As a female soon to be traveling through India, I believe it is only natural to consider the history of gender discrimination in this very clearly patriarchal society. Gender almost seems to be an enigma in India, a country with a female president alongside gender issues such as female feticide and dowry deaths. And of course there is the special case of Kerala – a lone matriarchy in a sea of male dominance. Yes gender issues are vastly complex and varying in a country as populous and diverse as India, so I will only attempt to scratch the surface and to only look at a specific case, that of poor rural women.
The case of rural women and gender discrimination is an interesting one. Women are the workhorse when it comes to the care of the household such as foraging for food and fire materials yet “the is a systematic anti-female bias in the allocation within rural households of subsistence resources controlled by men including resources used for food, health care, education and other basic needs,” (Agarwal 1997). This means that although the rural females are expected to provide these “subsistence resources” they actually have less access to these than their husbands. Women in rural settings do much if not the entire gathering from forest, rivers, wells, etc. In some cases the women are the sole economic providers for their families. Yet at the same time women have little to no access to private resources such as agricultural land. Thus their job is made that much harder by their lack of resources. This is especially disturbing considering that women tend to focus more on the needs of the family than men as can be seen by the fact that women tend to spend personal income on their children where men tend to spend their incomes on themselves (Agarwal 1997). In “Property right’s in women’s empowerment in rural India: a review” the authors say that, “various studies also reveal that while men keep a sizeable portion of their income for their personal consumption on liquor, tobacco, clothes and so on, women spend almost the whole of their income on family's needs,” (Roy and Tisdell 2002). Thus it seems it would make sense to put more resources into the hands of these poor rural women, but I will look more at this later.
Rural women aren’t only faced with inequalities in their roles as household providers but also in potential economic opportunities as well. Females tend to have less employment opportunities over all as well as less “occupational mobility,” lack of training and a wage gap (Agarwal 1997). Not to mention rural women already have the consuming job of supporting their household’s physical needs. The major problem here lies in the fact that the labor they perform to do this is undertaken within their own homes and therefore “not recognized as an economic activity,” (Roy and Tisdell 2002). Women can find employment working in agriculture but this brings up another issue. It seems that with the tasks appointed to rural women and their subsequent skill set, land ownership would be very beneficial to rural women, but they meet discrimination here again. Land is held in the males names and passed from father to eldest son This leaves wives, mothers, sisters, daughters dependent on male family members, offering no permanent security for themselves or their families because women are cultivating land held by others (Roy and Tisdell 2002). If property rights were given to women they could find empowerment, not to mention the positive environmental effects on the land as well.
To change the plight of rural women education, property rights and female participation, among other factors should be considered. It was observed by Roy and Tisdell that women with land titles were treated better by male family members and found more respect in social settings because they were not seen as economically dependent. Economic independence could be a step towards reducing gender bias overall (Roy and Tisdell 2002). Empowering women goes beyond positive personal effects. For example, commons are better protected and regulated when the women are included and cooperate as they are the ones that use the commons and thus the ones that will uphold protective regulations. A specific example of this can be seen in forests where women have a clearer and more educated opinion in species selection when trying to reverse deforestation. They have the needs of their families in mind and therefore chose a variety of species for food, medicine, fire fodder, etc., which means easier selection for women in the future (Agarwal 1997). Roy and Tisdell observe that land ownership by women often ensures better care of the land in the long term because women are concerned about the future welfare of their families. Roy and Tisdell write, “Since the land use patterns of men are usually more destructive of nature than that of women who are directly concerned with the protection and regeneration of forest for fuel, fodder and other non-timber forest produce, land in women's name will lead to the greater preservation of ecology and environment,” (Roy and Tisdell 2002). They furthermore propose that property rights for women could have an effect on urbanization. Since most rural women are not economically employed, many rural families migrate to cities for more economic opportunities. Therefore, land rights and subsequent employment of females could potentially slow down this migration (Roy and Tisdell 2002).
I once heard that India is a country of contradictions and I believe this can be seen in the case of gender discrimination, particularly in the case of rural women. These women are expected to provide for the physical needs of their families yet lack access to or ownership of necessary resources. There are clearly positive effects to be seen if this contradiction was righted, but India has a long way to go in this area. This is only a specific subset of gender issues plaguing the country, but this case is representative of the country of contradictions.
“Gender, Environment, and Poverty Interlinks: Regional Variations and Temporal Shifts in Rural India, 1971-91” Bina Agarwal, 1997.
“Property rights in women's empowerment in rural India: a review “ K.C. Roy and C.A. Tisdell, 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment