‘And she had learned from experience
that Need was a warehouse that could
accommodate a considerable amount of
cruelty.’
— Arundhati Roy, The Ministry of
Utmost Happiness
Men provided the resources, women served them. The culture of serving men in lieu of what they provided set the trend for gender behaviour and classification of roles for future generations. Economic control is the root cause of gender inequality. Since men were the primary breadwinners of the household, they had the upper hand. The man was always the centre of power (finances) while the others (dependents) became the manipulators of that power to use it for their safety and security.
The man was duty-bound to look after his family, but the women of the household wanted to utilise that power to their utmost advantage; the man was seen as a territory to be captured. In the process of gaining territorial claim over men, women treated them like demigods. Regardless of the undue liberties he exercised, such as temper, tantrum, overindulgence, carelessness, or any other weakness of character, he was revered by the women of the household.
The gender revolution is a comparatively recent phenomenon. The West has been able to achieve gender equality to a great extent, but since it is also trying to overlook gender differences, it is not entirely free of gender prejudices. The countries that are still plagued by illiteracy and dominated by religious beliefs have not quite been able to transcend the great gender barrier.
The gender revolution has changed the life of women dramatically. Before its onset, most of the women suffered in silence and pain. They were physically, emotionally, and financially held hostage by their environment and the roles they were conformed to. Unfortunately, this suffering has been passed on to too many generations of women. The daughters-in-law become the punching bags for the women of the household as a means to let out the rage fostered over the years due to constant suffering. These women feel greatly exploited and, in turn, live for the day when their sons would rescue them.
When they have to let go of their sole glimmer of hope—their sons to their daughters-in-law—it feels nothing less than an act of treason to these women. These women consider their daughters-in-law as threats to their happiness and torture them to ensure their survival and supremacy. They didn’t invest their entire lives in their sons so that they can go run to their wives! Since these women were gravely deprived of any happiness or recognition, they cannot permit their daughters-in-law to be content, too.
But times are changing. The magic contraceptive pill is no less than a magic potion; it gave women their much-deserved freedom. Unlike the women of past generations, this pill not only allowed them to be self-sufficient but also bestowed upon them the dignity and respect that comes with economic independence, which they could now strive for. The man-made society clearly runs on hierarchy, and the deciding factor of this hierarchical rung is money. There is no doubt about the fact that money gives power. The society is the macrocosmic representation of this fact and a family is the microcosm of it.
The financial independence of women caused a seismic shift in the dynamics of human relationships. Women had to, and still have to in many parts of the world, fight for this right to independence, to be given the freedom to pursue economic independence as if it were a privilege to be granted and not her fundamental right. Freedom to economic independence is a human right and women can’t be refrained from exercising it.
In a marriage, the right to work or the right to stay at home is a choice that couples make by mutual consent. It cannot be imposed on a woman since it impinges her basic right. Likewise, the choice to have a child cannot be taken in isolation. A man, too, has an equal right in making the decision of having a child in the marriage. To bridge the gender gap, many countries not only grant women maternity leaves, but the fathers, too, are given paternity leaves which allows them to support the mother in nurturing the child. Equality should be a part of the household as well. If the woman is financially contributing towards the running of the household, the man, too, must contribute in the household chores.
The present times have caught us off guard; we are trapped between following the traditional gender roles and keeping up with the modern demands of change. Our current challenge is to find a balance that suits our social, temperamental, financial, and intellectual needs. Unless we work towards adapting to these changes, the household will lose its meaning as a source of nurturing healthy and rational individuals for the society and, instead, will end up being a battleground.
Economic dependence is the root of oppression. This can be held true irrespective of our gender. Be it a man or a woman, as long as we are at the receiving end of any relationship, we inevitably become vulnerable to ridicule and oppression. We lose our sense of self and right to an opinion. The dynamic of such a relationship is askew. An existence where we let our abilities lie fallow is not known as living, it is merely existing. We trade our right to live independently, to use our talent and intellect for a convenient economic dependence. We become mere puppets in the hands of our oppressors and dance to their tune. The only way to free ourselves from these shackles is by being economically independent.
Until we work just for the sake of money, rather than out of our love for the job, we are captives to the organisation we work for. Likewise, in the household, if we have to appease our spouse and serve them solely for our survival rather than being with them out of love and respect, we are captives.
In the former case, we can save enough money over a period of time to break free from the chains of dependence and start to pursue the true calling of our hearts. On the other hand, in the latter case, we can muster up enough courage to detach ourselves not from the relationship itself, but from our financial dependence on it. Dependence can threaten our sense of dignity. There will be a period of unrest for both the individuals in a relationship, but a respectable equation can only be achieved through dignified existence.
Financial independence is the only way to achieve gender equality. A woman’s clothing has been a subject of political battle across cultures for a long time. But it is quite likely to be a clever ploy to distract the young women from the real issue—economic freedom and equality in remuneration.
Gender equality has nothing to do with what you wear; whether you opt to wear a miniskirt or a burka is a matter of individual choice. Gender equality is about equal opportunity to work and the right to equal pay in the industry. With financial independence, no matter what you wear, you feel like a million bucks!