Further progress toward gender equity in India.

The link in the comments section is to a NY Times article reporting on a very important bill that was passed by the upper house of India's parliament in March of this year. The bill proposes an amendment to India's constitution such that one-third of the seats in India's legislatures be reserved for women. Needless to say, the bill is facing much opposition; some opponents say "it will favor wealthy upper-caste women at the expense of the lower castes and Muslims." There are three more hurdles the bill has to cross: lower house of Parliament, at least half of India's state legislatures, and finally the president of India must sign off on the bill.

This is a huge, courageous, step forward toward gender equity. The fact that the bill is being considered is fantastic. The US House and Senate have a overwhelmingly small percentage of women. I do acknowledge that the criticism of the bill taking seats away from other groups is understandable and probably justified. At the same time, progress toward gender equity is also important. Some look at it as a nicety and that is is lower priority compared to other "more important" causes (e.g. hunger, poverty). But with that view, then the time for such a change may never come. It'd be like saying that NASA should not be funded or that animal rights should not be fought for because there is always something more important. But we'll never make progress on those issues if we don't try now. I was similarly torn during the last presidential election; it felt like we were choosing between gender and race with the Democratic party, and we couldn't have both. But Obama is a qualified, admirable president who is also a feminist given that gender equity and women's empowerment have been a large part of his agenda. And you gotta love a man who was okay with a lawyer as a wife who was the main breadwinner for many years. :)

Back to the situation in India's government: given that women make up more than half of the world's population, it only makes sense that half of governmental seats be reserved for women, much like affirmative action for ethnic minorities. If women make up more than half of the world's population, there needs to be an appropriately proportionate amount of female leaders. This bill in India may not get to that fully, but it certainly is a huge step. Increasing the percentage of female leaders could have huge implications for policies related to wages, reproductive rights, and education.

As such, that is the reason why I advocate for women being out in the workforce. By doing so, we as a society make the statement that women working is important, and that can lead to more women being in more powerful fields and positions. Otherwise, we currently have more men making decisions that also impact women. And this is all aside from the other benefits of women working: financial independence, personal power, and a sense of one's identity as an individual.

I don't want to imply that both parents working is something that is easy or possible for all families. And I do understand the traditional family structure because after all, I can only imagine that it must be difficult to juggle careers as well as raising kids. And if the partners are in a safe and loving relationship, then one person being in charge of the home while the other provides financially makes sense (IF the person staying home is happy with that). The "entity" is no longer an individual but rather, a family. Further, housework is certainly work as well, and has been minimized too much for far too long as "just women's work."

At the same time, the person in the relationship who earns the money has more power in a lot of ways. Money does equal power after all. (And desire for power and control is the greatest factor in domestic violence.) Further, though housework is work, we as a society have not figured out how to get women (or even men who stay home) compensated for that work. So in states that are not community property states, the partner who did not work outside the home could get financially screwed in a divorce. As it is research has shown that divorced women are in a worse financial situation than divorced men.

I'm happier to see stay-at-home dads. That is probably hypocritical on some level but, that starts to tip the scales and helps get over the assumption that it is the mother who has to stay home. Further, I think society is easier on men who try to re-enter the workforce.

So I won't negatively judge a woman who decides to stay home but I will wonder if she and her partner have considered all possible alternatives available to them to ensure that both partners are fulfilling their dreams and contributing to society in a way that they want. My sister and I spent a lot of time in day care, and we turned out to be independent, strong, intelligent and contributing citizens (despite having a very abusive father). Plus, my mom modeled for me that women can do math and science just as well as men. There's no wrong way to parent, unless of course there is abuse or the kids are being raised in a crack house. But there is certainly nothing wrong with having help with parenting. If anything, it helps the parents be healthier, leading to better parenting and emotional health overall. It does after all "take a village."

Financial independence is empowerment. And empowering women reduces their chances of being victims and increases welfare of their children. This in and of itself has huge implications for issues of poverty and ethnic inequities.