Indian politics have undergone major changes both in its composition and approach in the past many years with new ideas and concepts emerging on the socio-political front. One such concept which has been much talked about has been women’s empowerment. In this league, the term ‘Homemaker’ is an interesting invention. This journey from housewife to homemaker is not a mere change in diction but instead is a well-chalked game of optics by the patriarchal machinery. What makes it attractive is the overt visibility of a sense of agency which seems to be given to women, whereby it is recognized that it is they who lie at the core of a well-functioning family structure. Interestingly the mainstream media in India acts as an active agent in normalizing the patriarchal exercises with short bursts of exhibitory humanism. The latest in this direction is the dropping of the term ‘fair’ from the name of a famous fairness product which has been hailed as a revolutionary step towards the idea of women’s empowerment and social inclusiveness. This might be a singular act that might be ignored or at best laughed at, but it points to a much more serious problem of defining empowerment and compels us to relook at these nomenclatures.

Commenting on the tremendous patriarchy-controlled media and the narrative run by it, Leslie Regan Shade has said that one key area in this discussion on the subtlety of patriarchal domination is the cognizance of the subtle shift in how women’s traditional domestic roles are being redefined due to the ability of networked communications to blur the demarcation between the private and public spheres. Citizens have been reduced to mere passive ‘consumers’ of the products that the telephone, cable, and television industries want to propagate(Shade,1998, p. 39).Patriarchy needs to be understood as a layered concept that has multiple levels of abstraction. These levels of abstraction exist at various levels and in forms such as social relations, mode of production, sexuality, relations in the sphere of culture, relations in the professional sphere, violence, etc. 

Sustainable Development and Women

Sustainable development for women will become a possibility when economic policies meet the material and ethical needs of communities. It is difficult for women to operationalise their legal and civil rights if the proper economic resources are not available to them and interestingly the grand façade surrounding women empowerment is silent regarding this aspect. The subtle ways through which patriarchy has entered the day-to-day behavioural regimes often defeats the very initiation of the process of women’s empowerment which primarily includes knowledge creation for women, awareness on the part of the menfolk, sharing of ideas, and most importantly an independent role for women in the social anatomy. This gets reflected in the economic decision-making aspects and in reproductive decisions. In the case of reproduction what seems missing is the concept of autonomy of women where the argument is hinged on the level of confidence of women, and their choice of abstaining from parenthood is seen as a sign of low confidence and escapism. Ironically in the larger professional domain barring a few exceptions, this very concept of pregnancy and motherhood is often a big turn-off for many organizations and career-wise proves to be sometimes fatal for many women.

The Patriarchal Model of Exploitation and Production

Ideally, the very transition from ‘Housewife’ to ‘Homemaker’ indicates three things which are firstly the breaking of the compulsion of performing gender-defined jobs, secondly larger sense of gender neutrality in the work culture, and lastly a greater sense of socio-economic autonomy. But the mode of imagination of womanhood and femininity largely remains unchanged where women’s role within the four walls of the house and their supposed dependence on men remain uncontested. That women do housework, performing labor for men, is crucial to the maintenance of patriarchy (Hartmann, 1981, p. 6). It is my contention that the roots of women’s present social status lie in this sex-ordered division of labor (Hartmann,1979, p. 137). She further adds that within the field of paid work occupational segregation is used by organized men to keep access to the best-paid jobs for themselves at the expense of women. This occupational segregation plays a very important part in the maintenance of patriarchal dominance and at the same time brings forth the farcical nature of these so-called naming exercises. In the milieu of capitalist exploitation, the talk of gender neutrality in the job sector shrinks as the societal equation largely works on the logic of profit-making which in turn discourages earth-shattering changes in the socio-cultural setting in fear of upsetting the workforce and hampering their productivity quotient.

The profound inequality within the larger gender relations does not get rectified by the onslaught of the capitalist mode of production, rather in certain ways they get solidified. Women's labour is expropriated by their husbands within marriage and household relationships. The defining feature is the relations of production under which the work is performed rather than the tasks which constitute the work (Delphy, 1984, p. 41).The tendency to expropriate women’s labour does not stop even with women venturing out of the four walls. This is conveniently appropriated as a supportive gesture and a mere extension of her duty towards her home and not as a step towards her assertion as an independent individual. The claimed gender neutrality by the patriarchal structure in such terminologies as ‘Homemaker’ seems missing as the exercise of expropriation of women’s labour by the patriarchy goes on unabated.

The Apathetic Public Policy

The effectiveness of the public policy of a nation can be gauged from its inclination to support the weakest section of the population. The farcical nature of women’s empowerment in India can be gauged from the fact that even the public policy mechanisms in the country are unsympathetic towards the specific needs of the womenfolk. One recent example is the demonetization exercise undertaken by the government where one of the most affected communities were these so-called ‘Housewives/Home-makers’ whose informal savings became invalid overnight. This caused enormous hardships for the womenfolk who are directly dependent on the income of the male members of the family. The sheer apathy and disregard of the larger public policy mechanism brought forth once again the chasm between patriarchy’s claims regarding women empowerment and the pathetic ground realities. Technological interventions and up gradations are undoubtedly inevitable for development of public policy but one needs to be cautious to not merely convert it into a technocratic machinery. Public policy should be the bedrock for enhancing gender equality and it is this responsibility which the governmental mechanism seems to be failing to fulfil in a satisfactory fashion.

The Celebrated Idea of Enforced Sexual Innocence

Ironically a nation witnessing population explosion is simultaneously hesitant to discuss sexuality. This tendency can be termed as ‘Enforced Sexual Innocence’ which has a deep negative impact on women’s physical and mental health in India. The concept of ‘homemaker’ is also not untouched from the effect of this distortion. The identity of women in her avatar of a homemaker is conceived on the very lines of sexuality where her ability to juggle between relations is her primary marker. Even women who are working professionals it is ‘conditional freedom’ which they enjoy as often there is minor reduction of them performing typical household duties. A precarious situation arises where lack of sexual awareness deprive women of their individuality as evident in numerous cases of women conceiving against their wish and are forced to make disastrous personal and professional compromises thereby ruining their personal growth.

The Indian entertainment industry has played a nefarious role in this regard. Be it the mainstream ‘Bollywood’ movies, regional cinema, or the daily soaps, most of the content has largely catered to the patriarchal mindset. The few aberrations and experimentations being carried out have been conveniently tagged as ‘parallel/progressive cinema’, though certain positive changes are now visible with the advent of the ‘Over the Top' (hereafter OTT) platforms in India. But their limited reach has failed to make a major dentin the rigid patriarchal mindset. Most of the content is still tremendously intoxicated with the fantasy of a ‘sexual innocent pretty fair girl’ who needs time and again a helping hand from the ‘Hero’. This obsession with the act of heroism and hero which again is gender-specific denies any considerable space to the feminine characters and their potential. This denial of space, agency, and freedom to the womenfolk by patriarchy moves back and forth from the real to the reel and vice versa.

A major stealth weapon in the arsenal of patriarchy is the concept of ‘marital rape’ from which even the supposed ‘homemaker’ is not safe. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear (Brownmiller, 1976, p. 15). Interestingly, the path which patriarchy adopts is to normalize the inbuilt inconsistencies and injustices through a constant process of intoxication. The success of patriarchy can be guessed from the fact that the larger society equates the sexual acts between a husband and wife as a socially approved biological activity where there is no space for consent. Thus the idea of agency and individuality which are the founding pillars on which this progression from ‘Housewife’ to ‘Homemaker’ is supposed to take place is severely compromised by this ever-looming danger.

The Public-Private Dichotomy

In the discussion on a woman’s progression from ‘Housewife’ to ‘Homemaker’, the one focal point should be on the public-private dichotomy. Curiously one key component surrounding women’s empowerment which is largely missing is the institutionalization of the labour given by women. This is achieved in the name of elevating them to the stature of a Goddess commonly referred to as ‘Devi’ thereby robbing them of their basic human rights. This showering of respect is an imposed category which helps patriarchy to domesticate women and can be termed as ‘levied honour’. Even a cursory look at the field of Indian politics makes one understand the troubled relationship which the concepts of private and public share with each other in the case of women. Most of the famous names on the horizon of Indian politics who happen to be women are unmarried, be it Mayawati (Behenji), Mamata (Didi), or even the Late Jayalalitha (Amma). In all these cases what is intriguing is the reverse correlation between their unmarried status and their acceptance as public figures. One is forced to ask whether theirs being unmarried and adopting an asexual pet name given them an enhanced sense of acceptance and freedom because of the missing public-private dichotomy in their case. Patriarchy-defined cultural narrative views the arenas of public and private concerning women as dichotomous and not complimentary. For patriarchy, the easiest method of deception is the myth created surrounding the concept of ‘Home’, and projecting it as a sanctum sanctorum where women have the final authority. This tactical creation of a rights-based myth involving women helps patriarchy confine them within the four walls and more importantly without much opposition. Interestingly, even for the worst-case scenario when patriarchy might face some opposition, it has carved out a separate category of ‘ultramodern’ and ‘insensitive’ women who have forgotten their responsibilities towards their home. Manar Hasan has very rightly opined that honour refers chiefly to the honour of males in the family. The maintenance of honour is the perpetuation of male control; an assault on that honour undermines that system of domination. Its perpetuation is made possible by utilizing the politics of honour, i.e., implementing the codex of laws binding chiefly on women and determining their behavior, actions, desires, and even their thoughts (Hasan, 2002, p. 34). This tendency of criminalizing women’s aspirations and voice under the garb of honour, culture, and tradition is the easiest way for patriarchy to check the progress of women and continue with its hegemony.

1. Shade, Leslie Regan. (1998). A Gendered Perspective on Access to the Information Infrastructure. The Information Society, 14(1), 33- 44.https://doi.org/10.1080/019722498128999

2. Hartmann, H. (1981). 'The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union'. In L. Sargent, (Ed.), Women and Revolution: The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism. (pp. 201-228)Pluto Press.

3. Hartmann, H. (1979). Capitalism, Patriarchy and Job Segregation by Sex.In Z. Eisenstein (Ed.),Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism.(pp. 137- 169) Monthly ReviewPress.

4. Delphy, C. (2016). Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Womens Oppression. Verso Books.

 5. Brownmiller, S. (1976). Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Penguin.

6. Hasan, Manar. (2002). The politics of honour: patriarchy, the state and the murder of women in the name of family honour. The Journal of Israeli History, 21(1-2), 1- 37.https://doi.org/10.1080/13531040212331295842