There
has been a lot of back and forth in the Indian blogosphere of late, on
the choices of SAHMs, on the choices of working moms. SAHMs wrote in justifying their choice to be with their children all day and vehemently denied that their brains were rotting away. Working mothers rose to defend themselves, on why they chose to/need to work, and how their children were not neglected, at the same time.
I choose not to take a position with either side. Personally, I am
not yet at a stage where I need to make that choice. Also, I truly
believe that each woman makes the choice for herself based on the
situation that she is in, and how best she can handle it, at that point
in time.
However, I do believe, that women (and men), by positioning the
debate as between SAHMs Vs Working Moms, are doing a huge disservice to
themselves. Each individual's choice is important to herself and her
family, but if we are to examine the phenomenon as a whole, we need to
take a step back. We need to step back at the larger picture and
understand the whole background of where these choices spring from,
what enables these choices and whether all choices are truly choices.
To do this, we need to look at a couple of things. Lets first look
at work itself. How do we define work? If we define work as a service
that is provided by someone, in return for a measurable compensation,
that leaves out all work at home which may be compensated by love,
security, internal satisfaction -- but is not measurable as
compensation. On the other hand, if we define work as any service that
is productive, i.e. "it occupies the person's time", it is too vague
and includes leisure activities as well. Perhaps then it could be
defined as any activity that occupies your time, but is useful to one
other person at least. Looked at this way, home making becomes a service
like any other, since cooking, cleaning, child-care and education, care
for the elderly, paying bills are all services that offer great value
to other people.
Great. We agree then, that there is work which is performed outside
the home, and work which is performed at home. Things become more dicey
however, when we start assigning a value to both kinds of work.
Work outside the home is usually paid, (though a small fraction
could be volunteer work). Further, work outside the home often involves
skills that one has been trained for, be it mechanical work, nursing,
management positions, clerical work, anything. Work outside the home
also allows one to interact with other people, gain new friends, learn
new things. Working inside the home offers tremendous benefits to
one's own family. It is not usually viewed as a specialised skill that
one is trained for, though many would argue that cooking for example is
a skill that not everyone has. Typically, it meant less learning, less
fresh interaction, though for an urban, affluent person today,
facilities such as online learning mean that being home is no longer a
barrier to learning. Still, it is not usually associated with one,
compensation, and two, specialised skills. It is not surprising then,
that as human beings acquire more and more specialised skills, and want
more and more things to buy, work outside the home is viewed as a more
superior activity, even if we argue that home-making is equally
critical for a society as a whole.
Traditionally, men did the work outside the house, and women, the
home-making work, and everything 'seemed' hunky-dory. UNTIL. Women also
started acquiring more specialised skills, and started feeling left out
of an opportunity to use these. At the same time, they could not
discard their traditional roles of home-making.
The situation gets more complex with the arrival of a child.
Biologically, for the first six months to a year, definitely the mother
is more qualified to take care of the child, until the child is weaned.
Post this period, some women choose to stay home and some to get back
to work. Instead of deriding either choice, we should look at what is
it that enables some women to get back to work, while others decide not
to.
First of all, it is so deeply ingrained in most of us that the
mother is the primary care-giver, that it is very difficult to even
imagine a situation where at the end of say, 9 months, both parents
really think, "Hey, which one of us should take a career break?" (In
cases where the couple thinks its essential for a parent to be with the
child and not leave the child at a day-care). The society we live in
today, does not recognise men as suitable care-givers. Men are usually
treated as children themselves, needing care! Where are the companies
that offer paternity leave? Or at a much smaller scale, how many
companies appreciate men taking time off to care for a sick child? It
is somehow much easier for women employees to ask for such things. This
is of course a double-edged sword -- while women employees find it easier
to be "accommodated", they may also be viewed as not ambitious
enough/not CEO material. These attitudes, around us, and internalised
by us, make the mother the default caretaker. Naturally then, the "choice" falls upon her alone.
To my mind, this is not a complete choice. It forces almost every
woman to make the choice, AND it does not allow men this choice in
most cases. I can just imagine the brouhaha that would be created by
friends, family, colleagues -- if ever a man decided to be a SAHD. Its
not an easy choice, and most women recognise that in their hearts.
Again, in the Indian culture at least, the perception of man as primary
bread-winner is still strong. Most women marry someone who earns more
than them, if not equally. Hence, when it comes down to dropping a job,
it is a far more difficult option for the man who is the primary
bread-winner and is expected to play this role well.
Then, what about the parents who decide that its not imperative for
them to spend all day with an infant? For those who have their parents
around, its a blessing. For others, they need to depend on day-care
centres, which is still very much an emerging industry in India, and
has all the unpredictability of an emerging industry. A few bright
stars, and largely inconsistent quality, no 100% assurance for the
rest. Linked with "mom-primary-care-giver", the absence of good quality
day-care centres in sufficient numbers is another reason why women
choose not to go back to work.
Again, if you are a parent who decides that it's fine to leave your
child in day-care, our society today doesn't always respect those
choices. There will always be a 100 people around you, who tell moms
especially, that you've abandoned your baby, if in not so many words.
It's easy to say that who cares what the world thinks? But these young
moms are often battling with themselves, as they make a difficult
choice. It's even more difficult for them to confront other people, who
all think they know better. Un-supportive families (husbands/in-laws)
could be another problem for women who want to get back to work, but
find little help at home.
We also need to look at the way our workplaces are structured. Most
workplaces are structured around getting things done in a particular
way, at a particular time. They focus on the means, not the ends. This
leaves little option for flexibility in timings, place of work etc. On
the other hand, if organisations were to focus on the ends, and allow
employees various means of achieving them, both women and men could
blend their work and home lives so much better. One may ask of course,
why should companies do this? Well, companies should do this not just
to be women-friendly. Companies should do this because any company
which is family-friendly offers its employees a great reason to stay
back. Everyone knows how much harder it is to re-hire and re-train for
a position, as opposed to an existing employee. Now, even if this
employee were to take a 6 month break, it may still be worthwhile for
the company to manage those 6 months by allocating the work among
others. A new person would take up 4 of those 6 months settling into
the groove anyways. This may of course be easier for some jobs
(especially white collar) than others. But if a company has this
mindset, options could always be found. For routine jobs, for example,
temporary workers could be used.
Once all these are addressed -- families truly have options to choose
whether someone should stay at home. If yes, who should?, and if not,
how should the situation be managed?, or whether a combination of being
at home, and going out to work is feasible. Of course, there may be some
lucky women today, who are in this situation and have chosen to stay at
home, after evaluating all options. Good for them!
They are probably highly educated women in any case, who will not face
trouble findings jobs after a few years. Until the base issues are
addressed however, it is completely wrong on our part to frame the
debate as being between working moms and SAHMs. By talking this way, we
do a huge disservice to both sides, and only hurt these women, both of
whom are doing the best that they can.
Rather than focusing on which camp of women is in the right, we
should be addressing the base issues, which each of us can do, in a
small way. I am putting down below some thoughts on what we can do,
feel free to add on more!
1. Lobby in your company for paternity leave/extended paternity
leave (where maternity leave is already a norm). Talk to HR
informally. Get people at least talking about it. Only when workplaces
start recognising men as dads, will men too truly be able to get
involved in child care. At least they should have the option. That in
turn will relieve the pressure on women.
2. Women -- Try and avoid positioning yourself as the sole
authority/responsibility for child care. Of course, this depends on how
supportive the husband is, but at least internally, we have to start
believing, not just saying, that two people bring a child into this
world. Beyond the biologically dictated breast-feeding, there are
many things men can do, and do well.
3. If you are single or don't have kids yourself, don't look at
people in your workplace who have children as getting some special
benefits. Kids are the way for society to grow. Read Bitch Phd's fantastic post on this subject here. Instead of feeling envious of people who take time off due to a kid's
emergency, why not lobby for the workplace to be more fair to everyone
and ensure a good work-life balance? Don't try to put them down, try to
bring your needs up instead! This will help so much to avoid a
situation where working women are seen as easing off. It will instead
help to establish that everyone has a life and needs time to attend to
it, outside of work.
4. Stop believing that men have a special duty to be THE
bread-winner in the family, and stop expecting that the man you marry
must make more money than you do. Unless men achieve freedom from
prescribed gender roles too, women alone will not -- we will only end up
doing both jobs. Start wondering to what extent gender really dictates
the roles that you take up.
5. Entrepreneurs amongst you -- maybe child-care is a good business
for you to think of! We would all benefit by having more good quality
day-cares in all areas, rather than in select upmarket areas only.
Think about it.
6. Again, if you are someone who runs their own business, see what
you can do to make your workplace more family-friendly, while getting
the work done at the same time.
And lastly, stop discussing which is better -- SAHMs or working moms.
Recognise the fact that women are still the primary child-carers,
at least in this country. Facing that expectation (internally as well as
from society), each woman makes some very difficult choices. Rather
than discussing whether individual choices are good or bad, try and see
what can be done to help both men and women make the best choices they
can.
|