Dividing the Prize of Good Work

Can organisations consider transferring a part of the salary of their employees to their partners, family members, or anyone at home, who makes it possible for the employees to put in his or her hard work?

The world has run long enough with the assumption that an employer pays its employees their salary, and it's the responsibility of the employee to share the benefits with his/her family members. Clearly, had this been a sufficient mechanism for all benefits to trickle down equitably, the whole gender discrimination issue wouldn't have arisen. The fact is that the person who has a direct access to the finances has an upper hand in the outside world in various ways. This advantage plays out very distinctly over a long period.

Personally, having been a family man for a decade and a half, it's quite clear to me that neither of us -- my wife and I -- would have been able to flourish in our professional craft without the other stepping up to help at every step. Unfortunately, this invaluable help gets a fairly sad compensation as a mention in the thesis acknowledgement or as a 'thank you' in an award ceremony, however sincerely and emotionally spelt. We need to make the compensation more explicit.

There could be objections to the above idea that a spouse's devotion or a parent's love are invaluable and thinking of compensating them in financial terms is like devaluing them. I get that, and I don't want to be dismissive about it outright. However, undeniably, the current system has led to a long-term drift and needs some correction.

Also, this idea wouldn't directly correct many other issues, for example, the fact that some people will never get an opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities in certain fields of endeavour due to this arrangement of division of labour. But, if we as a society take the task of estimating the financial value of handling a home and family, the issue of one feeling unrewarded and unacknowledged for his/her effort would be reduced to some extent, hopefully. It is likely that, in turn, everyone -- regardless of gender -- would feel motivated to contribute to domestic duties in the same way as to professional ones.

There's a trend to turn our workplaces into gender equitable spaces. This is a very good thing and should continue and strengthen by all means. But a dual force should also be created wherein men feel more encouraged to participate in managing home and family. It's definitely done in some of the developed economies, and it works. For example, some of the European countries like Sweden give paternity leave equal to the maternity leave, and that too a lot of it. This shows that the society there acknowledges the importance of nursing and raising a child, invests on it as a society and encourages men and women to participate equally in it.

A couple of points to tie up a few loose ends. Firstly, though I am thinking and writing about this subject around Women's Day, the matter is not about upliftment of women, or gender fairness. It's about fairness in general, which is gender/caste/race/class neutral virtue. This includes the interests of parents, caretakers and others who stand guard at home while a person goes out into the professional battlefield to earn bread and accolades. In the same vein, this thought has nothing to do with feminism, which is a sexist term in my opinion. Thinking like an ethical human being is an age-old idea, though put to use to a miserably insufficient extent. If feminism has done anything to help anyone do that, there're also evidence that it has brought up a generation of women (and men) who have misplaced notions of being knowledgeable about this issue and use it only to further strengthen their own privileges.

If our society considers itself a developed one, it should develop mechanisms of estimating the (economic) value of all contributions to the society; and, if possible, create channels through which credits and rewards flow to the people and places where they are due. I know, this may be a bit out of the way the world works. But to get important results, we should consider making fundamental/radical changes.

Good Wishes and a Rejoinder on Women's Day

Girls! Keep up the good work! And consider us all in it together.

Rejoinder

A few requests:

• Consider us your allies.
• Ask for help. We mayn't not always know how to, but we do want to. We don't judge.
• Don't keep saying "Men won't understand what it is to be a woman in this men's world." First of all, we didn't make this world. Why is it relevant to make a point like, 'Tum nahi samjhoge Rahul, Kucch Kuchh Hota Hai?' Secondly, why won't we understand? The real social disease is 'discrimination'; there's nothing so unique about discrimination against women, that in spirit, only they can understand it. We all have been victim of very severe forms of discrimination in a variety of ways: caste, economic, national, racial ... We mayn't get it exactly, but we do get it. Enough to be useful in helping remove it. No point belabouring the point.
• And just to top it up, please do acknowledge that the suffering that women face is one of the many kinds of sufferings, all of which are quite severe. Certain amount of activism is good to generate social anti-bodies against atrocities. But to weed out the root cause requires intellectual analysis. Some of us should also give serious thought on what the social (or probably biological) processes and structures are which lead to all kinds of discriminatory practices (gender related practices being one of them) to get mainstream acceptance over time? Once you are done with your day's activism, I invite you to an evening tea with me to mull over such questions: Why not a Dalit Day, Tribalman's Day, Negro Day, Poor Person's Day, Senior Person's Day, Physically Challenged Person's Day etc. All these classes have suffered discrimination and inhuman atrocities of comparable order as women have?

In short, let it not be an all-girl's party. Let us boys in too and work alongside you.

Character Certificate

Today, there was this funny news article in The Times of India which talked about landlords asking for 'character certificates' from single ladies who wished to rent their house. The character certificate should be issued by the employer it seems. There was then the part of the article which talked about how disgusted those ladies feel about this abominable demand.

I don't know if the demand is abominable. It's definitely stupid. An employer can't know more about its employee's character than is necessary to employ her. And actions speak louder than words. Why would he employ someone whose character he is not sure about? The employment is a stronger proof than any other written statement by the employment. An employer is well off taking care that his employee does her job well and her academic credentials are authentic. What kind of an employer would go to the extent of examining how many men she sleeps with? It's therefore more reasonable to ask for an employment proof.

As far as this being seen as a reproachful act in itself, my sympathies (temporarily) lean towards the landlord, particularly because we men have put up with this nonsense forever now, and no spinster ever stood up in our support. There have been landlords who have warned me (me, the Sujit; can you beat that?!) not to involve in 'all the nefarious activities of a bachelor' when I was about to take his flat on rent. There are still others who have their doors permanently closed to bachelors. Only married people please! I have found this very unfair, seriously. And have tried to raise my voices in many occasions. All my objections to this unfair and demeaning attitude to gentlemen has always been taken lightly. No one protested! Men, by default, are assumed to be nasty, lecherous, characterless. No one finds it odd if they are treated that way.

On a wider front. Perhaps, tomorrow there will be spinsters who would be insulted with suspicious glances in buses, trains and everywhere? Such looks as tells: 'Hey! I know what you are upto, huh! Don't you dare!' and there will be protests. Then, may be, pubs and discos will be closed to spinsters (not because they are in mortal danger of being beaten up by saffronists, but to prevent them from behaving badly with sober visiters). And there will be reproofs.

There should have been protests earlier though, when all this started being done to bachelors -- millions of years ago. It never happened. It's so easily accepted that men have been treated rawly in such matters. A man of genteel ways has always had to tolerate a treatment that the more lecherous brethren of his deserved.

But hold on! Perhaps we don't need any protests. Perhaps all these reproaches are side-effects of an upcoming gender equality. It's not a steady state, but a transient. Slowly, perhaps, women are starting to get an equal share in everything -- opportunities, responsibilities, power. And suspicion and reproaches as well. Perhaps, it also shows another non-obvious good thing. Women are indeed more liberated these days. They too have fun. They go to pubs. They drink. They check out guys. Some of the bolder ones even give a damn about premarital virginity and figure out everything the experimental way regardless of marriage. I feel all this is fine. Why not? Guys have been doing this for ages. Why can't girls? Particularly when both are equal, which means an equal propensity to any kind of behaviour? But there's an obvious side-effect. There are people in our society who don't approve of this kind of lifestyle. Such people want to stay away from any intercouse with people of a more adventurous kind. This kind of people have been asking for some sort of a character certificate from bachelors for ages, unless they had decided on not letting out their place to bachelors at all. These days, thanks to gender equality setting in, women have started getting rid of their age-old idea of their being any less craving for excitement, and have started indulging in what they really are, that is, very similar to men. Naturally, they too are coming into the firing line of those conservative people, who have forever subjected poor bachelors to this indiscreetness.

I envision a time when there won't be character certificates asked for renting accommodation (because it's stupid and illogical). No generalised restrictions will be effected in places of enjoyment. No suspicious glances thrown on anyone for percieved chances of lechery. Both in case of men, as in the case for women.

That will be the Age of Gender Equality. Till then I prefer fair indiscreetness to unfair discreetness.