The invaluable lessons of home work - The Times of India
Srivatsa Krishna | Jul 31, 2011, 01.32AM IST
Bottomline : I'm sure I will be branded a male chauvinist by many - but if one looks at more and more homes, it requires no genius to argue that there is no equilibrium solution for two full-time careers and one happy family. This is one puzzle even mathematics has not been able to solve. And probably never will. Don't forget, this is all about chemistry (of families), not about their mathematics!
Comment : No Srivatsa. I would not call you a male chauvinist. In-fact given your high pedestal (and resultant compulsions to be politically correct) I applaud your bold views below.
- Meri Awaaz
Article reproduced below:
Man-woman equality is a myth. How can a man be a woman's equal when he is already in 'she', when man is already in 'woman' (Double You O'Man!), and when Adam is in 'Madam'! A woman is infinitely superior to man in myriad ways: her patience, her compassion, and paramountly her ability to sacrifice, leave men far behind in the race that truly matters - the race to build families with meaningful values, which form the foundation of society. Indeed, what is important for both men and women to realize today is that they are in a different race. And if they aren't, they should be.
Eventually, the debate on earning power comes down to just one visceral truth. Does a woman derive meaning and satisfaction in her life primarily from her home or does she get it from her work? The opportunity cost of enhanced earning power is invisible to most men and women, lost in the drumbeat of a false sense of equality and 'progressive liberalism'. The woman is the fulcrum on which the home hangs - her role at home is something she alone can do, and is in that sense irreplaceable. Her role at work is something any man can do - perhaps a little better or worse than her. This fundamental counter-intuitive truth escapes many - if a man wants his wife to remain at home and not have a full-time career, it is not because of any issues of misplaced equality but because she is more valuable at home than at work, when seen from a family's overall well-being. It is sad that this truth escapes the most wise of our men and women, till such time that families and children begin to drift in more ways than one.
In an age and time when public opprobrium is no longer something to cringe about and is seen by many as an easy passport to two minutes of fame; when the relentless 24x7 onslaught of the media exposes impressionable children to things they are better off not knowing; when peer pressure constantly challenges old-fashioned values of truth and goodness; and when the family itself is under stress thanks to two working parents who find time for their children between travel, meetings and conferences - it is paramount for the woman to be the anchor at home. The extra income she earns by going to work is hardly any compensation for the risks of an ayah-reared child or abandoned elderly parents.
Not for a moment am I saying that every family where the woman is at home performs better. But the world of today presents greater risks than the world of our parents and makes it even more imperative for the woman to understand that her role at home is unique and irreplaceable. One can only do one's best and "de-risk" - that means giving up the lure of two incomes or, worse still, the misplaced belief of many women that their contribution is only measurable by what they do at work.
The urban Indian woman who earned Rs 4,492 per month in 2001 was taking home as much as Rs 9,457 as of 2010. This rise is reflected in the average monthly household income of urban India going up from Rs 8,242 to Rs 16,509 in 2010, says an Indian Market Research Bureau survey. Frankly, I do not understand where is the cause for celebration?
Are we reducing the infinite value of a woman's contribution in shaping lives to mere per capita income?
A wise philosopher once remarked that "all choice is sacrifice". The choices women make often shape the future of their families. In our day-to-day struggles we have forgotten to heed what Tagore called "that small still voice within us", which tells us a very different story. I'm sure I will be branded a male chauvinist by many - but if one looks at more and more homes, it requires no genius to argue that there is no equilibrium solution for two full-time careers and one happy family. This is one puzzle even mathematics has not been able to solve. And probably never will. Don't forget, this is all about chemistry (of families), not about their mathematics!
Srivatsa Krishna is an IAS officer. The views expressed are personal
Eventually, the debate on earning power comes down to just one visceral truth. Does a woman derive meaning and satisfaction in her life primarily from her home or does she get it from her work? The opportunity cost of enhanced earning power is invisible to most men and women, lost in the drumbeat of a false sense of equality and 'progressive liberalism'. The woman is the fulcrum on which the home hangs - her role at home is something she alone can do, and is in that sense irreplaceable. Her role at work is something any man can do - perhaps a little better or worse than her. This fundamental counter-intuitive truth escapes many - if a man wants his wife to remain at home and not have a full-time career, it is not because of any issues of misplaced equality but because she is more valuable at home than at work, when seen from a family's overall well-being. It is sad that this truth escapes the most wise of our men and women, till such time that families and children begin to drift in more ways than one.
In an age and time when public opprobrium is no longer something to cringe about and is seen by many as an easy passport to two minutes of fame; when the relentless 24x7 onslaught of the media exposes impressionable children to things they are better off not knowing; when peer pressure constantly challenges old-fashioned values of truth and goodness; and when the family itself is under stress thanks to two working parents who find time for their children between travel, meetings and conferences - it is paramount for the woman to be the anchor at home. The extra income she earns by going to work is hardly any compensation for the risks of an ayah-reared child or abandoned elderly parents.
Not for a moment am I saying that every family where the woman is at home performs better. But the world of today presents greater risks than the world of our parents and makes it even more imperative for the woman to understand that her role at home is unique and irreplaceable. One can only do one's best and "de-risk" - that means giving up the lure of two incomes or, worse still, the misplaced belief of many women that their contribution is only measurable by what they do at work.
The urban Indian woman who earned Rs 4,492 per month in 2001 was taking home as much as Rs 9,457 as of 2010. This rise is reflected in the average monthly household income of urban India going up from Rs 8,242 to Rs 16,509 in 2010, says an Indian Market Research Bureau survey. Frankly, I do not understand where is the cause for celebration?
Are we reducing the infinite value of a woman's contribution in shaping lives to mere per capita income?
A wise philosopher once remarked that "all choice is sacrifice". The choices women make often shape the future of their families. In our day-to-day struggles we have forgotten to heed what Tagore called "that small still voice within us", which tells us a very different story. I'm sure I will be branded a male chauvinist by many - but if one looks at more and more homes, it requires no genius to argue that there is no equilibrium solution for two full-time careers and one happy family. This is one puzzle even mathematics has not been able to solve. And probably never will. Don't forget, this is all about chemistry (of families), not about their mathematics!
Srivatsa Krishna is an IAS officer. The views expressed are personal
No comments:
Post a Comment