Social Construction of Gender Equality in the Family of Working Couples in Tanjungbalai Indonesia: An Analysis of Marriage Law and a Compilation of Islamic Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender inequality in working families remains a structural problem in Indonesia. In Tanjungbalai, despite Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage and the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI) affirming the equality of husband and wife, patriarchal practices continue to impose multiple domestic responsibilities on women. This study employed a qualitative approach under the paradigm of social definition, using Peter L. Berger’s theory of social construction. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with three working families in Tanjungbalai, supplemented by legal document analysis. The findings reveal that the social construction of gender roles is shaped through externalization, objectivation, and internalization institutionalized within community norms. Women continue to shoulder domestic work despite contributing to family income. Meanwhile, the articles within the Marriage Law and KHI are often interpreted in patriarchal terms, thereby reinforcing inequality. The study underscores the need for a gender-responsive reinterpretation of family law and the mainstreaming of gender justice values in household practices. The novelty of this research lies in its integration of Berger’s social construction theory with the legal analysis of Indonesian marriage and Islamic family law, applied to the empirical case of Tanjungbalai—an approach rarely explored in previous scholarship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".