Originally posted by: woman11
1. My mother is a homemaker too, a true chulha-chaukewali in that sense, but she is the the head and heart of our family. By staying at home, she made sure that all of us who were striving in the outside world could do our work smoothly. If anytime my mom would go to visit someone even for a day, all of us would realise her efficiency even more. All three of us---my dad, myself and my bro could not put together a smooth day the way my mom would single handedly do. Gauri's comment hit me really hard yesterday precisely because there were certain people who did look down on my mom for not earning money, and i always hated their arrogance and ignorance.
2. Then there is obviously the issue of earning your own money-------which Gauri mentioned as well "tumhara khud ka paisa toh hai nahi" meaning, since Anandi is not engaged in any 'productive' activity she doesn't have a right to money. This again is a disgusting insult, if a household runs on only one earning member, doesn't the other members have a claim to his money?? Gauri's speech yesterday reeked of the offensive mentality many working women have towards homemakers. That's why maybe we should have payment for domestic labor😛
Woman 11 - excellent points - I think these raise two very key issues.
1. In response to your point 1 (which i isolated) I think that this is related to the lens that we view the
issue with.
Basically there are two perspectives through which we can 'value' someone -
a. through the income they earn
or
b. through the contribution they make.
Gauri obviously looks at people from lens # 1 and so that is her own paradigm and world-view.
You are looking at your mom through the contribution lens and that is your paradigm and world view.
Personally, i feel that lens # 1 is insulting from both a household and a social perspective, and I will describe social perspective later on.
Individuals make contributions in all fields - and it cannot be argued that one's contribution is less than the other - even if unpaid.
Quite frankly, in some households, the overall income is higher because one member stays at home and manages the home so that the other individuals can go out and earn. The individual who stays at home provides a nurturing environment which is also important for human beings when they go out to earn. If all members of the family go out to earn, then the earnings potential for the household is sometimes less too.
Also, everything is not strictly tangible. A lot of time, the effects of a member who stays at home may be intangible. If my father-in-law is not earning anything, but is there when my daughter comes home from school and reads her stories -- he is most definitely contributing to society by shaping my daughter as a citizen.
So, gauri's chulha-chauki comment was wrong.
2. The second point you raise about 'khud ka paisa nahin hai' -- again is offensive.
But gauri bases her argument on the premise (false premise) that bargaining power within a home/household unit, and respect accorded to people is in direct proportion to their earning power.
But we know that is not true. There is no correlation.
Bhairon and sumitra have an awesome relationship though sumitra does not earn a penny. Their relationship is not based on how much sumitra earns, and the respect he accords to sumitra or to all women is based on his innate values and principles.
Consequently, there are working women who have no respect in the home, and there are home makers who have very loving relationships with their husbands.
I do not blame gauri for her view -- though very little has been shown about her life growing up/childhood -- the little bits and pieces we know point to the fact that gauri was always seen as a burden to her parents -- and sold as a bride for money. She is aware of that. She has also seen that her parents were poor, and has said that her mother was beaten by her father in his alcoholic fits for not giving him money to drink. I think this has shaped her mental framework to only view human beings as commodities who all have a 'price' -- and their value is their price, as determined by their bank balance.
Anandi on the other hand, has not known financial woes. So she views human beings in terms of the contributions they make and acknowledges that everyone has a contribution. she determines their value through love.
(granted, this is now taking on extreme proportions...but still, this is her basic fundamental valuation technique)
Big difference in upbringing and therefore perspectives.
I think this is a broader issue in society too -- from a human rights perspective.
My friend works for an NGO that stops demolitions of slums in india on grounds of modernization.
In the big drive to eradicate slums and build mega malls and modern highways and transportation infrastructure, this same debate comes into play
slum dwellers are not productive, and a mall or amusement park will earn lots of money for the city/state - so lets demolish the slum. what does it matter if unproductive individuals who are not earning and unemployed anyway are homeless?
the human rights perspective however values each life as important, and not weighted in terms of the money they earn, so human rights activitists are suing state governments in several states to allow the slums to be where they are and not displace human beings who have already set up their homes (shanties or brick structures with tin roof).
Cryptocurrency
Book Talk
Anupamaa
Cricket
Health and Fitness
