Bharat JhunjhunwalaÎThe United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has pleaded for securing self-respect for women, and for greater efforts towards education of women, particularly information regarding reproductive rights. This is welcome. However, to assert that `equal' sharing of breadwinning and parenting would lead to such a result is highly questionable.

It is recognised that there are biological differences underlying male and female differences in temperaments. The UNFPA acknowledges that studies indicate that ``boys have a lower tolerance for frustration, greater irritability and impulsivess and a tendency towards rough and tumble play.'' In other words, men excel in roughness and women in intuitive abilities.

There should be no difficulty with endorsing a division of labour between man and woman if respect could be ensured for the woman within her traditional parenting role. Such a role is not acceptable for two reasons.

A woman who specialises in the parenting role gets left in a lurch if the family breaks down. Having specialised in parenting role, she finds it difficult to backtrack and retrieve the breadwinning function that now becomes necessary for her.

Secondly, all women do not excel in intuitiveness. There are some who have a temperament of `roughness'. In a situation where the society stereotypes women in their parenting role, such `rough-temperamented' women are uneasy. They are coerced into role that is not suited to their temperament. These are genuine difficulties with the traditional paradigm.

The solution proposed by UNFPA is `equal' sharing of the functions of bread winning and parenting. If a family breaks up, the woman too has skill at bread winning. `Rough-temperamented' women are not coerced into the parenting stereotype. And, being `equal', women would get the respect that is due to them.

The fact, however, is that women do not appear to have secured self-respect by doing so. The UNFPA report itself tells us that ``between 21 and 30 percent of women in the United States are beaten by a partner at least once in their lives. At least half of these women are beaten more than three times each.''

In contrast, in Colombia, which is far behind the US in fostering `equality' between the sexes, only ``about 20 percent of women have been beaten.'' This is, of course, not to justify our own record in this matter. An estimated 300,000 Nepalese women are reported to be in Indian brothels. Of course, there are examples to the contrary as well. The only point is that there is little evidence of `equality' having begotten respect to women.

Nor can it ever, it would seem. The reason is simple. Ultimately, one respects those who are stronger than oneself. Women are temperamentally `weaker' in the rough world of breadwinning.

Why would an average man `respect' an average woman who is weaker than himself in the world of bread winning? Equality is certainly a boon to the women who do have such a `rough' temperament. But the gain of the `rough-temperamented' woman is the loss of the `intuitive' woman who is pushed into breadwinning reluctantly.

On the other hand the division paradigm has its own perils. It fails to provide backup to the women who have specialised in parenting and are left out in the cold upon breakdown of the family. It also fails to provide venues for self-development to those who are `rough-temperamented.'

Perhaps we must effect corrections in the traditional model instead of running after such equality which does not beget any respect to women.

Let us provide for female-led families. We must consider permitting women with `rough' temperament to be leaders of families by declaration made by mutual consent at marriage. Secondly, let there be a declaration as to which of the two spouses will specialise in parenting.

If the husband specialises in parenting, let the wife go at breadwinning all the way. Let this be declared whether it will be a male- or female-led family. But, let us not make them `equal'. It would be unfortunate if we were to accept as a teacher one who has not been able to put his own house in order, UNFPA, that is.

The writer is a political economist

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.