‘Toxic’ feminism. Gender rights and the fatal flaws of the same. From divorce rates to suicide, the sentiment—a counter movement almost—is out there that women’s agency—driven by higher awareness and economic independence—is at fault for the world going down the dumps. The noise is loud, but what is the real signal? For example, alimony cases and suicides from the same are yet to beat domestic violence and dowry occurrences. The former shocks our conscience because of this very fact. The later, we are desensitized to. We need to think as a society of two things. First, the socio-economic benefits of gender parity. GDP growth for example. It would be quite nice to be able to not have to go there, but unfortunately, growth trumps other motivations and no matter what the motivation, gender parity will drive sustenance for the society. Secondly, we need to think about what is right. Yes, there may be a cost while families figure out new equations. Rather pay that for a path towards equilibrium, or do we want some members of our human race, our loved ones, to be the pain bearers with no agency, perpetuating a system in which tolerance is not by will, but from the lack of alternatives? Even if home labour and tolerance, unpaid for long, is a shiny flag to bear, can a gender be forced to bear it?
The much talked about Mrs. movie, is not about cooking or gender roles versus chores. It is not about what is hard and what isn’t as in, how difficult it is for a housewife without house help. Being a doctor (the spouse here is) or breadwinning in any form, can be and often is quite tough if not tougher. Performance pressure is there, as is the insecurity and worry of losing one’s means of earning.
It’s also not about appreciation as some believe it to be. Men commenting on Mrs. memes asking ‘who’s appreciating them’, have a valid point. Verbal, emotional abuse is a reality of toxic workplaces which men (and women) must slog through. For example, just in the last year I have been first person witness to two men and a woman being victims of constant abuse by the boss in two very different companies. Workplace bullying is commonplace across industries and the ecosystems make any respite impossible. Let alone appreciation.
I have faced the same on and off—like I am sure most have. I have written previously on what that does to women being able to stay in the workforce (the long hours expected and ad hoc engagements that are forced are not as easily supported at home for a woman as it is for a man). It is also true that earning power still is high for the male members of the family (that’s a separate article in itself—everything from less women in STEM to gender wage gap plays a part here). This leads to the choice of a family, when the family is forced into making one, to be the male partner needing to be the breadwinner for financial reasons (we are leaving aside all other reasons). In this lose-lose situation for all, the pressure on men of not having an option is not to be taken lightly either. Anyway, coming back to the point, life is hard outside of home too and appreciation is a rare commodity for all. Men are not thanked enough maybe, and yet they are relied upon.
What is it about then? Incomplete feminism, as some articles suggest? No. No school of thought, movement, work, can ever be ‘complete’.
It is about agency—an individual having a choice versus feeling forced within her own family structure. It’s about the non-earning member (female) treated as lesser and as an object—literally, a lesser object by being stripped of her agency. True, life offers lack of choice and compulsion galore—but when that happens in your own home beyond a reasonable expectation of compromise and is not mutual—it’s oppression.
The takeaway? Unfortunately, economic power is social power in our world and therefore, it’s quite important for women to make choices that ensure that their agency is never compromised.
Women choosing to give up jobs, travelling abroad to be housewives on visas that won’t allow them to work. Women choosing to marry while not earning or agreeing to give up jobs or not look for jobs pre- or post-marriage—are, in my opinion, making the wrong choice unless there’s no other choice that can be made. We can debate all day on how unpaid labour should be paid for, weighed equally in wages. The truth is, we aren’t there. Maybe one day men, women, all, will be expected to play equally in all roles, will be supported equally in all roles, and all roles will be equally budgeted for. That day, any member of a family, on their discretion, can make a choice of giving up earning to take up homemaking or caregiving, without having to give up agency.
No matter how hard and tumultuous that change is, that’s a good thing in the end. But we are not there yet. Therefore, women—be financially independent, have means to support yourself. And men, fathers, brothers, husbands, fathers-in-law—accept that to be a good thing—that’s the way to the end of your woes too.
In my book Beyond #MeToo I have given all the statistics to support the points made here.
Dr. Tanushree Ghosh (Ph. D. Cornell University, Chemistry) is Director at Intel Corp., a social activist, and an author. Her blog posts, op-eds, poems, and stories are her efforts to provoke thoughts, especially towards issues concerning social justice. She is a contributor (past and present) to several popular e-zines incl. The Huffington Post US (where her first post on returning to India as the mother of a daughter went viral and was picked up by Yahoo News and where she subsequently authored many successful op-eds on gender, Syria war, mental health, the western media’s coverage of the Brazil Olympic and so on), The Logical Indian, Youth Ki Awaaz, Tribune India, Women’s Web, Thrive Global, and Cafe Dissensus (where she hosted her own segment on social satire titled Black Light).
Comments