There was a time when women did not have a share in ancestral property. The bias against the girl child arose from this unfair provision of law. Before it could be changed, customs and rituals that were rooted in patriarchy had created enough social conditioning in the minds of men and women. So women accepted men in their lives as some kind of saviours, who gave them status, wealth and security. Much has changed since the agriculture- and businessbased joint family system, but men and women continue to suffer from that conditioning about family, marriage, life and the role of men and women in the household. Many brothers still bear the burden of having to support their sisters; many wives continue to remain powerless in the household; and many families still seek a male child even if the economic advantage has ceased to exist.
The argument about being powerless caught my attention. Does education and financial capability bring power to women? I recounted my conversation with a popular film actress on a long flight from Sydney. To the outside world, she was an acclaimed star, beautiful and talented. In her house, she was merely a money-making machine. She returned home from long hours of film shooting schedules to find her house filled with strangers, eating elaborate meals and ordering fancy stuff. They were enjoying her money, but she could not say anything. She would retire to the quiet of her room. As she woke up, the make-up crew would arrive and begin work on her looks for that day’s schedule, while her father and brother would place cheques and contracts in front of her for signatures. She was scared of marriage because the men in her life were exploitative and she could not trust that a stranger would be somehow better. She was earning in crores, but remained powerless.
The middle-aged women in the group said they did not feel powerless. Some of them were working, while others chose not to. The working women felt confident about their contribution to the household. They were able to participate in money decisions and insist that their preferences be taken into account. The ones who did not work said that their husbands gave them a free hand in making financial decisions. They did not feel inferior or powerless, but were able to independently make decisions about money since the husband was busy with work. I could identify the common, underlying thread when I heard these stories of empowerment. I asked the women if they knew what their net worth was, or if they participated in the investment decisions of the household. The unanimous answer was ‘no’.
This has been my experience in most conversations with women about money. There is a simplistic narrative that masquerades as empowerment. The power to spend seems to offer so much satisfaction that women do not see the earning and investment components of household finance as equally important. It is a good compromise when the woman chooses to manage the household and bring up children in a traditional role division. As long as she is not questioned about the spending, she keeps her circle of power within that independence. If this includes large-ticket spending on jewellery or property, they feel even better. They believe that they have enabled asset and wealth creation with their power over allocation of household income. I would risk a generalisation that this orientation keeps household finances predominantly in physical assets.
While men might complain that women do not get involved with financial decisions, women see these activities as process-and detail-oriented. Balancing the bank book, filing tax returns, making investment choices, evaluating financial assets, recording financial transactions are all seen as tasks for men. Women do not associate power with these tasks. A generation of working women, who were empowered by education and financial independence, willingly subjected themselves to this diminished role in family finances, where they participated only in spending decisions. The younger generation does not subscribe to this view.We now have young girls in their thirties, who have had the experience of managing money holistically. They understand that their incomes must fund their spending as well as saving. They see that assets they build will help fund their long-term goals and secure their future. They know that housing is only a security for bad times, and do not want to overdo this investment. They understand financial assets and know to make choices, and are willing to make the effort to learn and implement. They are also able to influence their cohorts and peers to take charge of their personal finances. They continue to be influenced by their indulgent parents, who persuade them to save, invest, buy homes and get married. This is where the dissonance begins.Young women see marriage as a patriarchal arrangement that takes power away from them. They insist on keeping their jobs and do not cede control over their finances. They know that child-bearing will be a responsibility that will fall disproportionately to them, and will need a career break and setback in their earning capability. They also like seamless sharing of household responsibilities, where the man steps in to take on daily chores. They would like to care for the parents of both partners, and make big decisions jointly. They see these terms of engagement as fair and equitable. What they expect from marriage has drastically changed. If marriage calls for moving them from a position of power to one of relative powerlessness, it is unlikely to hold any appeal for the modern woman.
The Author IS CHAIRPERSON, CENTRE FOR INVESTMENT EDUCATION AND LEARNING