In my opinion, we equate 'productivity with personal success', 'economic progress with success' and 'being busy with accomplishment'. This perspective in my eyes, a capitalistic view of success and progress where paid work is considered productive and important. Paid work, for the longest time has been male dominated. I believe it has its roots in the history as during colonial period or the world wars, men were at the front, they were the Chiefs, commanders, Kings and took the roles which needed less emotions and more strength and toughness, mental and physical. Even during the Industrial Revolution, men began to work in factories under harsh circumstances and women were either doing domestic work or oppressed as slaves and were neither allowed to be leaders nor at the front.
This illustrates the power and control relation between genders since the beginning. I am not sure if we are in a transition period when we have social and cultural norms and conditioning from the past while the situation is unique in the present as women are doing paid work and are even sole breadwinners in many families. The transition phase is leading to a conflict and an imbalance in households and society overall.
This makes me think about the role of patriarchy, not only in the way that women are considered weaker and given the "moral responsibility" or "gender role" of taking care of family and looking after home but also undue pressure on men to be the breadwinner, macho and strong and be the 'Head of the family'. This ignores the representation of women in crucial decisions that affect them as well and also mounts stress on males to be responsible for every decision.
In the present world, there are both kind of societies where women are fighting to get rights to work and also where it is a choice and option for women to work and don't have inherent pressure to earn as a male. Work for women varies from a 'need' and matter of 'rights' to a matter of privilege where men do work that gets them money irrespective of their liking and women can opt for something of their interest as they do not have the pressure of supporting the family.
De Bouvoir, a French Philosopher, wrote on this extensively on 'Gender and Sex' and pointed out that we refer to females as "the second sex" or "the other gender". This connects to the role of social reproduction and care expected from females. The terms, "double shift" or "double day" for women explains the contribution of women in the society, at home is taken for granted and "natural/obvious" because it does not directly contribute to economy of GDP.
I feel troubled thinking about the association highlighted by Genevieve Lloyd, of women connected to the body, nature, and domesticity, while men are associated with transcendence—connected to reason, intellect, and the public sphere.
I believe we need mindset shift to policy changes. Starting from stop calling, "opposite sexes", to using terminology like, "adjacent gender", talking about females in absolute term as well and not always relative.
Comments
Post a Comment