Employment and Poverty: A gender perspective
The
Women’s Study Centre of Jesus and Mary College started its certificate course
classes on 6th September 2019, Friday. One of the two courses was
‘Employment and Poverty: A gender perspective’. It was conducted by Dr Jessy
Phillips, from the Sociology Department.
The
class started with discussions on how India is a gendered state and how most of
its policies are not gender neutral. Taking the example of ‘Beti Bachao, Beti
Padhao’, it was observed that giving the title of ‘beti’ (daughter) to the
average Indian girl, by the government is wrong to the basic foundations.
Doesn’t the government get agency over every Indian girl by giving her the
title of ‘beti’? And should the government have agency over any citizen,
irrespective of their gender? Many other reflections were made on the gender
underpinnings of government policy.
The
next discussion was about how the idea of market fundamentalism has an effect
on gender. A recession, for instance, would have a direct effect on women. They
would get into the ‘waiting list’ of their families for accessing even basic
facilities, like education and health. And the fact that this happens on the
basis of gender alone, is not surprising at all.
With
the onset of globalization, the employment policy structures in the market have
changed to a very large extent. With job security gone and labour laws relaxed,
women find themselves at the wrong side of the tracks- again. Women already
face wage gap issues as the labour market is a segmented one. In the case of an
informal economy, the lower wage gap combined with the ‘hire and fire’ policies
of the firms, places women at a higher risk of being fired during a recession.
The
next discussion was based on the biases of macroeconomic policy making. The
first one is the Bread Winner Bias, wherein, a woman is not considered the
primary breadwinner and a women’s job is not as important as a man’s. In the
Indian context, this is quite visible in how the Census is conducted. The first
question that is asked is about the head of the house, which is clearly
reserved for a male member, even if he is not earning at the moment. Even in
the agricultural sector, a woman’s work is not considered. The participation
rate of women in agriculture was found to be 20% in Haryana and 70% in
Meghalaya. Do these extreme numbers signify that women in Haryana work much
less than their counterparts in Meghalaya? Or is it that a woman’s work is not
acknowledged in Haryana? That is not a very difficult question to answer. The
other two biases that were discussed were the deflationary bias and the
community bias.
In
conclusion, it was observed that economic policies need to be connected with
social and political problems too. The need for feminist policies was also
focused upon.
REPORT BY- - Arpita Mary Abraham
Comments
Post a Comment