Originally posted by: Krantikari
No I was not alluding to the roles of prehistoric men and women at all. Gender based roles were prevalent in our societies not more than 1-2 generations ago, and they still are in a lot of places. The reason people had defined gender roles in the past was to lessen each other's burden, now if each person has to do double the work (and lets be honest women still do the majority of household work), how is that beneficial for them?
I don't disagree that traditional gender norms still hold sway among large segments of the population in India but research has also shown that Indian adults with a college degree are less likely than those without a college degree to support conservative gender norms. Simply put, people with higher education are less likely to cling to stereotypes.
If, traditionally, Brahmins were teachers and Shudras laborers doing menial jobs, doesn't mean we will continue with that tradition in this day and age too. Same goes for traditional gender roles. Bread-winning, homemaking and care-giving have to be shared responsibilities between a husband and a wife. Obviously, it may not always be a 50-50 share in all departments at all times (some may earn less at times, some may earn more at times, some may do less work at times, some may do more work at times) but the expectation is for attitudes and behaviors on gender roles to become more egalitarian moving forward.
Originally posted by: Krantikari
What is progress and for whom? Please define it first and be specific. Also please explain how 'economic growth' benefits the average person.
Progress as in development. At the individual level, growth in per capita GDP increases the material standard of living for an average person. By average person, clearly we don't mean Tatas and Ambanis here, so two people earning, as opposed to one, would result in more disposable income for the family.
It is proving costly for countries to rely on the talents of only half of their population. Developing countries like India as well as developed countries like USA stand to gain if women participate in the labor force at the same rate as men and are employed at the same levels as men across sectors. Across countries, on an average, GDP per capita would be 20% higher if gender employment participation gaps were closed.
If you want a specific example, closing agricultural gender gaps supports food production. Increase in food production means more people are adequately nourished each year.
By citing progress/development I could also bring out equitable outcomes where a woman gets paid for the work she puts in (as a homemaker, she isn't getting paid) but I don't see much point to discussing what is right and what is wrong with you.
Originally posted by: Krantikari
Independent in what way? Again, please be specific. And what's wrong with being dependent btw?
Independent as in financially independent. Financial independence means having enough income or wealth to pay for your own expenses without additional assistance and to be in a financial situation in which you have enough money, either via income or accumulated wealth, to pay your expenses for the rest of your life without dependence on others.
When Yang divorces Ying or when Yang kicks the bucket, Ying should be able to take care of herself as well Ying-lets, if any, and that's only possible if she's financially independent.
Originally posted by: Krantikari
Women have never been and still aren't self-sufficient, because once again, they are not evolutionary evolved to do building and maintenance work. That is a man's job.
Can't legitimize this with a rebuttal.
comment:
p_commentcount