Chapter 9

THE ECONOMICS OF EQUALITY

‘Once couples are clear about money,
a major, potentially explosive issue can
successfully be defused.’

— Amrita Sharma, What Did I Ever See in Him?

Marriages in ancient times were seen as a gender-equal institution. The role of men and women was clearly defined: if men worked outside the house, women slogged inside the four walls. But at the end of the day, having dealt with their individual duties, both the man and wife would draw comfort from each other and share the joys and securities of the Grihastha Ashrama.

But, it wasn’t always a perfect household. In reality, not all wives were content with their husbands’ ways, and not all in-laws approved of their daughters-in-law’s methods of running the household. Even the children did not show any inclination to pursue what their status in society (varna or father’s profession) and stage of life expected of them. And, most importantly, not all husbands respected their wives; they saw their wives as one of the liabilities despite of all that they did and the sacrifices they made.

Since the husbands provided the resources for running the household, they were venerated like no one else. In fact, in ancient Indian culture, as a way of showing reverence, the wife would not address her husband using his first name. This magnificent treatment of men and derogatory treatment of women made marriage a hierarchical partnership rather than an equal one.

Although men provided the resources, it was the women who transformed these resources to provide the best services possible. It was not an easy task, and it required women to apply themselves physically and intelligently to make the resources go a long way. However, their roles as housewives did not guarantee the credit they deserved. If anything, they were often accused of floundering away the resources!

The quality of life in ancient times was poor, especially for a woman. Caring for the household was already a laborious task and, on top of that, without contraception, a woman would end up giving birth to a child every other year. The only women who survived the rigmarole of housekeeping and childbearing without psychic damage were the ones whose husbands were affectionate towards them and mindful of their efforts. Such is the power of love and care. The women whose husbands took their services for granted and ill-treated them suffered greatly in the bonds of wedlock. Such a woman was not only oppressed but tossed between the in-laws, who were dedicated to finding faults in her, and a husband, who was indifferent to her, after all that she put up with.

While the gender revolution offered various changes in the lives of women—by offering them the choices of whether to work or stay at home, procreate or not procreate, to live in a joint family or to move out—nothing much changed in the lives of men. The women observed, absorbed, and reflected information from their environment and, gradually, created a space for themselves in the big bad world of men.

On the other hand, men have continued with their primary role of being the breadwinners of the household. All that has changed for them is the loss of authority and autonomy over women. Being the sole provider, they had enjoyed a period of glory and autocracy, but now they have to accept their diminishing powers.

Not all men have taken the change in their position kindly. Since they derived power from being the provider, which inflated their egos, they are now at their wits’ end that women, too, have access to the power of resources. However, there is a huge percentage of women who have no access to education to date, and some of those who are educated, are not permitted to work in the unsafe world of men where sexual exploitation is seen as a rampant occurrence.

In these regressive societies, work is seen as a reflection of one’s social status. It is assumed that the men of the household are not adept at providing for the women and need their help to run the family. Men see this as a stain on their honour.

In spite of being adults, these women have to comply with the existing rules and norms of the household, and they are made to feel grateful to their family for educating them despite their gender. Because, according to society, their primary role is to get married and bear children, whether they are mentally or emotionally ready for it or not.

Married or single, women continue to contribute towards household chores. Unfortunately, they are still seen as liabilities instead of being recognised as worthy individuals or equals. Men gloat in the fact that they are the providers and expect the same regal treatment that their forefathers were entitled to. This is because the patriarchal attitude of economics does not take the unpaid housework into account. The issue of not being rewarded for household chores has been raised many a times—‘Millions of women and girls spend hours walking miles each day, carrying their body weight in water, food or firewood on their heads, often with a baby strapped to their back—and all for no pay.’24 In certain households, the couples come to an agreement that while one spouse (mostly the husband) works outside, the other will look after the household. This choice is exerted after much deliberation, but it is taken after weighing both the emotional and financial pros and cons. The psychological advantage of such a decision is the sense of equality and respect that the couple have for each other where neither is seen as doing a favour to the other.

If the wages of the unpaid work were to be calculated or considered, then a housewife or a stay-at-home woman would, perhaps, get the respect she deserves and not be treated as a liability or a second-class citizen. The patriarchal attitude in the field of economics, too, have been raised in the society—‘This unpaid work which is a very important part of running the household smoothly as well as bringing up a child, is not reflected in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). And that is a real problem. This patriarchal attitude of economics, as it is practiced, needs to be corrected in the years to come.’25 The countless services that women provide, like childbirth and nurturing (surrogacy and babysitting cost a fortune), may not make it to the GDP and continue to be a theoretical construct, but by recognising the economic worth of their services, their sense of dignity will certainly increase. This would make marriage a gender-equal institution that it was initially designed to be.

The realisation of this ideal state of society may not impact the GDP of a nation but something more valuable than that—Gross National Happiness (GNH).