Stereotyping also happens for men, and it is equally bad

Are men also stereotyped in our society like women? Do they feel pressure to fit in a certain image to define their manliness? Does society expect a certain type of behavior from them or associate a certain set of qualities with their personality because of their gender? Do they face any discrimination because of their gender? Normally we ask these types of questions to point out gender stereotyping of women, but we can also ask these questions about men and the answer to most of them is YES. I am sure both men and women will be surprised to know that men are as much stereotyped as women or transgenders. There is a certain perception about men in our society. Our media and movie culture has built a certain image of an ideal man, masculine, fearless, and ever-ready for sex are some of the characteristics that most of us associate with men. This image is the result of years of stereotyping of male behavior, and males grow with this image in their minds. The effect of this is very strong. Knowingly or unknowingly men try to mold their behavior to fit into this image. The effect of this stereotyping is so much that if we come across any post or article adulating men the automatic response is "wish there were more men like this" or "We need more men like this." If you don't believe me then just check the comments section of any Facebook post or article adulating men or describing any incident which doesn't fit typical stereotyped male behavior. This is strong evidence to show how much our society has generalized the behavior patterns of men.

The truth is that most men want to be kind and very well-behaved. Patriarchal culture all over the world has put a lot of pressure on them to do justice to their so-called "manliness." Most of them try really hard to fit into that image. Often all those efforts and struggles are not recognized or appreciated as it is expected from them as a part of their duty as men, especially their responsibility to feed their family. This happens with women also where they are expected to take care of their families and all their efforts in that direction go completely unnoticed as it is considered as their "natural" duty. But unfortunately, when men misbehave, and commit crimes like murder or rape their gender becomes significant, and many times that criminal behavior is blamed on their gender. Even ridiculous statements like 'boys will be boys' are often used to justify or defend some misbehavior. Sometimes while criticizing sexual harassment incidents people try to put blame on the criminal's gender rather than accusing that particular individual for that mistake. The point is, men and women both face problems of gender stereotyping in our society and both get affected negatively because of this. Agreed, women are much more harshly targeted than men, but if we want to resolve the issue of gender discrimination we should look at the complete picture. Just because some men are misbehaving with women this type of behavior doesn't become a characteristic of all men. Just because some men are brave and masculine, this should not become a criterion to describe all men. Every person, whether it is a man, woman, or transgender comes with a unique set of qualities and emotions. A particular gender might have a certain type of emotion that dominates in its group, but there is no hard and fast rule for these things. Humans are not robots, they are not manufactured in factories with a certain set of characteristics. We all are different. Let's acknowledge and respect these differences. Such stereotyping of any gender can only result in feelings of low self-esteem and guilt among people who don't fit into those descriptions.

Stereotyping men is as bad as stereotyping women or transgenders. It doesn't serve any useful purpose, we all should avoid it. Just because for centuries, certain things were expected from certain gender doesn't mean we should continue with such wrong traditions. Once we realize that certain traditions are wrong, we should dare to challenge them and change them no matter how old they are. Like women, men have also suffered long because of stereotyping and gender bias. Let's try to end this injustice. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Chanakya and his views about women - Part II

One of the most popular posts on my blog is 'Chanakya and his views about women'. I wrote it back in 2012, it is almost four years since this post was published, and now it is time to update it. Many people read that post and shared their views about it. I request readers interested in discussions related to this post to go through the comment section to see how different people perceived the post very differently. Let me warn you that it is very lengthy, but people who are really interested in such discussions might find it worthy of their valuable time. Some readers accused me of trying to malign the name of the great Chanakya. I don't know on what basis this accusation was leveled against me, but let me clarify that Chanakya is a legend in many ways, but he is not above criticism, analysis, or scrutiny like any other great historical figure, so there are and will be lots of articles, books or blog posts written about his work and my post is just one of them. It was not written with any bad intention and I don't think it is easy for anyone to malign the image of anyone like Chanakya. Some tried to defend the quotes mentioned in the post, it is all there in the comments section of the post, please go through it if you are interested. Recently I read a message sent to me by Mr. Tapan Joshi where he explained to me why he thinks my post portrays wrong or misleading interpretations of Chanakya's views about women. I think this message is worth sharing. I always appreciate counterviews, I think we all should listen patiently and attentively to people who disagree with us, it is very important. I like it whenever people try to make a point by using a rational approach. Whether I agree with their point or not is really immaterial, but I feel that anyone interested in any topic should try to read all possible sides of that topic to get the complete picture. This is the main intention behind sharing Tapan's comment about this topic.

Tapan sent the following message to me, I am quoting his message with minimum corrections. He starts by warning me (or anyone) about the dangers of wrong interpretation because of a lack of good knowledge of Sanskrit (the language in which original works of Chanakya are written).

"What people need to understand is that Chankya's literature is in Sanskrit and those who have not learnt Sanskrit properly or the grammar, or cannot interpret Sanskrit should keep their opinions to themselves and not spoil literature of such kind." 

A very fair warning, but I didn't interpret any of those verses as I don't understand Sanskrit, I used popular translations of Chanakya's work available in the public domain. So, if those translations are wrong or the corresponding author misinterpreted anything then obviously I am also wrong. 

Then he makes a very good point, "A Sanskrit word can have multiple meanings and the meaning should be put in, in reference to the context. This message is for those people who have wrongly interpreted Chanakya Niti, and Arthashastr and other books like the Vedas, which has caused great ignorance and foolish beliefs." 

Indeed, many of these ancient texts, some of which are in the form of poetry can be interpreted in various ways. That is why we see many different interpretations of the same verse from the Gita, Quran, or any other ancient book, but it is not an easy task to decide which one is the correct interpretation and which one is not. That's why we need to look into all interpretations and discuss them.  

He has provided very different interpretations of some of the verses that I quoted in my post (quotes from my post are highlighted in bold). They are very interesting. 

Coming to Chanakya's views on Women, in Arthashastr written by Arya (Noble) Chanakya BOOK 4 CHAPTER 12, 1) It is repeated many times ' No man shall have sexual intercourse with a woman against her will' 2) When a man refuses to stay in a marriage with a his wife as agreed upon, he shall be fined 200 panas. You will find many such instances in the book. Also, the verses from Chanakya Niti you have quoted are wrongly interpreted- 1) Chapter 1, verse 17, Women have hunger twofold, shyness fourfold, daring sixfold, and lust eightfold compared to men. You don't need to wonder anything here. It is self explained, but still if you don't get it, I'll interpret it for you, Women have 2 fold hunger- Well women give birth to children, help them grow, hence their food has to be nutritious, good and double that of a man. There is no mention of shyness in the verse, in fact, instead of shyness the word 'Buddhi' is used, hence the verse becomes women have four times more Brain, it is evident as women are doing better than men today (the sanskrit verse is-' striNaam dviguN aahaaro BUDDHISTAASAAM (no mention of shyness) chaturguN, saahasam ShadaguNam chaiva kaamoaShTaguN uchyate). Their daring is 6 times more than that of a man. Women are not that daring and strong compared to men, but if a woman shows some daring, then that is 6 times more powerful than a man. Now the word Kaam is used here not lust, there is a difference. Men who ejaculate during Reproduction, after ejaculation for some time their sexual desire decreases or comes to rest, but not in the case of a woman. Hence Kaam is 8 times more in a woman than that of a man. Such a beautiful verse wrongly interpreted by foolish, ignorant people who do not understand Sanskrit. 

2) One should not place trust in rivers, animals with horns, armed ones, women, or ruling families. Congrats another wrongly interpreted verse (and that too not knowing what the Sanskrit verse says). Here is the verse and I will explain each word, ' naditire cha ye vrukshaha- the trees growing on the banks of the river, parageheShu kaamini- a woman who is not faithful by comiting adultry by going to other people's houses. MantrihinaaShcha raajaanaha- a king without ministers, shighram nashyantasamshayama- these without doubt destroy themselves very soon. Another verse copied and pasted from somewhere. Before finding fault with someone please ensure you are right and not mislead people. In fact Chanakya says chapter 4 verse 20- There are 5 mothers namely, King's wife, Teacher's wife (if applicable, it can be a female teacher), Friend's wife, own wife's mother (mother in law), and our birthplace. He also says- chapter 5 verse 9 -Satstriyaa rakshayte gruham- A woman is the one who protects a house. 

3) Fire, water, women, fools, snakes, and the royal family, beware of all these, they can prove fatal. Another baseless claim, there is no mention of the word woman in this verse, the verse is in chapter 9 verse 7- ahim- snake, nrupam cha- and King, shardulam- tiger or cheetah, kiTim cha- pig, baalakam tatha- a small child, parashvaanam cha murkham- someone's dog , a fool, sapta suptaan na bodhayeta-never wake up these 7 when they are in sleep. Also chapter 12 verse 13- the one who sees a woman as his mother, other's wealth as a heap of sand, and all animals same as him (they too have a right to live), he sees everything as it is. 

4) A woman who keeps fast without the permission of her husband shortens the life of her husband. She goes to hell and is punished with the great horrors of hell. Another myth- so let's break it. This verse is found in chapter 17 verse 9- He only says those women who fast (that is not eat food) for no reason. In Ayurved you are supposed to fast only if you are unwell (like a stomach problem), so women who fast for no reason trouble the husband as he is worried about her and she herself suffers a lot from not eating anything. 

5) 'For good days one should save money, women should be protected even if it takes the money saved. But for self-preservation, the money and the women should be sacrificed!!.' Another claim not backed by proofs and lack of understanding. Chapter 1 verse 6-Aapadarshey dhanam rakshed- protect money for emergency situations, daaraan rakshedhanairapi- protect your wife more than money. aatmanam satatam rakshed- protect yourself more than money and your wife, daarairapi dhanairapi- because if you are not alive, than what is the use of money to you and the use of you to your wife. 

So you have quoted these wrongly translated verses from a foreign author who clearly has no knowledge in Sanskrit and is keen on giving Chanakya and Indian literature a bad name. So just see what you have done, you have wrongly accused Chanakya and spoiled his name and his book and mislead hundreds of people. I would like your response on this matter and please ask you to take you words back. My objective is just to know the truth and reject untruth. I was not able to post this as a comment on blogger so I decided to send u a message.

I ignore any personal remarks made against me in any comment as long as they provide any relevant or useful information related to the topic. There is no point in getting personal as it doesn't contribute anything to the topic of discussion. So, I am going to follow the same principle here also. I still find problems with some of the interpretations quoted by Tapan: 1. The explanation offered for women having kaam (sexual desire) 8 times more than men, doesn't make any sense to me. 4. Why is it assumed by a scholar like Chanakya that women don't have an understanding of their own health to decide when to keep fast and when not? 5. Will Chanakya offer the same advice to women if they face such a difficult choice? If he will, then this verse should have been gender-neutral. 

I am not discussing numbers 2 and 3 as Tapan wrote that the translations I used are wrong, as I mentioned already, if the translation itself is wrong, then obviously my criticism is not valid, but as long as these translations are out there in the public domain, and are published by reputed publishers people like me are free to use them. The only way to minimize such occurrences is to publish correct and authenticated translations certified by some independent and reliable authority so that everyone has access to them. I am doing my bit by publishing alternative views on my blog. I hope this helps to continue our discussion on the important topic of gender discrimination.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

Dr. Ambedkar - A visionary whose vision India failed to follow

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was the first Law and Justice Minister of independent India. However, this description is not enough to describe the greatness of this man. He was not only a scholar, a very well-read and informed person, but also a social reformer, and is known for his legendary work in the area of the equal rights movement for untouchables (known as Dalits) of India. Dr. Ambedkar was a born Dalit, so he knew firsthand what it meant to live as a Dalit person in Indian society. His education and intelligence gave him a unique perspective towards the social and political environment of Indian society of that time. He used his experience and knowledge to fight for equal rights for all people who were struggling because of years of discriminatory traditions. He used each and every platform available to him to highlight the issue of untouchability and even fought with leaders like Mahatma Gandhi for their political rights. Many books and articles that he wrote about the religion or the social condition of untouchables or about the Indian constitution are very informative. Anyone interested in any of these subjects or interested in knowing more about Dr. Ambedkar should read his books and articles or listen to his speeches. Without reading his work it is not possible to understand the greatness of this scholar, political leader, and greatest social reformer of India.

He was also a chairman of the constitution drafting committee, even though the constitution was drafted with the help of various scholars who served as members of that committee, Dr. Ambedkar is given credit for various constitutional provisions as he was the chairman of the committee. He wrote extensively about his vision related to social reforms in India, which were necessary to bring required social change for the upliftment of socially backward sections of society. If we look at the current political and social environment of India then we can see that there is definitely some social change that he envisioned. We should credit him for initiating it, but still, there is a lot of work that is required to implement the social reforms that he envisioned as Indian society still suffers from evils like casteism and gender discrimination. He fought against both these evils, but sadly people claiming his legacy are indifferent towards his ideals. The worst part is all current political parties and their leaders are only interested in using his image as a political tool to garner votes or appease a certain section of society, but none of them are really interested in implementing his real vision. Even political parties who claim to represent backward sections of society are not totally honest to implement the vision and ideas of this man whose name they use as if they own him. There is no doubt that the political class of India has failed to grasp the real essence of social reforms that Ambedkar imagined. Maybe they all are doing this purposely, as they all are busy using his name and image to suit their political gains. Even the social class for which he fought till the end of his life failed to understand his message. Most of them worship him like God, without following his message. Most Indians failed to follow his vision. People like Ambedkar or for that matter any visionary personality should not be converted into a demigod. It is the worst thing their supporters can do to them. Whenever people do this, they create a cult, where the person is worshipped but not studied or critically analyzed and this results in the tragic end of all good ideas of that person. Tragically this is happening in India with people like Dr. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, and others.

For me, Dr. Ambedkar was a great scholar and social reformer. He was an expert in many fields like economics, constitutional matters, religious studies, etc. I learned many things by reading his articles which are now available online. I hope people look at his work and study about him rather than garlanding his photos and erecting his statues. Symbols have their own place and importance in any society, but mere symbolism without any substantial action is useless. Understanding his ideas and discussing them objectively will be the greatest tribute to this scholar. I am sure he would have loved to see his ideas being used rather than his images or statues. So, let's discuss the issues that he raised, let's debate about them, and try to find solutions rather than making him and his ideas a political weapon.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

Everyone is not born special, but we all can become special

The tagline "Everyone is special" sounds very good to hear. It is meant to be motivational and inspiring for all of us. This term is heavily overused, especially by motivational speakers who use this a lot. But is it really inspiring? Or it is very confusing or even misleading? Many speakers who use this term want to make people feel good, they want their audience to think that every one of them is equipped with special qualities and they should feel very proud about it. Actually, if we use the biological criteria, we all are unique, our fingerprints are different, we have different retina patterns, and everyone's genome is unique. So, in many ways, we all are unique and special but that is not what this "special" means. It hints that we all have some special talent or quality that makes each one of us a uniquely gifted person. I think this is not entirely true. Such statements sound very sweet and are made with extremely good intentions to motivate us or to make us feel better, but I feel many times they are misleading.

Many of us fail to acquire any noticeable special talent when we complete our education. We acquire some professional degree or certificate, but not each one of us can claim that we are specially gifted in that area. We can list various reasons for this, we can even blame the school system for not providing a very conducive environment to spot and groom any such special talent and this is what happens with most of us. Actually, very few people are born with some unique talent. Very few of us can understand very early in life about our special talent, if we have any. It is not easy for many of us to figure out our true interests and start working passionately towards some definite goal very early in our lives. Not everyone can become a dancer and singer like Michael Jackson, a basketball player like Michael Jordon, a cricketer like Sachin Tendulkar, or a singer like Lata Mangeshkar or Elvis Presley. There are very few people like them who realize very early in their life about the mission of their life and work tirelessly towards it. Most of us struggle to find the actual area of interest where we can utilize our skills. Many of us struggle even to realize what type of unique skills we have. For most of us, it is a very long journey to figure out the area where we can excel. Our education system, society, and many times our parents make us fit into various stereotypes and try to guide us to what they think is good and proper for us. This leaves most of us thinking about various options at various stages of our lives. Some of us might think being a doctor is a great idea just because our parents are very successful doctors. Some of us might think being a lawyer or an engineer or an actor or politician is a great option without even evaluating whether we possess all the required set of qualities to be successful in that profession. I strongly believe that no matter what area or profession we choose, we can become successful in that area by working hard. It requires lots of hard work, patience, and practice to achieve success in any field unless you have some legacy advantage. Even all so-called naturally gifted people from every field practice hard and go through rigorous training to achieve phenomenal success in their respective fields.  Malcolm Gladwell has written about this phenomenon very nicely in his book 'Outliers', the chapter about the '10,000-hour rule' is a very interesting read, he has tried to explain the importance of practice to master any technique or talent we want to acquire.

I believe that even though we all are not born special, each one of us can become special through our hard work and perseverance. We all can acquire greatness, it is not a gift or genetic trait that we either possess or don't possess but it is an achievable thing. Just by thinking we are special, we might feel good about ourselves, but to achieve it we need to work hard. Even a natural gift or a talent without proper practice and hard training can only help to a limited extent. We need to put a lot of effort into achieving our dreams. Let's work hard to achieve that specialness. We may not be special today but definitely, every one of us can become special through our hard work and perseverance. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Dangers of being a "fan"

Let me start this post by mentioning that I know how it feels to be a fan of someone as I was also one such fan. I am not just talking about some casual fan or admirer who just likes someone and is not crazy about them, but about a 'die-hard' fan, for whom their idols are above everything. These fans have blind faith in their idols, just like a religious devotee. According to them their idols are perfect and can do nothing wrong. Such fans worship people who they adore and can do anything for them. I was one such die-hard fan of two very celebrated artists from India, actor Amitabh Bachchan, and legendary singer Lata Mangeshkar. I adored them so much that no matter what I tried to watch each and every movie in which they contributed anything, also tried to read whatever I could about their work and their lives. At the same time, I disliked anything written against them, I despised anyone who said anything even remotely criticizing them, and I hated and tried to criticize or demean any competitor who posed any challenge to their position. According to me, they were the best, no one was even close to them, there was no doubt in my mind that these two people were legends and no one could replace them ever. When I look back today I realize how stupid and ignorant I was at that time. This is why I totally understand the behavior of many ardent followers or fans of any political leader or artist. I don't get annoyed, frustrated, or angry at these people as I understand their situation and only hope that they come out of that mental state soon.

It is not a very desirable situation to be a fanatic fan of anyone. Rather, it is a very dangerous situation because as a fan, you tend to shut your logic and rationale completely when you deal with anything related to your idol. Fan's opinions about their own idols or people who talk or compete against their idols are devoid of any logic and rationale. To take my own example, I admired Amitabh and Lata so much that I hated their competitors without even watching or evaluating their work. For me, Amitabh was the ultimate hero, the one and the only angry young man and no one came even close to him. I disliked movies of Anil Kapoor who was an upcoming star at that time only because he was threatening the position of Amitabh as an angry young man. Similarly, I also disliked the songs of Anuradha Paudwal who was again an upcoming singer with the help of the music company T-series without even considering the merits and demerits of her performance just because she was getting more popular than Lata. I didn't care that these other artists also had an equal right to display their talent and compete for that top space. I was just angry with them because they challenged my idols and according to me, it was the biggest crime anyone could do.

Any celebrity loves to have as many fans as possible. These fans create the buzz and euphoria about that celebrity. These celebrities get fame, money, and great careers because of their fans, but as fans, we don't get much except the joy of watching someone perform. It is not a bad thing at all to like some actor, politician, or any other person and learn good things from them. It is not bad to read about them or try to follow their work and opinions. As humans, we are bound to have certain likes and dislikes. But to take that like or dislike to a level where there is no scope for any discussion or debate is what differentiates a die-hard fan from the rest of the admirers. Today also I like Amitabh and Lata Mangeshkar, I love to watch and listen to them, but I am not a die-hard fan of them or anyone now. I know that someone will replace these artists today or tomorrow. I understand that there are people who are as good or may be better than them. I don't get angry if anyone starts to criticize them or point out some flaws in their performance or says anything bad about them. I am very glad that I came out of my "fan mode" sooner than I expected. I wish all the fans behave with some sense and logic whenever their dear idol is criticized or defeated. It is natural to feel disappointed, but our outrage should also be expressed appropriately. If you support any particular political party, then please remember that other political groups also have an equal right to propagate their views. If you support any political leader or any artist then please remember that as a public figure, these people are open to criticism from anyone. Please don't react like a fanatic if anyone says anything about your dear idol. If possible, please don't become a die-hard fan of anyone, believe me, you won't regret it.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Drawbacks of having politically polarized society

Political polarization is on the rise all over the world. In many countries, especially in the USA and India, we can feel that the political rift between major political parties is widening day by day. I don't think this is a very desirable development. Political differences are part of any healthy democratic setup, there is nothing wrong with debating any topic, but when it takes the form of strong animosity then it not only creates a very politically charged environment for politically relevant issues but also very trivial things turn into big political battles. A lot of energy and resources are wasted arguing about some trivial issues. This also creates extreme bitterness among general public who feel compelled to fight these battles to support their political organization. Ultimately this leads to serious political deadlock. As a result of all this many important issues get sidetracked or they get stuck between political deadlocks as no party is interested in a compromise because of fear of hurting the sentiments of their core supporters. Whereas political opposition, debates, discussions, and arguments are necessary, political polarization is not a very productive atmosphere for any country. It is impossible to achieve any substantial progress in such an environment. We can feel the effect of this in both countries where many important issues are stuck in serious political deadlock, all we see is an endless blame game.

Why too much political polarization is bad for any country? How does it affect its population and governance? These are the questions we need to ask to understand the detrimental effect of this phenomenon. Any political ideology has some core principles on which they are not willing to compromise at all, that is why we have different political groups. Many times these issues are part of the basic political identity of those political parties, this is why we give them labels like leftist, rightist or centrist, conservative or liberal, socialist or capitalist, etc. There are many issues on which bipartisan collaboration is possible as most political parties agree on some of these topics that are not part of their core political agenda. But in a politically polarized atmosphere supporters and leaders of these political parties create a war-like situation where each and every issue, no matter how trivial or relevant, becomes a matter of serious conflict and political prestige. They become more interested in defeating their opponents at any cost rather than working in collaboration to achieve something better for their country. Any sensible person can agree that this is not a very desirable situation. We all should recognize that political opposition is necessary, it is an integral part of any democratic setup. We all should not only expect that alternate views and ideas exist but should create an atmosphere where people are not scared to express their views. The ability to express dissent is a very important aspect of any democratic setup. If we curb this for any reason then this is bound to hamper the progress of any society, country, or organization. The health of any society can be measured by the extent it allows the free flow of ideas. When there are incidents where people get arrested under the charge of sedition just for delivering some speech or a political rally of some leader gets disrupted just because some people don't agree with the views expressed by that leader then it is a matter of concern. When public perception takes precedence over the law of the land then democracy starts getting suffocated. Political opponents should not be treated as enemies of the nation, especially when you are in power. Some people in the US may not agree with many views expressed by Mr.Trump but he has the right to express them like anyone else. The US Constitution gives him that right, one can express disagreement in the strongest possible words but to disrupt his rallies or try to shut him up or his supporters is not the right way to express the disagreement. Indians should be proud of their heritage of argumentative traditions, but somehow today people seem to be more interested in settling scores against each other rather than discussions and debates. Let's go back to healthy political debates. We should debate and discuss each and very thing but in a civilized matter. Let's try to bring sensibility, rational, common sense, and patience back on discussion tables, this is the only way to progress.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Why homemakers don't get employment benefits?

Household management is not an easy task. It takes a lot of time, effort, and dedication. Apart from a regular and stable income to support various needs and activities, a family also needs a person who can take care of many other day-to-day responsibilities. The management of these things can test a person's limits as these tasks vary in their nature and difficulties, tasks like cooking, house cleaning, making sure everything is in its place, and taking care of guests, not only require various skills but are also physically exhausting and time-consuming. Anyone who has tried their hand at this work will agree with me when I say that it is not easy to manage an entire household single-handedly. But this work doesn't generate any official income, no one gets paid for taking care of their own family members. Household work, no matter how important it is doesn't generate any official salary or other benefits for the person who does it for their own family. Official income tax returns of all families where only one partner is officially employed and the other partner is a homemaker contain income details of that 'employed' person even if that return is filed jointly by both partners. I always wondered why the work of a person who is a full-time homemaker is not valued in monetary terms as much as other types of work? Why there is no mechanism to attach a monetary value to the work of countless housewives and househusbands? In most countries, including many developed countries this workforce mostly consists of women who tirelessly work towards the welfare of their families. Some of them even sacrifice their careers to take care of their family. Some of them have to do this work even after doing a full-time regular job. It is good to see that there is a growing trend where both partners try to share equal responsibilities towards the housework, especially in cases where both have a full-time job. If the same work is performed by someone outside the family like a maid or nanny they get paid but this work has no monetary value if it is performed by a family member. Women get a lot of praise, they are hailed as epitomes of sacrifice, kindness, dedication, and love for taking care of their families but beyond such emotional lip service, this very important work doesn't receive any recognition. It is not enough to say that this is a great service to their family or value of this type of work can not be measured in monetary terms because these workers also should get rights and benefits like other workers, at least within their own families. Someone needs to speak for their rights like they speak for all other workers. They are not organized that doesn't mean they don't have a voice. There is no retirement benefit or social security or any other benefit offered to these people that comes with most full or part-time jobs, why? If we don't see this as a problem then we should reexamine our understanding of value-added work and try to change its definition if necessary. We have neglected these people for a very long time, and just because they don't complain about this discrimination we should not allow this malpractice to go on. This work needs some official recognition to empower millions of homemakers. Homemakers and their work are critical for the betterment of our society, it is equally important as any other type of work therefore should be entitled to compensation and benefits like any other type of work.

I understand that this can introduce a lot of technical and legal difficulties but our society has dealt with more complicated and sensitive issues successfully. So, I don't think that this issue is so complicated that we can't come up with some practical solution for this. Why don't these women (as well as men) claim half or some percent of their family income amount as their own wages in joint income tax returns? Why can't they get half a share of the Social Security and Medicaid tax so that they can generate their own benefits rather than depending on benefits as a spouse? It is unfair for them to depend on their spouse's social security benefits when they also work equally hard to support the spouse who generates the income. These people offer a great amount of support to their partners so that they can work out of home.

One may ask, why it is necessary to attach a monetary value to housework? A very short and quick answer to this can be, simply because it is also a work, a very important work that requires a lot of effort, time, and energy, therefore, it should be treated as any other type of value-generating work. The lack of any monetary value has generated a very wrong perception of this work, so wrong that this work is not at all considered value-generating work. If someone says that his or her partner is a homemaker, then it is assumed that they don't work or are not employed or they are a stay-at-home parent, which is a very wrong perception. The main reason for this perception is the lack of any monetary value attached to this work. We need to change this perception and attaching some monetary value to this work might help in changing it. The statement, "I am a stay-at-home parent" doesn't actually reflect the amount of effort that person takes to maintain that home. I request all concerned agencies to look into this matter with all sincerity and try to come up with some practical way to remove this shortcoming. For centuries this work did not get its deserved due and if we can do something to change, it will be a great achievement. It will definitely strengthen our social fabric, and this will also bring dignity and respect for all these dedicated homemakers which they totally deserve.  

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright : Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Stop spreading chemophobia

Chemophobia is on the rise all over the world, there is a total misunderstanding about the role and effect of chemicals in our lives. Misleading marketing gimmicks like 'all-natural' or 'chemical-free,' are used very casually. The major problem with these tag lines is that not only they are devoid of any truth, but they create wrong impressions about chemicals in general. The use of such phrases creates a perception in the consumer's mind that consuming any 'chemical' is harmful to their health and that products of these so-called 'chemical free' brands don't contain any chemicals. To a large extent, all this propaganda and advertisement is responsible for creating irrational fear towards chemicals and creating a villainous image of industries dealing with chemicals. But in reality, chemicals are an integral part of our day-to-day lives. Without chemicals we don't even exist, chemical compounds called 'amino acids' are basic building blocks of our body, they are essential for our existence. Somehow the buzzword 'chemical free' is becoming the new standard for safety standards of any product we use. This whole propaganda is very misleading and I am amazed that even some scientists are contributing to popularizing this myth that "chemical-free" means safe. In its true sense, nothing is chemical-free, even water is a chemical. The air that we breathe is a mixture of different gases with nitrogen and oxygen as its major components. It is a misnomer to call anything 'chemical-free.' 

One can definitely classify chemicals as safe chemicals and harmful chemicals. There are synthetically made and naturally available chemicals. Synthetic doesn't always mean harmful and natural doesn't always mean safe. Many useful naturally available chemicals are synthesized in the laboratory, as many times it is not possible to get the required quantity from natural resources. So, even some chemicals with natural origin are produced in labs by using synthetic methods for commercial use and hence can be called natural in origin but synthetic by production. There are many natural chemicals that we consume daily, like water, air, vitamins, carbohydrates, and sugars. These are perfectly safe and useful chemicals for our bodies if consumed in the right quantities. At the same time, there are many synthetic chemicals in the form of medicines that we consume as per requirement, they all help us to fight against some life-threatening conditions. Some synthetic compounds like painkillers also help to overcome pain or we use some chemicals as cosmetics. Even useful chemicals like medicines should be taken in prescribed doses as overconsumption can create some serious problems. The fact is, even medicines that are supposed to be lifesavers can be lethal if overdosed or consumed without need. Overdose of anything can create problems for us. If we eat only one type of food in excess it can cause problems to our health, in most cases it is the dose that is the deciding factor. There are various chemical products like plastics, paints, polymers, etc. which we use in our day-to-day lives. Many people don't even have a clue about the chemical composition of these products but still, most of us use it. Many of these products have become an integral part of our lives. If we look around, we can easily notice that chemicals are present everywhere around us. Our lives are heavily dependent on them. I fail to understand the real purpose behind this organized effort to spread extreme aversion against chemicals. This is not only misleading but also a wrong thing to do as far as public health is concerned. Why don't all concerned companies and agencies try to educate people about different types of chemicals and their effects on human health rather than trying to demonize all chemicals? Chemophobia is misleading and doesn't serve any purpose.

Prof. Michelle Francl has rightly expressed the effect of this chemophobic culture in her quote, "Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic." Actually, we should strive to get a clear understanding of hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals and their effects on our lives. I understand that it may not be an easy task for everyone, but that is why it is necessary to spread more awareness about the different types of chemicals we use. We can make use of new technologies and social platforms to spread this public awareness. It is wrong to spread irrational fear about all chemicals. I don't know who came up with misleading terms like 'chemical free' or 'all natural' for processed food products. Let's get educated about the chemicals and try to make well-informed decisions, this is good for us as well as all chemical companies.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]