Should wives have careers?
I have come across this question so many times that it needs a post of its own.
It’s ridiculous when people from our generation advocate the "benefits" of wives not having careers and only being housewives. One of my ex-colleagues went on a monologue about how it’s a good division of responsibilities. One person would make money, and the other person would look after the house—the perfect marriage.
(It may have made sense back when men went to stupid wars for glory they never received. But we have come a long way now. Today, men are no longer brave. Forget wars; men would start crying even while chopping onions.)
I give it to him that at face value this does sound about right. But it isn’t. This feels like it’s taken from a capitalist’s playbook, with the division of labour replaced by the division of responsibilities.
Many great minds have criticised the division of labour. It makes people feel alienated, less skilled, less satisfied, etc. The same can be taken here. The husband would not know what it takes to run a house and thus not empathise with the efforts put in by the wife. The wife would feel all alone. The family is dependent on the husband for money and the wife for functioning. If they are temporarily or permanently unable to perform their functions, it would be catastrophic for the family.
Another thing that he said was about how mothers are needed to be around children to nurture them and provide emotional support. That fathers could not provide better emotional support to the children as women are emotionally more mature than men.
That’s a fancy way of saying that men are (or want to be) emotionally unavailable. (Except when chopping onions.) Women may be more mature, but both are needed for children. Emotionally unavailable fathers result in children growing up with daddy issues.
What he didn’t say was that if wives also earn, then they would lose some control over their wives. After all, money is the only thing that such men bring to the table.
Then there is a new breed of men (and in-laws) who would act "all progressive" by "wanting" their wives to work. But that is because their sole income is not enough to run the household or raise the children. That’s why they don’t contribute to maintaining the house.
As they make more than their wives, they use that as an excuse to not contribute. This is very inhuman thinking. They are reducing chores to being not important. They are punishing their wives for making less money.
When we introduce ourselves, one of the first things that we talk about is what we do for work. So why should the identities of wives be only housewives? Why can’t they be professionals, engineers, bankers as well? Our first few teachers in schools were women. Imagine if all women chose to become housewives.
What’s the solution to this battle of the sexes?
If the wife wants to work, she should. Irrespective of the decision, both should contribute to the functioning of the house. The contribution should not be a function of how much money one makes, but a function of time. Whoever has shorter working hours should contribute more. If it’s the same for both, then both should contribute equally. (Except for chopping onions.) This does not change if there is a gap between the salaries of the husband and the wife.
If there is a huge gap, then the one earning less can decide to upskill and find something that enables them to make more.
By no means am I saying that wives should be working. If both decide that it would be better that she not work or take a break, then it should be that way. What I am saying is that the wife gets the final say in if she wants to work. It’s a major part of her identity. The same goes for the husbands too.
And guess what, when my ex-colleague married, he married a working woman. So much for making a case about housewives. God bless inflation and capitalism.
PS. Why does the word husband rhyme with ‘has been’?