Hence, when I saw a certain tweet, though I disagreed vehemently, I said nothing about it to the person. Cos what is uglier (and stupider) than a loud public argument? A loud public argument on social media! I do not remember the handle that tweeted it (it was retweeted by someone I used to follow) nor the exact words (and even if I did, I would not post it here without the permission of the said person), but it was along the following lines:
"I do not understand women who do not want to have babies. A woman's purpose on earth is to have children and without that she is incomplete."Now before all of you reading this turn into sword-wielding warriors with your gaalis and your "Saale male chauvinist, teri toh #$^%&^&", take a step back while I tell you - this was tweeted by a woman. I went something like this:
Pic: Newslaundry.com
But after I got over the initial trauma of reading that tweet and swallowing a lot of anger that came with it, I started wondering if all women thought this way and why is it that a woman is considered complete only if she has a child, whereas a man can get off the hook by simply wearing a Raymond suit.I do not need to repeat this, but as a country, we are embarrassingly hush-hush about the "activity-that-must-not-be-named." Despite that, whenever heavy jewellery-laden auntijis meet a newly wedded couple, their first question almost always is, "Did you do the activity-that-must-not-be-named and are you going to carry forward the human race shortly, in say, nine months?" What if the embarrassed couple replies, "We do not want children." This happens:
www.thebluegrassspecial.com
Once their collective breaths are released, the relatives are quick to blame the woman. She must be career-oriented, she must be barren (what a lovely word!), she must be this-that, he must not love her! And the boy is advised, insensitively, to marry another "homely" girl.What if it was the man's decision to not have kids? No one asks him and he does not need to bear the brunt of the asshole who refused to take the family name forward. It must be the woman.Called colorful names by everyone she meets; the husband portrayed as the victim influenced by this corporate bitch!Then there are couples who love children and really want to have them. But for whatever reasons, they cannot. If that happens, the only explanation is - the woman is barren. The man in question is irreproachable, faultless, (invincible, even!) with an enviable army; but the woman is probably shooting down the army and winning the war.
Insulted by everyone she meets; the husband told constantly what a disappointment of a woman he has married.Are children only a woman's concern? Must children compulsorily be a concern? Do women have no identity outside of slaving for their kids (without complaining, but getting a truckload in return)? Is a woman only worth the children she bears (though the children take the father's surname)? Is a woman without children "incomplete" as the lady I mentioned at the beginning of this post pointed out? When a woman declares she does not want to have children, why is the only sound in the vicinity the chirping of a distant sparrow?
Isn't an individual, whoever he/she is, the one with the liberty to decide what completes them - children, dogs, art, whatever! Why the stigma of "Have kids or remain an adhuri kahani for the rest of your miserable life?"
What I don't understand is, dear lady whose Twitter handle I don't remember, nor care to, in the over-populated world we live in, that may collapse any time, is choosing to not have children really such a bad idea?
Copyright Petrichor and Clouds 2013 at petrichorandclouds.blogspot.com Please do not reproduce the material published here.
