A salary plan that changes nothingMAYA JOHN
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-salary-plan-that-changes-nothing/article3951975.ece
Instead of asking a man to pay his wife for her domestic work, the state must
create jobs for women outside the home in order to truly empower themRecently
during a press conference called by the Ministry of Women and Child
Development, the Minister of State (Independent Charge), Krishna Tirath,
proposed the formulation of a bill through which a certain percentage of a
husband’s salary would be compulsorily transferred to his wife’s bank account
to compensate her for all the domestic work she performs for the family.
According to the Minister, this percentage of husbands’ salaries would not be
taxed and would provide women the much needed source of income to run the
household better, and more importantly, to spend on her own, personal
consumption. In a later clarification, the Minister identified this payment as
an “honorarium” and not a salary which is to be paid to wives for all the
services they otherwise render for free.This proposition has
not gone down well, especially with women of higher income brackets who see
such proposed action as unnecessary intervention in the realm of the private,
i.e. the realm of familial relations. Many such women also believe that this
government intervention amounts to reducing wives into “glorified maids” who
need to be paid every time they walk into the kitchen, wash the baby, sweep the
house, etc. Sadly, what is sidelined amid all the clamour and jokes about
commercialisation of the mia-biwi relationship is the necessity of recognising
the back-breaking work performed by women to sustain their families. Of course,
what we also lose sight of is the sheer hollowness of such proposed
legislation. For example, such legislation, if implemented,
would not provide women a source of income which they earn independently of
their husbands. Instead, women would continue to depend on their husband’s
earnings and employment status, and thus, remain dependent on the family
structure for their individual financial sustenance.Indeed, the problem with
the proposed legislation is not that it is unnecessary and demeaning, but that
it is informed by a poor understanding of economics surrounding household work
and women’s labour in general. Clearly, the question then is whether the Indian
state is even serious about uplifting the position of the woman within the home
and in recognising her contribution to the national economy.Historical
issueAssigning an economic value to women’s domestic labour is a long-standing
debate. The international women’s movement has continuously debated the
question and reached many important conclusions. It is now time for the larger
society to engage with the
movement’s propositions seriously. First, as a society we must learn to accept
that there is sheer drudgery involved in day-to-day household work. The fact
that such work is performed by a woman for her husband and other family members
in the name of “care” and “nurturing” cannot be used to conceal that this is a
thankless job which the majority of women feel burdened by. Just because some
women do not have to enter the kitchen every day since their maid
does the needful, we cannot write-off the helplessness with which the average
woman walks towards her kitchen hearth, every day without fail. Here, there is
no retirement age, no holiday, and definitely, no concept of overtime.Second,
we must realise that the process whereby women’s domestic labour has been
rendered uneconomic activity, is a historical one. It was with the emergence of
industrial society and the resulting separation between the home and the
workplace that women’s housework lost value whereas men’s labouroutside the
home fetched wages. Third, as a society we must accept that while many are
uncomfortable with providing an economic value to women’s domestic labour,
chores such as washing, cleaning, cooking, child rearing, etc., are already
assigned such a value by the market when need be. After all, many middle-class
homes buy such services through the hiring of maids, paying for playschool
education, crèche facilities, etc. Fourth, women’s domestic labour must be
accounted for in the economy precisely because it is one of the contributing
forces in the reproduction of labour power expended by this country’s working
masses. In fact, because a woman’s domestic labour is devalued by the economy,
a man’s wage can be kept low. For example, if all families were to pay every
day for services like washing, cooking, cleaning, etc., because women of the
household did not perform such duties, the breadwinners of each family would
need to be paid higher wages so that they can afford to buy such services off
the market.The solutionThis being the reality surrounding women’s unpaid,
domestic labour, where does the
actual solution lie? Does it lie in redistributing limited family incomes
between husband and wife, or, in redistributing the national income so as to
enhance individual family incomes, and hence, the woman’s share within the
improved family consumption? Importantly, while pressing for valuation of
women’s domestic labour, the progressive women’s movement has always argued
that if the value of unpaid housework is paid but does not add to or increase
the total
household income, such remuneration amounts to nothing.Hence, one of the most
important conclusions reached on this question of unpaid domestic labour is
that the state should pay for it, especially by providing women gainful
employment, special funding, subsidised home appliances, free health care,
etc. In this way, women would earn through an independent source of income and
be freed of an overt dependence on the family structure for their consumption.
There would also be a gradual undermining of the sexual division of labour
which has resulted in women being tied to their homes and unable to do little
else.Of course, what has not won much attention so far is the fact that the
proposed legislation posits wages for
housework rather than employment for women as a long-term solution. Indeed,
questions have been raised whether the proposed legislation is implementable,
but not whether it does the needful. For example, will the government be able
to put in place the required administrative machinery? How exactly is the value
of women’s household work to be calculated, or simply put, how many bais will
equal a wife? Will the number of family members she rears determine whether she
is entitled to greater compensation? And what of widowed women who do not have
a husband’s salary to draw on?Absolves the stateHowever, implementation is far
from the real problem with such legislation. Mechanisms can always be put in
place if administrative sincerity prevails. The real problem with the
Ministry’s endeavour is the rationale by which it is driven. The proposed
legislation should be criticised because it absolves the Indian state of the
responsibility it owes to women
who contribute daily in sustaining the national economy. Indeed, if the
proposed legislation is formulated and implemented, it will only result in
undervaluing and underpaying women’s domestic labour.To elucidate, if we
actually sit down to calculate the cost of all
the different household chores a wife does for free, the figure would easily
touch amounts that in no way can be compensated by a small percentage of the
husband’s wages. Furthermore, with varied family incomes, such legislation
would result in women being remunerated differently for the same kind and same
amount of domestic work. In the case of the average working class or
lower-middle class family where the total family income is anywhere between
Rs.2,000 to Rs.10,000 per month, such legislation would assign women a pittance
as an economic value for their back-breaking housework. This pittance will not
empower the woman as the total family income remains the same. Without a growth
in the actual family income, neither will such families be able to change their
consumption pattern, nor will the nature of household work change so as to
enable women to do other things instead of just labouring at home.Clearly then,
the issue at stake is how to minimise
housework for women so that they too can step out of the home to earn, to
enhance family incomes and to have greater say in family as well as public
matters. Greater employment generation for women by the state, and widespread
introduction of facilities like crèches at all workplaces, subsidised home
appliances, unhindered promotion post child birth/maternity leave, etc. are the
need of the hour. While direct employment helps to create women who are
financially independent, the provision of the latter helps women to remain in
the labour market, despite starting a family. If the average woman is to be
freed of the yoke of household drudgery then it is evidently the Indian state
which has to pay by creating concrete conditions for her greater economic
participation outside the home.(Maya John is an activist and researcher based
in Delhi University.)
__._,_.___
__,_._,___
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"humanrights movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.
