When Women Look Down on Women: The Layers of Silence: How Caste, Class, and Gender Intersect to Define a Woman’s Place in Society
Photo by ROCKETMANN TEAM on Pexels
Why is it that even today, in conversations between women, we find one woman referring to another as merely his wife? Why do upper-caste women dismiss or look down upon lower-caste women, even though both face the weight of patriarchy? And why have women, despite centuries of subordination, rarely come together as a unified force to say “we,” the way other oppressed groups do?
These questions are not rhetorical. They are essential.
They invite us to pause and reflect — not just on society’s overt structures of power, but on the quiet, everyday ways in which inequality is preserved. Even among women.
The Root of the Problem: Beyond Caste, Into Gender
India’s caste system is one of the oldest and most complex forms of social stratification in the world. It separates people into hierarchical groups, affecting every aspect of life — from marriage and occupation to basic human dignity.
But if we momentarily set aside caste, what emerges is a more universal, even more insidious form of division: the secondary status of women.
Across every caste, class, and community, women have been historically relegated to a lower position. The cruelty of this subordination intensifies when gender intersects with caste. A lower-caste woman is doubly marginalized — first by her caste, then by her gender. Even within her own community, she may hold a lesser status compared to men, and in the eyes of an upper-caste woman, she is often seen as inferior.
This double-layered oppression is a wound carried in silence.
And most disturbingly, upper-caste women — who themselves experience patriarchal oppression — sometimes act as agents of this system by looking down upon lower-caste women. Much like in Western societies where white women may fail to stand with Black women, in India, the divide exists between upper-caste and lower-caste women.
When a woman says something like “Do you know about his wife?” and means it as gossip or judgment about a lower-caste woman, it tells us everything we need to know. Not just about the speaker, but about the society that shaped her language.
Problem of the “Other”
Simone de Beauvoir, in her revolutionary book The Second Sex, explains why women have always been seen as “the Other.” Unlike oppressed groups like the proletariat or Black people — who, in their fight for justice, say “we” — women have historically accepted their status as second to men. They say, “I am a woman,” but not “We, the women.”
According to de Beauvoir, this is because women do not share a unified community. They live dispersed among men, emotionally and economically tied to fathers, brothers, husbands. An upper-caste woman may align herself more with upper-caste men than with a lower-caste woman. Her privilege in caste overshadows her solidarity in gender.
Other oppressed groups — Black Americans, the proletariat, colonized people — have history, culture, religion, and shared labor that binds them. Women, however, often lack this cohesive narrative. Their oppression is deeply intimate, often masked by love and duty.
Hegel’s Dialectic and the Feminine Struggle
created by the Author
Here, Hegel’s concept of the Master-Slave dialectic becomes useful. In Hegelian terms, history and identity evolve through a struggle for recognition between a master and a slave. Over time, the slave becomes conscious of their position and fights back, gaining subjectivity.
In contrast, women have not fully played out this dialectic. They have been subjugated but have rarely positioned themselves as the subject in opposition to the master. They haven’t formed a coherent “we” that could begin the historical transformation of their condition.
According to de Beauvoir, women didn’t “become” oppressed through one particular event or system. Their status has always been seen as “natural,” rooted in physiology rather than historical development. This makes the oppression feel immovable. But as both Hegel and de Beauvoir argue — nothing is permanent, not even nature. Subjectivity and identity are shaped through action and recognition.
Everyday Patriarchy: The Role of Language
The woman on the bus who spoke about “his wife” didn’t intend harm. Her tone was casual. Her words were ordinary. But her language revealed centuries of conditioning.
This is how patriarchy survives — not just through institutions, but through repetition. Through casual speech. Through women internalizing and perpetuating their own subjugation.
Even in so-called “safe spaces” for women, there exist invisible walls. Upper-caste women may dominate the narrative. Educated women may dismiss the lived realities of those who are illiterate. City women may trivialize rural women. Privilege layers over oppression like fine dust — easy to ignore but suffocating over time.
photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels
The result is a society where no woman is truly free — and some women, doubly chained, are erased entirely.
Solidarity Requires Conscious Effort
Change begins with recognition. Women must stop seeing themselves merely in relation to men. They must start saying “we.” Not in abstract feminist conferences, but in daily life. In villages, towns, cities. Across castes and classes.
An upper-caste woman must see a lower-caste woman not as “them,” but as “us.” The fight against patriarchy will never succeed if women continue to mirror its hierarchies.
Conclusion: Beyond Labels, Toward Liberation
This isn’t just a philosophical discussion. It’s a call to action.
The systems that divide women must be challenged — not only externally but internally. By examining our speech, our assumptions, and our alliances. Because until women come together, caste-free and class-free in solidarity, they will continue to be spoken about, never for or by themselves.
So the next time you hear someone say “his wife,” pause. Ask yourself — does she not deserve a name, a story, a voice?
Until she does, none of us is free.