"Man Without a Job is as Useless as Cellphone Without Battery", Why Men Must be Earning in a Family?
To be or not to be (provider or oppressor), that is the question. "A man without a job is as useless as a cellphone without a battery."
Do you remember the movie Ki and Ka? Arjun Kapoor is busy taking care of the household, wears a mangalsutra and gives bed tea to his wife. Well, a tight slap to the rigid gender-stereotypical norms of the society.
Let's now view another picture. A picture of an arranged marriage being finalized. The bride's father enquiring about the salary of the groom. If he earns enough to worth the expenses of the dowry? If he earns enough to provide carnal pleasure to his wife? If he earns enough to buy his daughter a new pressure cooker? Like, seriously? Why don't you just make your daughter capable enough to earn for herself and her family too?
You can be a man and at the same time may not be the earning member of the family. What's the problem here? If a woman has the choice (or no choice, at all) to be a housewife, then shouldn't the man get it too. Equality, people, it's called equality. A man may not love to work, rather he may have a fascination for cooking and room decorating. Just let him do it.
If a working man can marry a woman who wishes to be a housewife, then let your working daughter choose a man who ain't working. It's nothing abnormal. Men are not born to work. It's not their duty to be a bread earner, every time.
Our society has very well demarcated a line between what it's a man's duty and what a woman's. And till today, we like befooled public, are busy following them. Open your eyes! Release the toxicity within you! Embrace an emancipated self! You will see then, it's nothing wrong for a man not to be necessarily a working man.
A working wife can also run a household if given the opportunities. A husband can also make tea and attend the guests. He can rear up the children just like any mother. He can take the clothes to the laundry. Even if a female is financially viable, the society chooses an employed man for her marriage, while that's not the case of a man. He can choose a simple homemaker woman or an employed one. There is a choice. Right from childhood, a boy is taught not to cry, not to be sober and shy and most importantly he is encouraged to get a good job in future to sustain the family.
He is the one who has to take care of the ailing mother, the unmarried sister and the education of the younger brother. Why only He? Just because he is a man? So, is earning livelihood his ascribed duty?
He can also choose to be a homemaker. Oh, wait, that again makes him a butt of attack from all corners of the society. Stereotypes and hypocrisy of society have a negative effect not only on women but also men. They can also choose to be homemakers. It's not wise and logical to equate a man to a source of income.
If feminism is all about equality then I guess we shouldn't fight for the case of women alone as the term stands for giving equal rights to everyone irrespective of sex. Men too deserve equal rights and the power to choose what they feel is right for them. So better stop paralleling man to an ATM machine.
Let's stand for each other and form a society where everyone's choices and preferences are welcomed.
Up Next: "Must have been the wife's fault…", Why is it always a woman's fault when her man cheats on her?
Share with All Your Family & Friends and Spread as much as Possible.
