butterfly effect. When society rewards women for their submission to patriarchal structures within both liberal and conservative groups, the paths chosen to achieve that reward are not independent of the end result: compliance.
Arguably, when a woman subjects herself to sexualization to achieve financial liberation, using the male gaze to her advantage for freedom and success, she is also contributing to a culture that sexualizes the very existence of women.
Patriarchy has not evolved; It’s just a snake shedding its old skin. Patriarchy hides behind “trends” to stay relevant. It builds an entire market system around its idea of femininity, selling the ideas of “autonomy” and the “tradwife” lifestyle, which are theoretically polar opposites but are packaged and commodified in the same way.
What sets feminism back is not the financial liberation that both Sydney Sweeney and the Indian Tradwife influencers have achieved, but the structural oppression that these forms of “liberation” can reinforce and encourage. It does not, for example, protect women in sports from objectification or harassment, nor does it protect Indian bahus from being trapped in families with no financial independence or ability to get out of bad marriages. What it protects is patriarchy.
Real and meaningful progress can never be measured by how successfully women integrate into or monetize existing patriarchal structures. It can only be measured by their ability to live freely beyond themselves. It’s because a woman doesn’t have to monetize the male gaze or domesticity. True freedom lies in the ability to choose beyond these limits of subjugation.
