Freedom for Women, or Freedom to Approach & Enslave Women?

It is often argued that idle women workforce is a great loss to the economy, and by making them work the economic growth can be accelerated. It is also argued that this is the fundamental right of the women to be economically independent. In defense of this argument various reasons are given like a financially independent woman is better able to take care of herself and her children, and that she and her children are healthier, more educated and have better chance of coming out of poverty.

Before countering these arguments allow me to make it clear that there is no denial of the variety of problems a women face in third world and developing countries. Where she is vulnerable due to dependence on her father, husband etc., who consider her as a liability and is given less care as compare to male members in the family. In Pakistan also lots of crimes like Karo Kari, and other forms of domestic violence are not uncommon. In neighboring India, situation is much more deplorable, where raping women is becoming more of a hobby among men belonging to lower economic class.

The problem is indeed genuine, and there is no denial of the injustice which exists, which must be cured one way of another. However what would be crueler, to present something as a solution which brings women out of one problem and forces her into some other types of problems and convince her that she is now OK. This is unfortunately happening today under the pretext of so called women empowerment and women's rights movements, whose key points were mentioned above, and will be refuted below: 

Refutation of First Argument: The first argument is women involvement in economic activity will accelerate economic growth (http://hbr.org/2013/04/women-and-the-economics-of-equality/ar/1), therefore policy makers should focus on bringing women into the job market etc.

Let us explain how this happens. More women mean more labor supply, more competition in labor market, which eventually forces the wages down. Imagine a village of 100 males and 100 females (all husbands and wives with children), where all were married to each other. Assume males were employed in a factory as labors requiring no special skills, means any normal person could do the job. Male were also sole breadwinner in the family.

The Factory owner comes up with an interesting idea. He announced that he would start employing women as well. He convinced women by saying that the household income will be doubled if they start working as well. The simple minded couples gets excited and apply for job, without realizing that they both would be competing each other in the job market. The factory owner announced he will add 10 more jobs in his factory employing females, against which 100 females applies. Now its simple economics that this will force the wages down, for everyone including males as well.

Remember the job didn't require any special skills and could have been performed by men or women with equal efficiency. Previously supply and demand of labor was 100 each, now the demand rose to 110, however the supply reached 200. Any student of economics can calculate how the wages would have been reduced for both males and females. Also many women, who are willing to work for lower wages, will substitute many males as well! Means men who were 100% employed before are no more.

It is quite possible that in this process many households might also be without any breadwinner, as male worker of one family would have been replaced by female worker of another family.

The factory owner's plot worked, now he has more workers demanding the limited jobs he has, means he can now offer his workers lesser wage, eventually reducing overhead cost; means higher net profits him.

On the other side, the average household income remained unchanged, as wages were almost halved with more competition. If a male was earning Rs. 1000 / day, but now he and his wife are earning say Rs. 600 / day each, after market equilibrium; also some families would be without a breadwinner.

Of course in a real economy things wouldn't be as simple, however we cannot overrule the fact that supply of women labor can increase many times faster than the increase in job opportunities.

Once this happens, eventually would force the wages lower, and will force many males unemployed while creating little impact on per capita income, or net household income; however this will increase the profits for the 'Capitalist', creating an illusion that GDP has increased, while the condition of the general public remains the same.

It is ironic, that while creating employment opportunities for women, the male unemployment problem is completely ignored. The side effects often goes unnoticed, as the macro level picture is invisible from the eyes of many, or no measures are taken to bring it into notice, as those in power are the actual beneficiaries.

Refutation of second Argument: This is about so called independence and freedom for Women, it is believed and even empirically proven by Nobel laureates like Amrateya Sen, that independence and freedom for women which comes from economics empowerment, has enabled women to takecare of health and education of their children resulting in lesser child mortality and higher literacy rates etc.

This might be true as mothers are assumed to care for their children more than men, more so in lower economic classes. Also dependence on male also deprives women of their basic rights particularly when males don’t have much to feed for the entire family. In such conditions, for example, they are lesser able to get necessary medical care when they are pregnant etc.

The problem which exists might be genuine… however the solution might not be. The women are expected to take care of themselves financially for their independence even when they are pregnant, or feeding their children. Ask any mother, how difficult it is work particularly during first few weeks of pregnancy, when they are unable to digest anything and feeling nausea all the time. And then before, during and after pregnancy her condition is again deplorable, hence a maternity leave of 4 months is allowed to them by their employers. However taking care of an infant till he or she is 2 yrs old, is another hell of a task, as almost all the time the child is demanding attention, some time he or she is hungry, have popped, or is sick etc. and once the child has reached an age of 2, now its time to get pregnant again, for the 2^nd or third time, if she wants to. This means a mother’s life is extremely occupied already for at least 9 years if the couple plans to have three kids, for example. 

Now on top of her domestic responsibilities, if someone proposes to put an additional burden of earning and feeding her kids, then what kind of independence and freedom are we talking about really? Is it not unjust, criminal even, to burden her with such an additional responsibility? In a previous blog post the negative impact this brings on psychological development of child has already been explained (click here to read).  

A scholar aptly puts it i.e. it’s not freedom of women western civilization want, rather its freedom to access women which male in power seek. And the public is being fooled by providing lame excuses to justify this!

Unfortunately the majority of the public either is too innocent and simple minded to see through the thick veil of deception hanged in front of their eyes to blind them from the truth, or perhaps their inferiority complex doesn’t allow them to question the narrative of the west, and have blind faith in it!

There is no denial here for the right of women to work, however the way women is being fooled into a trap for the benefit of someone on the top, while not informing her about the potential pitfalls and drawbacks is nothing but a new form of oppression, which is as unjust as any other forms.

It is also assumed without any basis whatsoever that there isn't any way a man can be educated to treat their life partners with respect and take care of them especially when they pregnant. It is indeed a serious lacking in the way males are brought up all across the world, as he is not trained about how he is supposed to respect the other half of the society.

This could be because of unique ontological assumption where he is consider to be a homo economicus, or driven purely by self-interest, in this premise it is perhaps assumed that whenever women gets pregnant, she now incapable of sexually satisfying her husband and now is only a financial liability, therefore man are bound to lose their interest in them.

The roots of this presumption are perhaps grounded in a view of human beings as an evolved form of animals; therefore they are likely to behave in the same fashion. Also the western world considers itself enlightened and ahead in the evolutionary process as compare to the underdeveloped or developing world. From this perspective the public there is less evolved and more likely to behave like animals as compare to them.

But is it really the case? From an Islamic perspective this is nothing but ridiculous. Human beings are best of Allah s.w.t creations and they can be taught to have manners, etiquettes, and civilized behavior, with hold gratification or self-interest, and sacrifice for a greater cause unlike animals. And this is exactly what should be done instead of burdening women and making here accessible for the market. Is it impossible? If millions of dollars are spent on to educate women to come out of their homes and sell themselves in the market, then why can't the same money be spent on educating men to take better care of their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters when they need them? But of course if this happens, how the rich will be able to increase their profits if they don't find cheap labor in the market in the form of women. They can't and that's exactly the point! 

Author is an academic researcher, author, blogger, social entrepreneur, activist, mentor and tweets @javaidomar