On household and care work
 |
| Photo by Quang Nguyen Vinh |
Discourses of reform often stop at the gates of domestic space. For domestic space is considered as a space of ‘private affairs’ -- safely distant from questioning moralities of public life. (Lynch 1994) Nevertheless, domestic space can prove to be a breeding ground for gendered inequities and indoctrination of patriarchal values, as demonstrated by plethora of domestic violence cases -- reported or unreported. (EPW 2020) This insularity from the public probity remains one of the greatest challenges to fully fathom the gravity of issues concerning freedom of choice and expression for women (and also for men who do not subscribe to patriarchal norms). Those who dare to break free from the shackles risk getting denounced from everydayness of life and waging a constant battle to ‘prove their point.’ In this regard, the institution of marriage is equally complicit. (Chambers 2013) Rife with implicit transactions (read household chores and childcare) -- often under the guise of labour of ‘love’ and ‘care’ -- the institution of marriage conceives the very domestic space which endure devious motivations of patriarchal power structures and attendant gender normativities. Devoid of reflexivity, these implicit transactions are caustic not only for their contributions to referential historicity of ‘duty’ and ‘traditions’ in the life of women but also for their intractability to ascertain whether their performativity is for the self, the other or the marriage. If in case a woman performs an activity consequent to marriage within the household (for example, changing a diaper of an infant), how does one discern conclusively if responsibility was equally shared -- in absence of a suitable metric or an independent evaluator. Criticality of these questions keeps the issue open-ended while countless women continue to suffer.
Additionally, analysing the role of men (and women who subscribe to patriarchal norms) and masculinity -- and implication of it on household power dynamics -- is equally pertinent to deconstruct the phenomenon of women taking up household and care work. In the context of masculinity and power, Cornwall et al. writes: "The links between gendered power and social and material privilege often appear compelling and ‘natural’. We suggest that this persuasive rhetoric can be dismantled, first, by treating power as immanent in all social interactions and, second, by viewing inequalities from the point of view of subordinates." (2016, p. 4) If subjugated women can be hypothesised as ‘subordinates’ in an unequal gender relation, then ‘naturalness’ can be attributed to patriarchal values of control and subordination. In that configuration, the ability to dominate (and retain power of domination) is considered as an essential trait of being a man. Any attempt to concede greater power would be akin to ‘emasculation’ or ‘feminization’ -- potentially being judged as a ‘subordinate variant’ in the ‘hegemonic masculinity’ universe -- social implications of which might be self-defeating for those deeply invested in patriarchal exploits. Moreover, female conservatism in reaction to unraveling of ‘classic patriarchy’ -- as an individual strategy or “patriarchal bargain” to resist egalitarian reform so as to maintain the best contextual and temporal advantage can also add fuel to the fire. Making the problem exponentially complicated, this can result in the case for sustained "submissiveness and propriety" of women while fetching rewards in the form of authority, affection, and approval. (Kandiyoti 1988)
Taking away the debate from sociological realms into economics, payment for unpaid household and care work is increasingly being considered as a solution to the problem. (Indian Express 2021) This approach can have positive effects on material conditions of women -- as evidenced in Swedish subsidies for domestic work introduced in 2007. However, it carries the risk of internalizing gender roles and stereotypes -- with state sanction. Also, the contested nature (i.e. ‘double standard’) of moderating effect of gender ideology on judgements by traditional or egalitarian individuals -- whereby traditional individuals evaluating the primary caregiving mother and the full-time employed father more favorably than the caregiving father and employed mother, and, egalitarian individuals evaluating the primary caregiving father and the full-time employed mother more favorably than the caregiving mother and employed father -- coming to consensus for a policy decision becomes more aspirational than practical. (Gaunt 2012) Furthermore, payment for unpaid household and care work can take away genuine freedom of choice of work, and make one bounded by obligations to perform assigned duties (enforced by gender norms of heteronormative male breadwinner) for payment received. Its benefit can be worked out favourably to women if the terms and conditions are explicitly detailed (including prior informed consent) in the marital contract. From a systemic reformation perspective, approach of payment can complemented with efforts like fostering awareness and availment of inheritance and property rights, provisioning of free legal aid for domestic violence cases, and gender-sensitisation and behaviour change campaigns to make household and care work more participative. Above all, the traditional institution of marriage and family needs severe rethinking and restructuring in light of the ideals of freedom and liberty for all.
Comments
Post a Comment