Dowry

2022 SOCIOLOGY-COMPLETE SOLUTIONS

The problems of any section of the society are multifaceted and they have many forms and types, major and minor. The number of all these cannot be fixed in general, dynamic social life and because of this, problems arise day-to-day in any part of it. Along with this, in the prevalent or ancient problems also, due to the change of time, the type or quantity variation is present.

Thus it is clear that there is no dearth of problems in any section of the society. The problems of the Indian middle class are also so many and varied that their due analysis and interpretation is a painstaking task. Some of these problems are as follows: – Problem of joint family system – Problem of priceless marriage – Problem of tilak and dowry system – Problem of marriage versus love Widow marriage or maintenance of widows – Problem of women’s helplessness i.e. her economic dependence The problem of marriage, the problem of acceptance and rejection of traditional customs and conventions, the problem of mutual rejection of marriage between man and woman, it determines the free relationship between a woman and a man.

  The union of man and woman is essential for achieving the perfection of human life. In this way, marriage is the best means of exchange between men and women, which is different from all social agreements. These social agreements were needed to bring perfection in life and the practice of marriage is changing. Along with marriage, many evils have also spread in our society. And only women have to bear the consequences of this. Dowry is the main problem among all these problems. Among the many evils prevalent in the Indian middle class, the place of marriage related evils is paramount. The parents, especially the parents of the girl child, have to face the following difficulties in order to perform the marriage ceremony _ _ _ They are so complex and diverse that due to this even auspicious work like marriage seems like a burden.

 

Doctor . Rajendra Prasad has written, “In our society, the marriage of a girl is a big uproar. First of all, it is difficult to find a boy of choice. There is a difference of caste in this, apart from this, it is also necessary to see that there is something in his house. There should also be property so that the girl does not suffer by going there. Due to marriage in childhood, the boy is not yet self-supporting, so the burden of the girl’s upbringing falls on the family members and it becomes necessary to see that the family members Worth it or not”. All these difficulties are in their place, but even more difficulty is present when the house and a good boy are found and when it comes to persuading the boy’s family, the concepts related to marriage in ancient times are based on religious sentiments. .

 

According to religious texts, marriage for men has been considered as a religious ritual and marriage for women as ‘Vedic sacrament’. As a result of religious instincts, dowry remained prevalent among Hindus in marriage from ancient times till 19th century, but its form kept changing from 20th century and till the end of this century, today its form has become optional. Now-a-days it has become the wish of the dowry to be fixed only on the wish of the bridegroom. As a result, from the family unit to the entire Hindu society, an atmosphere of instability has been created. The evaluation of dowry problem is important and social today not only because the cases of burning of newlyweds are increasing rapidly, but also because a large number of girls are unable to give dowry by their parents even after crossing the age of marriage. remains unmarried because of The problem of dowry is also important and intractable because many girls are harassed or humiliated for not being able to bring suitable dowry to the satisfaction of their husbands and in-laws, which disintegrates their personality. On the other hand, their mothers – The father has to adopt illegal methods to increase his income, due to which corruption increases in the society and on the other hand, different types of difficulties, conflicts and conflicts arise in the individual, family and society.

 

Therefore, to end the familial and social instability related to complex marriages, Hindu society

Raj will have to make an emotional sacrifice of taking dowry because in the society, when a person marries his son, he takes more dowry than the girl’s side and when he marries his wife, he has to give more dowry. It is also seen that in the families where there are only letters in the children in the current generation, the people of such families mostly do not hesitate to take dowry. And in this way such persons take more and more dowry to get their sons married. In this way, the order of dowry remains in the society. Compared to other sections of the society, this practice can be seen in its gruesome form only in the middle class. The upper class is naturally resourceful. Transactions related to marriage do not bother him that much, on the contrary, he spends excessively on the occasion of marriage etc. But the condition of the middle class is something else and it is clear in the dynamics of collective life that different types of distortions are being practiced to increase loyalty and morale. In group life, a person develops such beliefs which are helpful in the struggle to fulfill his objectives.

 

The concept of dowry In simple sense, “dowry” refers to those money gifts and things that the wife brings to her husband in marriage. – According to 8 scholars, “Those valuable things which are given by the relatives of one of the two parties related to the marriage for the purpose of marriage.” But this definition does not show any difference between dowry and bride price, rather it is a mixture of both the concepts. Confusion arises in h “The property that a person receives from his wife or her relatives at the time of marriage.” R “It is the property that is given to a woman at the time of her marriage.” Because only the bride has personal property and some is given to the parents of the groom or groom, so the definition of dowry can be like this. “The gifts and valuable things that the bride, groom and her relatives get in marriage. But there should be no confusion in the concepts of “dowry”, “Kanyadaan” or “Stridhan”. As a gift to the girl child in “Kanyadaan”. is given to the groom. “Stridhan” refers to the gifts that are given to the bride by her relatives or husband etc. at the time of or after the marriage and the wealth that she has inherited from her parents or self-earned. is absolutely owned and cannot have a claimant in it. This money can be inherited by his daughters, if he has not made a will against it. Amount of dowry due, boy’s job and income, girl’s father’s economic and social status, boy’s family’s social prestige, girl’s and boy’s education, girl’s job and salary, girl’s beauty and physical constitution, boy’s and girl’s family It is determined keeping in mind the factors like structure and security of a happy future.

 

The important thing in this is that the bride’s parents give money and gifts not only at the time of marriage, but they continue to give gifts to the husband’s family throughout life. Dowry through the ages – The history of dowry is very ancient, after analyzing it, it is known that there have been many changes in the structure of dowry from ancient and medieval India to the modern era. Earlier, the brides of the royal families used to bring up to 100 cows with them as dowry. Draupadi, Sita, Subhadra, Uttara were all given valuable gifts in the form of horses, elephants and jewels by their parents at the time of marriage. In today’s context it is so clear that the gifts which were given at the time of marriage were considered as dowry. In today’s era, dowry has assumed an inglorious proportion and has become the mouth of Sursa. Now it’s kind of a done deal. In the pre-British period, our society was predominantly agricultural and almost all over India, the economic system of the society was simple. Today, people working in government jobs and holding high positions demand dowry on the basis of their position. Following are the motivating factors of dowry:

 

Aspiration to marry in a high and wealthy family – Every parent has an aspiration to marry their daughter in a wealthy and high status family so that their respect remains and their daughter gets happiness and security. Boys from high and rich families have high prices in the marriage market, hence the amount of dowry is also getting high.

 

Misguided thought – Some people give more and more dowry to show their prestige and social and economic status. Like Rajput and Jain people spend lakhs of rupees in the marriage of their daughters just to show their social status high. Even if they have to take loan for this.

 

  Pressure of caste system – According to the social and religious system, there is a practice among Hindus to get married within their own caste or sub-caste. Due to this, the process of choosing a life partner remains limited. As a result, there is a dearth of young people having a high paying job or having a happy future engaged in any profession. They become like “rare commodities” and their parents demand huge sums of money from the bride’s side, as if girls are a bargain.

 

  Social Custom – One of the reasons for dowry is that giving dowry is a social custom and it is very difficult to change the customs at once. There is a feeling of the people that by following the rituals unity and harmony increases among the people.

It is Many people take and give dowry only because their parents and forefathers were also following this practice, if they do not do this, then their honor and respect may suffer. For example, when Sati Pratha was prevalent, many people were against it. Still they could not raise their voice due to the fear of caste-fraternity. Traditions continue forever because there is respect for the past and the present behind it. For this reason, the practice has made the old dowry system irreversible and a stereotype. As long as the rebellious youth does not dare to end it and the girls do not oppose the social pressure by giving it, this practice will remain bound to the people.

 

Anulom marriage system – In addition to endogamy, Hindus also have Anulom marriage system, according to which a low caste can marry a higher caste. When upper caste marries a non-caste girl, then they ask for more dowry (dowry). Therefore, Anulom marriage encourages dowry system.

 

Vicious cycle – The important reason for the acceptance of dowry by the parents of the groom is that they have to give dowry in the marriage of their daughters or sisters. It is natural that they use the dowry money received from their son to find a suitable husband for their daughter and make her happy. From here the vicious cycle starts and the amount of dowry takes the form of a tarnished curse. Sociological implications of dowry – People may have dual perception towards dowry but some people have a clear point of view. On one hand there are people who are in favor of rooting out this evil but on the other hand there are some reactionaries who want to keep this practice alive in some form or the other. They understand that there are benefits in continuing with this practice: Some of the benefits, which are not necessarily based on good logic and rationality, are as follows:

 

1. By giving higher education to the meritorious boys of poor class, they get opportunities to make future.

 

  2 . This practice helps in settling the new household. After marriage, the couple has to settle in a new house because nowadays the existence of joint family is ending. Therefore, the money received in dowry helps the newly married couple to set up a new house.

 

3. Dowry increases the respect of a woman in the family. If the bride brings a good amount of money with her to the marriage, she is treated well because of her financial support.

 

4. The chances of marriage of ugly girls increase. It is very difficult for a ugly girl to get a good husband. But if her parents are ready to spend a good amount of money then getting a good groom becomes easy. Because there are some people who love money more than the girl.

 

5. Dowry helps people to increase their status in the society. People of lower classes marry their daughters to higher classes, spend more money in dowry and thus raise their social status.

 

6. Some people think of giving their share to the girls through dowry. If people cannot give land to their son-in-law, then they give the amount of his share to him only after giving money as dowry.
7. This encourages inter-caste marriages. Main considerations before father in search of daughter’s life partner

  It happens that the future of the chosen boy is secure and he is of good character, so instead of caste, the boy becomes the main subject of election. Dowry must have been beneficial in the past. But nowadays it has become a stigma in the Indian society. There was a time when dowry was accepted by the groom’s side but now it is being “demanded”. The result is that from the day of the birth of a girl, the problem of dowry enters the mind of her parents and if unfortunately that person has three or four daughters, then his whole life is spent in solving this problem. What and how should he arrange the marriage of his daughters. This increases his mental problems.

 

 

 

 

 

defects of dowry

 

   , Unethical – The moral values in the society are decreasing day by day. Today it is being felt that we all have fallen far short of our moral obligations to some extent. In ancient times, in this spiritualistic country, where a man did not extend his hand to the female side in matrimonial relations for wealth, there the modern ideology has changed a lot. The person now wants to pay the groom’s price in the boy’s marriage and he is mostly successful in getting desired money, things etc. by force from the girl’s side. .

 

  , Economic crisis – In ancient times, the dowry system was introduced for equal distribution of wealth in the society. But now it has become a curse due to wrong development. Especially for the middle class family, who keep investing money in working for their family throughout their life. Sometimes education, sometimes dowry, as a result, at the time of marriage, loans have to be taken to meet the demands of the groom’s side. Many times this debt continues from generation to generation due to which the economy of the family is destroyed.

 

  Antisocial – Man is a social animal, he cannot live without society, ultimately he works under social rules till his life, this is the symbol of his sociality, in the interests of the society.

Keeping this paramount

The structure remains strong. But by doing some work, the interests get hurt, due to which the social structure gets disintegrated. In the Indian society, some social customs and practices such as untouchability, casteism, widow remarriage, prohibition of child marriage and dowry system etc. are also present in the society. Most flourishing evil practice like dowry in the society is disintegrating the social structure. Due to the development of this practice, social functions and social values are declining, it seems that this bad practice is promoting anti-social activities, which is a symbol of complete anarchy.

 

  , Irreligious – Righteousness is said to be the biggest religion. Religion is worn for human welfare and charity. The meaning of wearing it is that religion does welfare of human life, protects and nurtures it. Religion only teaches good behavior to man. Donation in Hindu marriage is considered a very religious act, today this religion has spread like leprosy in the society in the form of dowry.

 

   , Low status of women – The dowry system makes the giver more poor and the receiver more inferior and the condition of women degrades a lot. The boy considers himself a very respectable person and considers the girl as an inferior and low-level thing, so dowry is a social injustice, it is shameful for us and a stigma on the society. This is an attack on the self-respect of women.

 

   , Solution for the end of dowry system – Looking at the menace of dowry system and Tandav dance, the thought power of the society has not moved towards its solution, so that it can get rid of the bondage of this dreadful problem.

 

Freedom from the problem like dowry system is possible only when united efforts are made for its solution and solution from all religious, social and political points of view. There is also a great need to create a strong ideological and active mass base for the solution of this problem. anti-dowry campaign

 

  At the government level – In the past, the practice of Sati was very badly affecting the Hindu women in the society, as a result of which women were moving towards disintegration. But as a result of the efforts of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Lord William Bentinck banned the practice of Sati in 1829. In the 20th century, the then Law Minister of the Government of India, A. Of . Sen introduced the Dowry Prohibition Bill in Parliament on 27 April 1959. On May 9, 1961, it was decided in the joint session that the gifts given on the occasion of marriage will not be considered as dowry, but the condition of exchange of gifts while fixing the marriage will be punishable. After that Dowry Prohibition Bill was approved. There are ten sections in this act.

 

  at the legal level

 

1. All gifts received at the time of marriage Stree Dhan – The Supreme Court has ruled that the bride has the right to all the things received as dowry at the time of marriage and if the in-laws refuse to give them, then they can be sued. will be run

 

2 . Life imprisonment for dowry greedy mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband If the tadhu is tortured or killed for dowry, then the dowry greedy will be punished for life imprisonment.

 

3. Husband and mother-in-law sentenced to death for killing pregnant bride

 

4. Special Court Marriage Act – The Special Court Marriage Act is also helpful in neutralizing the dowry system. One can get married after attaining the age fixed by the government. With this one can get freedom from dowry. Prohibition on the expensive dowry of the upper class – The upper class itself is promoting dowry and making the marriage process complicated. The effect of these acts of theirs is on the middle and lower class, so it is very important for the government to stop the expensive marriages and dowry transactions of the upper class. At the social level – To bring changes in the expensive social system and to end the dowry system, there is a widespread experience in the society so that a solution to this problem can be found at the social level, because depending on government rules and laws, no one can Even the social problem cannot be solved. Therefore, for this the society should be aware. On Tham R – In the Vedic age, the position of women in the society was elevated and they would have to be seen with reverence and respect. Not only this, women had all the religious, social and political rights, but in the modern environment, the life of women has changed. The price is only dowry. The male society has snatched all the pride that was not received in the respect given to the female caste and the female | It has become a commodity of consumption. Now it is also felt that the religious leaders of all sects, Mahatmas, Saints, Sanyasis should play an active role in opposing dowry through their discourses and lectures in front of the society.

 

, At the political level – after independence in the country, whenever – whenever any national problem came – then it was solved. There is a need for active cooperation of all political parties together for the solution. Unanimously provided active cooperation to solve the national problem like dowry-practice prevalent in the society. In the same vein, to solve the national problem like dowry prevalent in the society today, unanimously provide active cooperation at the political level and conduct a detailed program against the dowry system, which is beneficial in favor of public aspirations. National level against dowry system Campaigning from up to Gram Sabha level and distribution of literature, propaganda material etc. against it

It will be in the interest of the society and the nation.

 

At the educational level – Important steps can be taken to end the dowry system at the educational level. For which the Government of India should announce the nationalization policy of education soon. With this, the curriculum of uniform education can be started throughout the country. Today, the need for such moral education for the country has to be emphasized which can strengthen the feelings of nationalism. Along with portraying the character of great men in moral education for the upliftment of the nation, awakening of patriotism and national spirit, knowledge of social events and taking steps for social change also includes extension of education. Only effective teachers can make it. Girl students must be motivated to participate in sports programs compulsorily. With the expansion of judo, women can easily learn and become self-sufficient from a protective point of view. ,

 

Ending the importance of casteism – Casteism is in vogue since the Vedic period and even today marriages take place within the caste. The caste is also divided into many sub-castes and it also has to be followed, due to which the problem like dowry system is creating a terrible situation. The integrity of this country, caste bias and disregard of encouraging rules and laws are also hindrances for the country’s educational, social, economic, political and administrative works.

 

Encouragement of inter-caste marriages – It should be encouraged as it will help in ending the evil of dowry, Boys and girls should be given opportunities to choose their life partner. Now marriage with the consent of the parents should not be insisted upon but they should be given the freedom to meet and mingle so that they can make their own destinies. ,

 

  Love marriage – Theoretically, ‘love’ signifies the creation of human power and ‘Ghana’ signifies the destruction of human power. Where there is loving life, it is called heaven and where there is hatred, it is called hell. Love life becomes successful only when human-human, husband-wife, lover-beloved accept love with an attractive and self-surrendering spirit. If the loving couple gets married, then life is spent happily, but the society does not recognize it. Therefore, if it is practiced and there is no hindrance, then evils like dowry system can be stopped.

 

Ideal Marriage – In view of matrimonial complications and the perniciousness of dowry system, the practice of ideal marriage started from the second half of this century. Ideal marriage with dowry is being brought into vogue to present ideal in the society. To present the ideal before the society, the bride should be accepted as dowry. Unmarried young men and women will have to come forward by breaking the social bonds to tie themselves in marriage in order to present the ideal in the society.

 

Epilogue – The dynamism of every society comes under a natural process, so there will be no society in which there is no dynamism, social dynamism can be said to be the sign of social change. There have been rapid changes in social conditions, professions, customs, traditions and Indian culture and this trend continues even today. The practice of purdah and child marriage got strengthened due to the atrocities of Muslim rulers on Hindu women. The parents used to hasten the marriage of unmarried Hindu girls for the purpose of saving their honor and maintaining the purity of the blood, and used to give money to run the life of the newly married couple, which has come into vogue today as dowry. Due to the increase in the practice of dowry in marriage, the marital system became increasingly costly and today dowry has become so dominant in the Hindu society that the women’s society has become non-existent and its consequences are that the modern civilized society still does not accept women as family ideals and practices. To develop within the four walls of the house and to lead a life of financial helplessness. Where on one hand the nation is moving towards all-round development and women are walking equal to men in education and other fields, on the other hand exploitation of women continues on a large scale. 100% marriages of even highly educated unmarried girls take place within the confines of the dowry system.

 

It is meant to say that despite being on the path of progress, women appear non-existent as a result of suffering from the dowry system; today, due to the dowry system, individual family and social disorganization are taking place, as well as there is a continuous increase in various crimes in the society. New-brides are being tortured, not only this, they are either forced to commit suicide when the dowry is less or in those cases they are murdered. In the end, it can be said that the abolition of dowry system will be an important step towards social reform. Whatever may have been the objective in the beginning, it cannot be denied that this practice has failed to accept the feelings and individuality of women as individuals. This injustice has to be stopped.

 

Even if this education is done by propaganda organizations or scholars, we have allowed this evil to flourish for a long time and have made the society a victim of perversion. Until we become more progressive with revolutionary thoughts and less conservative, dowry will continue to be a curse in our society.

Will remain in the same form. Only with co-operation and mutual understanding, the wheels of the chariot of the society can move smoothly. Today marriages are arranged on the basis of dowry and not on the basis of character or on the basis of modern values of high aspirations, therefore it is high time for the Hindu society to completely destroy the evil of dowry system which has driven many young women to commit suicide. forced to. It should not be forgotten that marriage is a sacred sacrament and not a business or deal. When a girl is accepted in marriage not for her qualities but for dowry then what she brings in the marriage becomes the focal point then the sanctity of marriage is lost so sooner we can get rid of this evil. Take it, it will be equally beneficial for the society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marriage – Separation / Divorce

 

 

Social acceptance was given to the institution of marriage as an institutional way to maintain the order of the society and to fulfill the sexual needs. Some keep their life organized formally despite family tensions and some keep their life organized on the surface due to religious beliefs, family prestige and family pressures, but there is a situation of family tension from inside. Although many people consider divorce as the only reason for family disintegration. But divorce is only a sign of family disintegration, the reason being that divorce is a legal dissolution of marriage and results in the ultimate disintegration of the family. In the traditional Hindu society earlier marriage was considered a religious act, nowadays it is becoming secular. The tendency to consider marriage as consensual is increasing. Till the mid-1950s, divorce was not permitted under Hindu law. Although according to the local customs in some castes, divorce was allowed by giving some amount of money. Four decades ago, the law makers of our country changed the Hindu society from uneducated and harsh condition to modern ideology and now it has changed from “sacred ritual” to “divorce by mutual consent”. Not all marriages are successful, some end with disharmony and bitterness, some people with unsuccessful marriages continue to drag their lives believing fate and spend the whole life in a state of confusion. Abandonment, whether permanent or temporary, is illegal and unofficial, and is an act of lesser responsibility on the part of the husband or wife because the family tends to wander, while divorce is legally breaking of marital bonds and is the final termination of a real marriage. As long as the state operates the institution of marriage, it is necessary to follow government rules for any kind of freedom from the bonds of marriage.

 

Divorce is a sad event in which one of the husband and wife prays to leave the other. In modern western societies, marriages have become so temporary that divorce is the main cause of family disintegration there, but it is also said that the problem of divorce arises only after family disintegration when one or both the parties want to break their relationship. Want to Divorce is not the problem of harmonious and happy families. Thus divorce provides legal basis to broken marriages. Along with this, there are many such marriages which are troublesome for the husband and wife, but the problem of divorce does not arise in them. Most of the husbands leave their wives. Divorce is always a sad situation because the rejected partner feels humiliated, despised and victimised, but the social consequences of abandonment are more painful and impractical, especially for the woman. Women have to face social, economic and emotional traumas. On an emotional basis, she always feels that she has been scornfully rejected by her husband and thrown away as a useless thing.

 

  Socially she suffers in such a way that she is not sure whether her husband will return or not and what to tell the children about their father’s absence. Economically, what hurts a woman is the lack of economic resources, due to which she has to face difficulty in maintaining herself and her children. Abandoned woman is neither able to keep herself in the category of married nor in the category of widow. To earn a living, either he himself has to do court work or he has to employ his children. When some women get a job, they have to be more busy. Due to which their children do not get proper care or they find their income insufficient for the family. All these situations give rise to situations like child labour, juvenile delinquency, disintegrated personality etc. But no official sociological study has been done to analyze this problem of abandonment, nor has any such social security scheme been launched in our country under which the cases of abandoned women can be brought to light. But divorce has attracted our attention since a few decades. Divorce should not be considered as a personal incident. Although there are individual aspects of the divorce problem, yet divorce takes the form of a social problem on a large scale because the existence of a state or a nation depends on the success of a successful family life. In this way, the smooth functioning of marital responsibilities by the adult members of the society

Properly functioning stable family life is the first need of the society. Although the form of marriage varies according to the social environment and circumstances, but marriage is an essential institution of every society.

 

Marriage provides happiness and peace to husband and wife, but when marriage becomes painful instead of giving happiness and peace, it gives rise to many personal, family and social problems, to overcome these problems, when the bonds of marriage are broken. If two partners bound in marital life do not consider it important and necessary, then by breaking the marital bonds, they obtain legal recognition for it, which is called divorce. Historical Background of Divorce – Divorce as a social phenomenon has been going on since the time when the institution of marriage governed by social rules existed in the society. Kautilya has also ordered divorce in four irreligious marriages – Asar Gandharva, Paishach and Rakshasa. First of all, we have the law of legal recognized divorce in the law of Hammarabi.

 

gets to see. According to this law, the husband could divorce his wife at any time without mentioning any reason. Divorce was a masculine right among the Jews. Presently the speed of divorce is increasing in the Indian society.

 

Here, due to many processes of social change, industrialization, urbanization, modernization and other activities, life is moving from harmony to disharmony. This state of disharmony has affected all aspects of life. Marital life has also been affected by this coming in the stream of change. Marriage is no longer just a religious bond but a legal contract or agreement, which can be broken on legal grounds. So it is clear that now both husband and wife have the right to divorce by law. Types of Divorce – According to scholars there are two types of statutory divorce

 

Complete Divorce – In complete divorce, all the rights and obligations of the marriage cease. And both the parties live as single persons in the society. The relationship of both ends.

 

  Partial talaq – Partial talaq or legal separation does not dissolve the marriage but only recognizes the legal separation of husband and wife. In this they neither sleep nor eat together. This condition lasts until the husband and wife decide to live in the same house again. In this, some arrangements are made for the maintenance of the wife. But in such a situation, both husband and wife have a tendency to meet each other and stay together. Sometimes, even after there is a religious ban on remarriage, the husband or wife get bored of the situation of divorce and start living together again. Some people say that this type of divorce encourages illegal practices, it reduces the possibility of reunification between the two people after the divorce. Women sometimes apply for divorce to prevent their husbands from marrying extra or for other religious or personal reasons. But there are no solid grounds to reveal complete divorce and partial divorce. Reasons for divorce Different scholars have given their own reasons for this. According to one the main reasons for divorce are: • Lack of family harmony – quarrels between husband and wife. Misbehavior by husband and quarrels with in-laws. • Sterility of the wife – Unethical behavior of the husband or the wife, due to illness or nature, the husband is unable to perform the family responsibility, and the husband is punished. According to others – abandonment and cruelty, depersonalization, impotence and miscellaneous reasons other than genuine reasons. According to the third – according to them there are two groups of reasons for marriage – separation –

 

1. Environmental reasons and

 

2. Personal reasons

 

Environmental factors are related to the environment inside the family and outside the family. Environmental causes include extramarital affairs, inadequate home life, physical assault, poverty, wife’s working life and role conflict. In personality related reasons – irritable nature, incurable disease, impotence, sterility, big difference in age and dominant nature. All these studies indicate that divorce is not always due to lack of harmony in married life. Undoubtedly, some wives want divorce because of their husband’s ill-treatment, cruelty and neglectful attitude, but in some cases, women want divorce because they are fed up with their in-laws. On the contrary, some men doubt their wife’s loyalty towards them or there is a big difference between them on the intellectual and educational level. Somewhere, the wife is not able to adapt herself to the social life of her husband, being related to the conservative family with strict rules, because she is not allowed male company in the husband’s house, on the contrary, the woman is quiet, monotonous. And the husband of bad mood is found. In arranged marriages, where mutual attraction is not the reason for marriage, there are many other reasons like respect for parents, good friends – there are opportunities to give and take, high family ties and harmony after marriage. Desire is also very less.

 

  Theoretical view on the reasons for divorce

Perspectives on Divorce Any Commentary on Divorce Must Consider Four Reasons

 

  (1) Factors that affect marriage values (Functional Approach)

 

  (2) The reasons that arise due to the conflict between the changing economic system and its social and idealistic superstructure, especially the family, (Marxist point of view)

 

  (3) The situation of interaction and (Interactionist approach).

 

(4) In the idea of value and benefit (social exchange approach), the functionalist approach explains divorce in general as a reflection of changes in ideals and values, especially in family and marriage. People have high expectations from marriage as a result of which marriage comes in a state of dissolution when their expectations are not fulfilled. Second functionalists also stress on the fact that due to non-adjustment with the expectations of the economic system of the family, there is a burden on the marital relationship in a way. Mental tension in joint family is certain at times because of the size of the family, economic burden, expectations of the younger members and conservative beliefs and restrictive values and ideals set up by the elders. Finally, functionalists also talk about the changes in marriage and divorce. In the past, there was a great influence of Hindu philosophy on the people, due to which the chances of divorce were very less. But today due to secular beliefs there has been a change in the values and attitude towards divorce. Secularism has reduced the influence of religious beliefs, due to which marriage relations have also been greatly affected. The Marxist approach emphasizes that marital aspirations can be fulfilled only when both the husband and wife are earning, but the conflict arises due to the contradiction between the expectations of wage-earning working women and the idealized aspirations associated with matrimonial life 18 . it happens . Working wives are expected to commit to the role of housewife along with the role of editor. Women are expected to play a subservient role to the male head of the household, despite being equally involved in earning money.

 

Such idealistic expectations of women and moral expectations are totally against the role of a woman as a money earner. Such situations also create such an environment. If the wife and husband are from different social background then it is difficult to reconcile them which may lead to abandonment or separation or even divorce. All these reasons help in divorce. Marriage – Role adjustment after separation – Various consequences of divorce come before us. In Indian society, there is a need to analyze the fact that how husband and wife adjust themselves after divorce. Divorce is the end of marriage contract, but from the point of view of husband and wife, it is only a change in the situation of husband and wife. This also leads to personal disintegration and such persons start feeling guilty. In such a situation, a situation of disharmony arises in front of him. After divorce, there is a change in the roles and situation of both husband and wife, some people face the situations arising out of divorce, but the life of other people gets disintegrated in these situations. The social structure of almost all countries including India is based on the concept of marriage. Any other system is not desirable for the society.

 

Due to change in relationship situation, ambiguity and change in role and behaviour, the problem of adjustment arises in front of the person. Divorced persons also face the problem of restoration of marital relations. Very few divorced men and women remarry. Most of the men and women stay with their parents after divorce. Divorce leads to the problem of sexual harmony. Generally women have more problems. Divorced people often do not get proper respect in the society. Such people have to face difficulties due to change in personality. Divorce hurts a person’s ego. Many divorced women do not do any work. After this, men and women do not have any kind of attachment towards each other. Due to non-fulfillment of habits, a sense of frustration, trouble and dissatisfaction arises, due to divorce, one has to face a lot of difficulties in performing economic roles and conducting economic life. After the divorce, the children are more worried, their life also grinds between these two. Many difficulties in the environment of the group and society come in front of such persons, but gradually these conditions become natural for the persons. Divorce trends – The following trends of divorce are found in India: Actual reasons for divorce are not mentioned in the courts. Real reasons are different from statutory reasons. Therefore, instead of giving reasons like abandonment, cruelty, personal etc., the tendency to give reasons like mutual estrangement and tension is increasing. Cruelty and abandonment reasons are mentioned more under statutory reasons because both these grounds are considered less offensive than other grounds.

  There is no effort to liberalize the grounds for divorce

are crying Although the divorce rate has increased significantly since the 1960s, the tendency of the courts is to try to avoid divorce by treating it as an act of haste and frivolity. Divorce is not considered as such a serious evil as husband-wife living together and living a stressful life. Negligible number of people remarry after divorce, women are also eager for divorce due to failure of marriage like men, although it is necessary that they do not want divorce to be free from the shackles of married life, but as a last resort after being fed up with the tension. Psychological conditions that initiate divorce After divorce, children usually live with the mother, but the father does not end social relations with the children. Divorce rates vary according to social class and occupational status. People in middle-status occupations have more divorces than those in high-status occupations. Similarly, the divorce rate is lower in rural people than in urban people. Divorce in India – There is not much tradition of divorce in India. After the arrival of the British, there was a trend towards divorce among the people. But at present, the interpretation of divorce in India is done on the basis of the Hindu Marriage Act made in 1955. In this act, special rules were made in relation to ancient forms of marriage, dowry system and divorce. This law has been implemented from May 18, 1955 in the whole country except Jammu and Kashmir. Before this act, there was no legal arrangement for divorce in India. In this act, emphasis was laid on increasing the freedom of women. The act hurt the religious belief of marriage. This act is very important from the point of view of divorce. Procedure for Divorce – The following procedure for divorce after being recognized by law has been mentioned in the statutes:

1. The application for divorce will be given in the court only.

  2 . Application for divorce can be given only after three years from the date of marriage.

3. The court after examining all the matters related to divorce and marriage will grant divorce to the husband or wife.
4. Once a couple gets permission for divorce or divorce from the court, then within a period of one year, the couple can apply to the court for re-marriage.
5. After divorce, the court may order that the applicant should give necessary support or expenses for living to the other party for life or until the other party marries. ,
6. The court can also give other necessary orders regarding expenses, on the basis of which arrangements for the expenses of the defendant or living facilities and other things are made. Grounds of Divorce in India – In India, both husband and wife can divorce each other for any or any of the many reasons defined by the constitution. Section 13, 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 describes several grounds for dissolution of marriages. This act also affects those marriages which took place before it came into force. Under the Act, an application has to be filed in the court on the constitutional grounds of the person who is interested in Salki Kali, on the basis of which the judge can grant permission for divorce. Any one of the husband or wife can apply to the court for permission for divorce on any one or more of the following grounds.

(a) if either of the spouses is convicted of rape

(b) The husband or wife has been suffering from severe disease like leprosy for three years before the date of application, for which there is no possibility of treatment.

(c) the husband or wife is, before the date of making the application, of such unsound mind as to be beyond cure.

  (d) The applicant shall be entitled to obtain a divorce if the husband or the wife have changed their religion at the time of the marriage after the marriage.

(e) In situations after marriage, the wife may apply for divorce from her husband on the following grounds relating to sex. • The husband is guilty of rape. • Husband is impotent. • Husband is guilty of anal sex. • Husband is guilty of animal sex.

  (f) If a husband or wife has contracted a sexually transmitted disease, he or she may apply for divorce on the basis of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is necessary for any husband to make such an application only if the other has had a sexually transmitted disease for three years.

  (g) According to the Hindu Marriage Act, if the husband has entered into a second marriage, the wife can divorce him.

(h) If the husband or the wife takes Sannyas, then either party can give divorce.

(i) If either of the spouses does not protect and respect the statutory rights obtained from the marriage, the other party has the right to obtain a divorce.

(p) According to the Act, if it is not known about the husband or wife that the other person has been alive or dead for the last 7 years, then the surviving husband or wife can obtain divorce.

(q) Divorced as per Hindu Marriage Act

 

To do this, it is necessary that cohabitation has not started in two years before giving the application. Divorce rate in India has increased rapidly ever since divorce got legal basis. modernization in society

 

Due to the continuation of the process and the influence of western civilizations, divorces are now happening in India and the importance of religious sentiment behind marriage is decreasing.

But the pace of divorce is very slow in India as compared to foreign countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Feminism: Similarities and Differences,
• Contemporary feminism and equality-difference,
• Construction of Sexual Identity: Similarities and Differences:
• Historicity of Sex Differences
• Psychoanalysis: Similarities and Differences,

 

 

 

 

• The aging dilemma of similarity versus difference is a complex one. When people first hear about feminism they often assume that it denies sexual differences: ‘Whatever he can do, I can do too’. Women’s role in reproduction as a source and mechanism of patriarchal power. What is the point of such arguments? Does he mean that we should aim to eliminate all differences, and if so, how far can we go? During the seventies, it became common to speak of the difference between sex and gender; Using the former referring to an essential biological difference, and using the latter for building society. For example, women give birth to children, this is a biological fact. that then they are a specific responsibility pattern of gender relations, and one that is open to change. In the eighties, this approach has also been seen as rather diluted, with feminism moving more intensively towards the assertion of sex. al difference.
• Androgyny is not fashionable in the women’s movement today. Fifteen to twenty years ago, the desire for equality might have expressed itself in a desire to escape the stereotypes and definitions of sex, in the longing to be a ‘person’ rather than a ‘woman’. Today the emphasis would be different, and partly, of course, due to the existence of a movement that has helped women assert themselves with pride. Adrienne Rich, for

 

 

 

 

• The main thrust of the debate in contemporary feminism has come from the influence of psychoanalytic theory on the one hand and the celebration of a woman-identified woman on the other. The earlier arguments were usually placed in terms of which aspects of women’s lives should feminists focus their activities on: those where women were claiming equality with men? Or those that were traditionally the concern of the woman? The argument was not so much whether men and women were different in principle, as it was discussed constantly. It wasn’t really a stake issue.

 

 

• Sally Alexander defines subjectivity and sexual identity as ‘constructed through a process of differentiation, separation and division, and a process that is always in the making, never complete’ (Alexander: 1987). The process is no less fundamentally different for a little girl/woman and a little boy/man. Her main concern … is how the unconscious enters politics, and in particular the way our understanding of self and sexual identity is altered by our understanding of class. Thought-provoking as it is, its implications for feminism still need to be clarified: what—besides a difference—does it represent a sex difference? These things can be seen in the process of various social institutions, for example family, education, economic etc.

 

• The traditional family – in which the father works full-time outside the home and the mother is a full-time homemaker – is no longer the most common arrangement in developed societies. These changes have created both problems and opportunities.

 

 

• Another problem is that even if both husband and wife work outside the home, the wife usually does most of the housework. Studies show that this one-sidedness is even more likely when the husband is highly paid or has a prestigious job and the wife has a low paying and low prestige job.

 

• When the wife is higher educated than her husband, however, there is a greater tendency to share household chores (Erickson, Yancey & Erickson: 1979). Other studies have shown that the higher the wife’s income compared to the husband, the more power she has in the family, and the more power she has in the family, the more she participates in family decision-making. .

 

 

• On the side of opportunity, paid jobs give women a sense of worth and independence that they may not find at home. Studies indicate that working wives are happier than housewives, despite the burden of managing both a home and a job. Even if their jobs are not exciting, or pay less, working women have higher self-esteem than women who stay at home (Fairy: 1976). For many it means a new sense of power and identity.

 

• Gender can affect academic performance. Differences are most pronounced in early adolescence, when girls excel at verbal tasks and boys at visual-spatial and mathematical tasks (McCombie & Jacqueline: 1974). But while boys who fall behind in reading are often placed in remedial classes, visual-spatial tutoring is largely unavailable to girls who may need it. The structure of the classroom can also be detrimental to both boys and girls. Studies show that being close to a teacher rewards girls in the preschool years; In elementary school, he is praised for being agreeable. Boys are reprimanded for breaking the rules, but they are more likely to be passive and agreeable than girls.

are less likely to be rewarded (Ireson: 1978). Although both boys and girls are rewarded for achievement, boys are encouraged to develop their own standards while girls are pressured.

2022 SOCIOLOGY-COMPLETE SOLUTIONS

SOCIOLOGY IN ENGLISH: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuVMyWQh56R3KgAeBpmbY8Gv6201xh2dQ

• Women who enter male-dominated professions often find that their problems are not over. Most businesses have an internal stratification system. For example, in the field of medicine, there is an over-representation of women in pediatrics, psychiatry and public health – again purported, “feminine”, less well-paid specialties – and in other areas, especially surgical in the specifications. Pay and prestige disparities are not limited to the medical field. The income of men and women is unequal across the board.

 

 

• The commitment to gender equality itself does not tell us what form that equality should take. Equal pay for jobs women do or equal share of jobs done by men? Do women have equal opportunities to compete with men or is there numerical equality in every walk of life? Do women have equal responsibility for housework and children or better conditions in the home? Those who describe themselves as feminists have been in almost as much controversy on such issues as their detractors. We can find answers to these questions in this chapter.

 

 

 

• For example, gave theoretical expression to the politics of gay separatism when he argued that women have a fundamental attachment to each other, and are only engaging in relationships with men, through a complex of power relations that lead to heterosexuality. as a norm (Rich: 1980). Dale Spender rewrites the feminist project as an assertion of women’s experience and values.

 

• Over and against the various values of men (Spender: 1982). These and other writings combine into a popular rendering that views women as not only different from, but superior to, men, essentially bearers of ‘female’ qualities that sometimes replicate too closely for comfort, feminists Once tried to avoid: rational rather than emotional; peace-loving rather than destructive; Caring about people instead of things. The kind of ‘women-centred culture’ promised in such a philosophy leaves little room for the petty politics of equal rights and opportunities.

 

• Today’s arguments, in contrast, point to a more essential line on sexual difference. People affected by psychoanalysis are more likely to be clear about the inevitability of sexual difference, but the content of this difference is variable and ambiguous. Elshten (1987) states that boys and girls learn who they are by observing that their bodies are different. A ‘sexual difference’, she suggests, ‘is neither an insult, nor an indignation, nor a narcissistic injury. On the other hand, a sexual division, an activity is both a deep wound to the psycho-sexual identity of the human subject as well as a specific damage to the overly rigid system of stratification and exclusivity.
• Paralleling this claim of women’s power and women’s difference—if theoretically worlds apart—are the arguments of psychoanalytic theory, which has been introduced to the United States largely through translations of French feminist writings (eg Marx and de Courtivron: 1980). And the British have entered the debate. Less clearly here is an essential woman and an essential man: the emphasis … is often on the very delicate and uncertain nature of a woman’s sexual identity. But if sexual identity is uncertain and changeable, it is still based on difference: being a woman is not being a man. We are brought back to the perennial and difficult question: If the sexes are different, in what sense and how can they be equal?
• Rights may simply mean applying the same standards to everyone – but what if we are different and unequal? What if I have a child to support and you don’t have one? What if I am weak and you are strong? What if I want more than you? logic is important

 

 

 

• The tension between calling for equal treatment, or emphasizing the special needs of women, for gender equality is one that lies at the heart of feminist dilemmas. For women to have an ‘equal right’ to work they may actually need workplace nurseries, for example; they require additional security conditions if pregnant; They may need time to menstruate. Such arguments can, of course, be hostages to fate, for once you accept that women are different from men, you reduce their chances at work. The difficulty came to the fore in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the question of protective legislation: whether women should support laws that ‘protected’ them from particularly hard labor (preventing working in mines in Britain, and restrict their employment at night); Or should they often challenge the exclusion of women from certain categories of high-paying work? (Phillips: 1987). With positions changing over the years and the general tension of similarity versus difference, the dilemma proved to be an intractable one.

 

• When feminists talk about inequalities between women and men

If so, he seems to be implying that there is a unity of women: all women this, all men that. This is most persuasive when women are denied their rights under the law: when, for example, they are denied the right to vote on the basis of their gender; when they are denied the right to certain types of employment as women; When regardless of their age, class, caste, they are subject to their husbands in law. Whenever the law employs sex to deny women rights, then all women are equal to all men. What remains of this unity after women get rights in law?

• Thinking through some of these problems we can see that they share common ground with the socialist critique of liberalism: the notion that equality is equality only under the law; the idea that formal equality legitimizes actual inequalities; The idea that it is separate from differences of race and class. But the feminist debate on liberalism is not just divided into socialist and liberal camps. Partly of course because radical feminism… stands outside any tradition. But the different contexts in which the arguments developed have also shaped political concerns. Equal rights/liberal feminism had few followers in the emergence of the women’s liberation movement in Britain, which had little time to see the ‘women in the boardroom’ approach as such, and found itself more within a radical or socialist tradition. definitely kept.

 

 

 

• It is one of the contrasts in the tension between equality and difference that representatives from each end of the spectrum can make their case for B.

 

• Advocates of strict equality have argued—with considerable force—that once feminists accept minor degrees of sexual difference, they open a gap through which currents of reaction flow. Let it be known for once that premenstrual tension interferes with concentration, that pregnancy can be exhausting, motherhood is absorbing, and that you’re down slope in different areas. It was with good reason that prominent suffragists (such as Millicent Garrett Fawcett) argued against emphasizing women’s maternal role: the whole point of the movement was to lift women out of their stereotyped domesticity, to assert their claims in the public sphere. Was.

 

• But those who have argued for feminism based on gender differences have a very commendable case of their own. The politics of equality directs energy towards areas that are occupied by men, while women’s activities, primarily around domestic work or child care, remain as obscure as ever. Women are asked to fit themselves into slots prepared for men, and their own needs are ignored in the process. Equality means why should women shape themselves in a world made for men? Why shouldn’t the world be made to change its future?
• There has generally been a class dimension to equality versus difference in the history of the women’s movement. For example, in the nineteenth century, it was middle-class women who felt most victimized by the principle of separate spheres, as they were the ones whose femininity was most clearly defined as they were excluded from useful work. it was done. The feminism that arose from this was primarily about challenging exclusion, claiming access to public life, the right to vote, and to study and work. Feminists who had previously refused to engage with issues of motherhood on the grounds that it would help bring women back home were now recognized as the voices of middle-class women. The emphasis on the name of the mother of the working class was then backfired.

 

• typifies the example, as none of the conditions were actually satisfied. The equality end of the feminist spectrum tended to highlight women as workers, while the difference end highlighted women as mothers. Since in practice most women are both, emphasizing any aspect to the exclusion of the other is usually a dangerous choice.

 

• Thus if there is a need for better contraceptive advice, more midwives, better antenatal care, ‘family endowments’ and so on, an important and welcome emphasis on the problems women faced as mothers However, it also ran the risk of negating the need for women’s paid work. When the working mother came under threat in the 1940s and 1950s—when wartime nurseries closed and women were encouraged to take up their place in the home—feminists were more or less ready to defend her. Campaigns for paid employment were too closely identified with the limited needs of women of better status, and feminism temporarily lost the language that insisted on women’s equal right to work (Riley: 1983). . In this instance, similarities and differences became too stark contrasts in politics, with unfortunate results.

 

• There are many factors that keep men ahead in the market like women’s professional life is often interrupted by family responsibilities, there are less opportunities for promotion in some jobs

Etcetera.

 

 

• While it is not possible to resolve the cultural-biological disagreement at this point, it is safe to say that the real answer lies between the two extremes. Whichever set of factors turns out to be most influential, it is clear that culture reinforces universal discrimination and stratification by gender. Any female interest in traditionally male social positions in America must fight incredible odds to survive the cultural onslaught initiated by parents, peers, and lovers during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Starting in infancy with the tea party and mother’s purse, girls are bombarded with a substantial cultural bond to show their preference for traditional female activities as ‘natural’, whether partly rooted in nature or No.

gender and society

 

Women, then, are unequal to men, not because of any basic and direct conflict of interest between the sexes, but because of working class oppression, with its attendant factors of property inequality, exploited labor, and segregation. The fact that women are less privileged than men within any given class, to the contrary, seems to have no immediate structural reason in Marxist feminism. Rather like liberal feminism, this fact is the result of a historical carry-over from the fall of primitive communism that Engels described.

 

  Consequently, the solution to gender inequality is the destruction of class oppression. This destruction will take place through revolutionary action by a united wage-earning class involving both men and women. Any direct mobilization of women against men is counter-revolutionary, as it divides the potentially revolutionary working class. A working class revolution that destroys the class system by making all economic wealth the property of the entire community would free society from class exploitation, a byproduct of gender inequality.

 

Early feminist writings emphasized that women had a right to work and attempted to reject prevailing attitudes that held that women’s work was marginal to both the economy and individual households. In the late 1960s and 1970s there were several strikes for equal pay and better working conditions, including a strike by sewing machines at Ford’s Dagenham factory, the London night cleaners campaign for unionisation, the occupation and strike at the Fakenham shoe factory in Norfolk Are included. by Asian women at the Imperial Typewriter in Leicester. The Working Women’s Charter campaign was established at a national level in 1974, calling for action by employers, unions and the state to ensure greater equality for women in the labor market. Campaigns by feminists have focused on wage work. In the 1980s and 1990s the issue of the value of women’s work compared to men’s was important.

Women’s Work has also produced a large body of case studies of the position of women in the labor market. These academic analyzes of women’s participation have identified three broad areas of concern.

 

The frown on the paid workforce notes the exclusion of women—even there, they are treated as invisible, invaders whose ‘proper’ and primary place is at home.

 

The question of occupational segregation and wage differential has been analysed. Women and men still work in very different types of jobs, with women being relegated to a narrow range of occupations, particularly in the service sector. And

 

 

 

Differences among women also on the basis of caste and class.

Feminist scholars, as well as activists, have turned their attention to the notions of equality, equal pay, equal value or comparable value, and equal opportunity in the labor market.

 

 

  Alternative Explanation of Gender Division of Labour:

The main contribution of conservative economics to explain the wage gap between men and women has been human capital theory. This suggests that a person invests in himself by devoting time to study, obtaining additional qualifications, or gaining skills and work experience. The greater the initial investment in human capital, the greater the potential for future earnings. The evidence on the distribution of earnings broadly supports this. However, earnings differences, especially between women and men, are generally much larger than the theory suggests, so human capital theories provide only a partial explanation. They are also essentially sexist, because they only count as production those skills that the market rewards, and many skills that women possess go unrewarded and unrecognized. To explain these things, we will discuss the main principles of division of labor. These are as follows:

 

Principles of Division of Labour:

Labor economists have developed theories of differentiation that complement or replace human capital theory. Two types of theories have been developed to explain the gender divide in the workforce: the dual and segmental labor market theory, also derived from economics, and the labor process theory, based on the work of Marxist social theory.

 

  Dual Market Theory:

The earliest and simplest dual labor market model, as its name indicates, distinguished two labor markets, a primary and a secondary sector. The former offers higher pay, good working conditions, security of employment and opportunities for promotion. In contrast, jobs in the secondary sector tend to be low-paying, heavily supervised, with poor working conditions and little potential for advancement. Most women are located in the secondary sector workforce and this is seen in large part as an explanation of their low wages. However, it

 

 

 

The model does not provide much accuracy, as there are clearly a large number of men on the periphery, while there are also many women—nurses, teachers, and other professionals, for example—in primary labor markets.

(ii) Segmented Labor Market Theory:

Radical economists give a more dynamic account, emphasizing the process that creates a fragmented labor market

Theorizes that diverse labor markets arise because employers seek to divide and rule workers from one another. To counter working class militancy, they suggest, employers turned to strategies designed to maintain control. They achieve this by dividing the workforce into distinct segments, so that the actual experiences of the workers are separate and the basis of their common operations.

Capitalism will be weak. Therefore, labor markets are segmented on the basis of gender, age, race and ethnic origin. This account makes room for considering gender as central to the structure of labor markets, and not simply as a reflection of men’s and women’s different relations to the family.

 

 

Work of various forms, but especially wage labor, is a large part of most people’s sense of self. Traditionally, work has been regarded as an area clearly separate from domestic or social life, as something people are paid to do, usually for a set number of hours each week. Work is often experienced as the opposite of home; It constitutes the ‘public’ side of our everyday life, as distinct from the more ‘private’; Or the intimate side shared with family and friends. Work is associated with production, with the producer of goods or services of some kind for exchange in the market, as opposed to consumption, which is defined as a ‘non-work’ or leisure-time activity. In the course of work we exchange time and labor power for monetary reward—at least, in advanced industrial societies.

 

  In consumption activities or leisure, monetary exchange is either revered or the cash nexus is irrelevant. And, of course, work is depicted as a masculine domain, both as an area in which men are dominant, numerically and in terms of power, and as an area in which masculinity is constructed. is done. The domain of a woman is home and family. This does not mean that women are absent from men’s workplace at home; Rather, it determines that work is

 

 

 

Home and family are primary to the construction of masculine identity and primary to the construction of femininity. Men thus regard their families as ‘earners’, while women’s paid work is often interpreted as a secondary activity in their lives, as an extension of their roles as wives and mothers.

Feminists in the 1970s and 1980s broadened the definition of work to include domestic chores, sexual and emotional service to men, care for children, the elderly, and the sick. She emphasized that women’s activities in the home constitute work, however economically unrewarded, and criticized definitions that are based narrowly on employment or productivity. Along with the production of goods and services for exchange in the market, we must also consider the acts of reproduction as a part of work. These include the reproduction of children, the reproduction of human beings in the sense of their daily physical and emotional well-being, and the reproduction of existing social relations, including class and gender relations. This type of work is essential in the formation of social persons and current and future wage laborers are exchanged for a share in the financial remuneration received by other family members who ‘go out to work’ – usually But a male earner.

In the nineteenth century, that work has become synonymous with paid employment. Feminist sociologists and historians have also been active in questioning the meaning of the work. They have pointed to the ways in which the experiences of men seem to be prioritized over those of women; the ways in which women are denied access on equal terms to paid work, and the ways in which definitions of work exclude women’s contributions. Historically, home and work have not always been separated. They were spatially separated with the rise of industrial capitalist production and the separation is still not complete.

 

Women have always been part of the informal cash economy that co-existed with the growth of formal production in factories and other specialized workplaces. Women have always worked – taking up lodging, washing and ironing clothes, running small shops, preparing clothes and food for sale. Their gradual appearance in the UK, and hence their presence in official statistics of employees, has been through the movement of many productive activities, whether for financial reward or not, into the factory. The significant shift was not from relaxed working but from intra-family to employer-employee working relationships.

 

 

 

Related literature on work :

Feminist scholars interested in the work began in the mid-1960s, pointing out the absence of women from most studies. The first step was to fill this gap by making women workers more visible. The researchers initially focused on working-class women, particularly in manufacturing. Clerical work was viewed only in so far as it was becoming more like factory work as a result of the introduction of new technology and new work subjects. The irony is that it is the factory worker’s

The form has the effect of repeating the heroic myth of the ‘real’ labourer. In so far as it maintains existing frameworks for the study of work, fundamentally shaped by the labour/capital relationship, it can be described as a ‘add women and stir’ approach.

As feminists began to accumulate detailed case studies, they moved away from the idea that nature

The e of the labor process is determined purely by the struggle between labor and capital. There has been a concern with gender as an organizing principle of work relations, rather than simply making women “visible”. Gender should not be seen as something made at home and then taken to work. It was becoming clear that gender had been constructed in many sites and that work was important. Accounts of the construction and manipulation of masculinity and sexuality in the workplace were published in the 1980s (Cockburn: 1983, 1985; Hearn & Parkin: 1987). Cockburn: 1983, 1985) and Game and Pringle (1984) looked at the ways in which a segregated workforce was defended not only by managers but also by male workers. While new technology was continually changing the content of men’s and women’s work, and threatening to break down the existing division of labor, jobs in one way or another were continually defined to maintain the distinction. Thus, while the gendered division of labor was always changing, what did not change was the difference between men’s work and women’s work, and the difference in power between them.

Braverman (1974) argues that new technology was reducing the dignity of work, driving away old craftsmanship and drawing more and more workers into the ranks of the enlarged proletariat. He also says that the proletarianization of clerical work is dominated by women. Changes in the organization of work should not be regarded as technological innovations based on the pursuit of capital for higher profits. Rather, they are the result of a struggle for control between capitalists and workers. Feminists added a gender dimension to this, arguing that labor processes are also shaped by conflict between men and women.

 

 

 

It was the position of women in the family that allowed them to be treated by employers as a reserve army of labor. But they provided a springboard for feminist exploration of the labor process, and for continued work examining why women’s jobs are defined as unskilled regardless of the job’s content.

Game and Pringle (1984) argue that work is centrally organized around gender differences, and that gender is not just about differences but about power. Power relations are maintained by the distinction between male and female jobs. Male workers have a vested interest in maintaining the sexual division of labor, in maintaining a sense of superiority over women.

 

They have done this by traditionally defining their work as skilled and that of women as unskilled, thus establishing an association between masculinity and skill. Game and Pringle consider the relationship between gender identity and technological change and ask what happens when mechanization occurs? He argues that men’s skill is seen to be built into machines, that there is a conscious association between machines, especially large machinery, deemed appropriate for men. There are some ironies in this.

His writings on white goods manufacturing (washing machines, stoves and refrigerators) look at a whole set of polarities that define the difference between men’s work and women’s. These include: skilled/unskilled, heavy/light, dirty/clean, dangerous/boring, mobile/sedentary. While new technology is making all work look like ‘women’s work’, new distinctions (technical/non-technical) are merging to justify the ongoing sexual division of labour.

Linda McDowell (1992) returns to the impact of recent changes on two areas of ‘women’s work’ – the labor market and the home or community, and argues that women, however, are still portrayed as ‘secondary’ workers. Yes, they are an increasingly important part of the labor market. United Kingdom. This increased centrality, however, runs against greater demands on them as ‘care and service’ workers in the home as the welfare state restructures, and the effects of increasing the overall workload for many women in the United Kingdom in the 1990s treats. Whether this will lead to a wider change in the structure of gender relations is an open question.

Since the 1970s, many accounts of women’s domestic activities have been produced from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Some authors such as Selma James and Mariarosa Della Costa (1972) attack the Left for being too narrowly focused.

 

 

 

Some argued for wages for factory, and household work, while others argued that this would only confirm women’s employment in the domestic sphere. Socialist feminists were more interested in women and employment than radical feminists, which is perhaps not surprising given the traditional socialist emphasis on women’s liberation through the inclusion of women in social production. Supports all forms of feminist, liberal, socialist and radical, anti-discrimination legislation and equal opportunity programs

are

The separation of men’s work and women’s work between the labor market and the home, but also within wage labor, has developed historically.

Chris Middleton (1988) has demonstrated that patriarchal forms of division of labor predate industrial capitalism, findings which he suggests ‘will no doubt be received as meat and drink by those who believe in the existence of an autonomous system of patriarchy’. believe in and want to claim its independence.

 

of the mode of production and of the class structure. Middleton herself rejects the idea that patriarchy is an autonomous structure and emphasizes the ways in which both gender and class relations are historically constituted and intertwined in particular places at given times. It is clear that the construction of the category ‘women’s work’ in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is linked to the ambiguity of women’s classification as dependents and their contribution to family enterprises. For example, in Victorian England, behind the ideology of separate spheres for men and women, much of the work in the home continued to be done by women. And of course there were large numbers of working class women in various types of paid employment.

2022 SOCIOLOGY-COMPLETE SOLUTIONS

SOCIOLOGY IN ENGLISH: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuVMyWQh56R3KgAeBpmbY8Gv6201xh2dQ

Production Versus Reproductive Work of Women:

An investigation into the role of the Western housewife in production and reproduction clarified the work of women elsewhere. In the Third World and parts of advanced capitalist societies, women were shown to be directly engaged in productive labor during their domestic work. This is particularly clearly shown in the case of African women, but there is also overwhelming evidence from all other parts of the world to show the contribution of women to food production, processing and distribution, animal care, craft work and community development. (Slocum: 1975); Rogers: 1980; Bujra: 1986, Roberts: 1984). Women were once identified as workers, not as a worker

 

 

 

Wives and mothers, it became very easy to recognize the extent and variation of male dominance around the world. Social differences between men’s work and women’s work concealed divisions in access to land, knowledge skills and other resources, control over labor, and rights to dispose of what was produced. By making women’s labor (and especially women’s unpaid labor) visible, feminists could show how this work had become devalued in relation to men, though not in any equal or harmonious way.

A distinction between arguments that apply to all capitalist societies everywhere and those that are specific to particular capitalist societies in particular historical periods, however, has not always been carefully drawn. Marxist feminists also treated women in capitalist society as if they were full-time housewives or workers. It ignored the extent to which women engage in these conflicting fields of work throughout their working lives.

 

The need for a more careful qualification of generalizations was brought home in the form of work on production and reproduction in the Third World (Radclift: 1985). In the 1980s, more historically specific knowledge emerged of the complex relationships experienced by women in the processes of production and reproduction and the relationship of these processes with the activities of the state (Elson and Pearson: 1981; Balbo: 1987). .

The gendered structure of capitalist labor markets ensured a sexual division of labor at work. Women were less valued as workers than men, with access to a more limited range of work. Men benefited from this status and played a role in maintaining it (Cockburn: 1983).

 

Some Marxist feminists argued that women were a reserve army of labor, available to work outside the home where insufficient men were available. The problem with this view is that women in advanced capitalist societies are a pool of child labor rather than a reserve army of labor in the sense defined by Marx (Bruegel: 1979). Marx (1976) argued that it was a necessary mechanism of the capitalist system that an industrial reserve army could be brought in when additional labor was needed, to prevent wage growth from eating into profits. This labor could be redeployed when the demand for labor decreased. Women remain a paradoxical form of cheap labor in advanced capitalist societies, as they have to be maintained even when they are in paid work, and have rights to housing, health care, education, pensions, etc. However, these rights are increasingly being curtailed by Thatcherism in Britain in the 1980s. Women’s cheap or part-time labor rarely directly replaces men’s

 

 

 

Expensive or full-time labor due to the extent of gender segregation in the labor market. The argument also requires specific qualifications in different parts of the world based on the structure of labor markets and women’s rights to maintenance from the state.

Women’s work is oppressive with respect to their pay levels and working conditions. There are limited work options available for women. They lack access to skills, and male activities in the home and workplace ensure that women do not leave work

masticatory area without conflict (B

Rman: 1979; Cockburn: 1983; Westwood: 1984). Work, status and rewards became linked to the relative power of men and women in the home and women’s responsibility for children. The impact of technology on domestic labor then occurred in ways that have reinforced rather than relieved women’s responsibility for domestic labor (Ravets: 1987).

Making women’s oppression visible through work clarified the links between production and reproduction, but left many problems in the explanation of how and why these links formed, and how and why they differ. Nicholson (1987) suggests these not as characteristics of all societies, but as a historical (987) development, which led liberals to differentiate between family and state and Marxists to differentiate between production and reproduction. The inability of the Marxist concept of production to take gender into account leaves feminism with the problem of explaining the various ways in which women’s work is oppressive.

 

Production and reproduction :

What mothers really do with their time has been one of feminism’s most dramatic revelations. Once feminists turned their attention to women inside and outside the domestic sphere, it became very clear that most women lived lives of more or less constant labor. Although ridiculed at first (Mainardi: 1980). Feminists set out to seriously consider housework as an area of unpaid labor in capitalist societies. Marxist feminists took up the domestic labor debate, first in empirical and historical studies (Oakley: 1974) and then in the more abstract domestic labor debate. Women’s work in the domestic sphere was shown to be much more than the work of the private household. It was revealed as a work of social and economic importance, and showed a place in the systematic oppression of women (Kaluzynska: 1980).

 

 

 

Feminists were then faced with another situation in which knowledge of women’s familiar, everyday world was insufficient due to a lack of concepts that could explain it. Feminists used Marxist concepts of production and reproduction in an attempt to include women’s work in the production of children, hot dinners, clean shirts, and emotional support, as well as their paid labor. While the conceptual separation of women’s work in production and reproduction encouraged knowledge of women’s work in both areas, this dualism also created problems (Adholm et al, 1977).

In the 1970s the concept of reproduction was one of the more abstract and controversial areas of Marxist feminism (influenced by the work of Althusser) because it was difficult to specify in general how the ideology of sexual subordination interacted with the organization of production and reproduction. does the action. While Marxist analysis should be applicable to any mode of production, and some feminists have raised this point, Marxist feminism has focused specifically on the general features of the oppression of women in Western capitalism. This has created a lot of problems with generalization.

Obviously there cannot be a universal answer to why women’s work is considered less than men’s that will always be valid in every historical situation, but Marxist feminists seek a general framework of explanation, And they did so sometimes at very little cost. Abstract level. Women were not only workers inside and outside the home; They also physically reproduced and nurtured the future labor force within families as mothers. Women helped reproduce and maintain the social structure of capitalism. Marxist feminists then found women’s oppression in the family, homosexuality and marriage, as did radical feminists, but also in the production system and in the context of state activities.

The concepts of production and reproduction set women as workers on very different terms to men. Work studies exposed an unequal sexual division of labor inside and outside the home, which did not have its own history and ideology. The questioning of the dichotomy of the private and public domains necessitated a more direct conceptualization of women’s work both in the home and in the public sphere. The nature of work allotted to women could not be separated from their general subordination. Feminists began to assess concepts of work, and in particular the idea that ‘real work’ took place outside the home in organized productive activity. Women’s work at home became visible in meeting the needs of the household and in reproducing the labor necessary for production.

 

 

  The changing relationship between production and reproduction:

The massive and permanent entry of women into the labor market … poses a challenge to conservative arguments, whether from a feminist perspective. The circumstances of the 1980s cast doubt on the need for domestic labour, whether for capital or for individual men. The disappearance of family wages in recent years of economic change means that fewer and fewer

Men can afford the services of a full time homemaker. And capital has discovered that the exploitation of women’s cheap labor maintains the level of profit. Overall, you can calculate the amount of domestic labor in the economy.

Can be reduced without Da. The male employees still seem capable of doing their jobs without cooked breakfasts and ironed clothes. Although it is women who continue to do the majority of domestic labor … the total number of hours worked has declined in the majority. By definition, women who work for wages have less time for other pursuits. But a massive shift has also fueled the capital’s indifference to what is going on at home. The importance of labor force produced in situ has declined.

The state, unlike capital, is dependent on women’s unpaid labor in the field of reproduction. This is seen most clearly in the movement towards ‘community care’ rather than institutional provision for the elderly, disabled and seriously ill. In the debate about community care there has been a familiar juxtaposition of moral responsibility and individual achievement as well as collective provision which exhausts the initiative.

The welfare state and benefits system in Britain is dependent on an idealized gender division in the nuclear family that no longer exists. This dependence of women on men in the welfare sector has strengthened in a decade when changes in the economy have increasingly challenged it. This contradiction between reorganization in the spheres of reproduction and production has, so far, been contained by greater investment of female labor in both spheres. But the resulting ‘social momentum’ is not infinitely expandable.

The seeds of a crisis, but also of struggle and reconstruction, lie in this contradiction. In the post-Fordist era the relationship between industrial organization and the institutions of social regulation is being restructured in a paradoxical way that centers gender relations. Women’s labor force is an increasingly important element in both production and reproduction. Capital has resolved the contradiction between the short-term prerequisites of the economy for cheap female labor and the long-term requirements for social reproduction, in favor of the former. At the same time the state is withdrawing from the latter sector as well.

 

  This contradiction has so far been resolved by an individually affluent minority purchasing goods and services for reproduction in the market and increasing dependence on the labor of individual women in almost all households.

Competing and conflicting needs and interests regarding women’s roles in the home and in the labor market create new cleavages and create scope for new alliances. Any ‘economic’ analysis that ignores the centrality of the gendered division of labour, and neglects domestic work, child care and support of a growing dependent population, is an inadequate explanation of the nature of contemporary industrial reorganisation. Nor can such an analysis lead to a political understanding of how such restructuring can be challenged.

 

  Domestic work Women’s domestic work:

Feminists interested in work are concerned with the sexual division of labor, the allocation of tasks based on sex. It establishes the work of women and men both at home and in the paid workforce, as well as the subordination of ‘home’ to ‘work’. The gender division of labor cannot be understood in purely economic terms. It also has sexual and symbolic dimensions. It is not only imposed on people but comes as part of a social package in which it is presented as right, natural and desirable. Our identity as masculine or feminine is tied to it.

Domestic labor can have a timeless quality about it, a job that women have always done. But apparently this has changed dramatically. the concept of ‘housewife’; One who stays at home and takes care of the household, husband, and children is essentially a modern woman—before the twentieth century few women had this option, other than the affluent with domestic servants. The advent of running water, gas, electricity, refrigerators and washing machines, dishwashers and microwave ovens, and the decline of domestic service have markedly influenced the nature of domestic work, which is now lighter than it used to be like factory work. has gone. But whether it is less time-consuming, or more widely shared, is debatable.

 

 

 

One thing that doesn’t seem to be changing is that most women do it, even if the contribution of other household members has changed. Even the most biological functions of childbirth have been affected by technology, while changes in decisions about the number, timing and spacing of children have affected childcare responsibilities.

 

Women now have fewer children than in the past, but it can be argued that they are expected to devote more attention to child care.

Mental and emotional well-being compared to the past. While technology now tends to remove much domestic labor, the expectations of the home as a dimension of personal fulfillment have given it a new set of meanings. Rather than simply being ‘hard work’, it has sexual, emotional and symbolic significance. Yet, there are indications that the time spent by women in the paid workforce on housework is declining; Husbands and children do not seem to be lifting more, but women are doing less (Hartman: 1981).

Feminist strategies focused on the interrelationship of family and production in capitalist societies.

Tried to analyze. It was clear that inequalities at work were related to inequalities at home.

 

Women’s wage work was constructed as secondary, their wages viewed as pin money; Often their paid work was considered an extension of what they did at home—office wives, service and care work. But equally clearly, inequality at home was linked to their employment choices. Without equal provision of jobs and child care, a woman has no choice but to find herself primarily as wives and mothers. Recent changes in the economy and welfare sector also raise the question to what extent contemporary capitalist societies are based on the old model of an adjustment between capital and patriarchy. Socialist feminists see the world as a bargain between men and capital, based on support for the traditional nuclear family, in which a wage-earning man is served by the domestic labor of a home-based woman, and the welfare state. Institutions bargained. But it now seems that the ideal male workers of earlier eras, who worked solidly at a single job their whole lives, are no longer needed, and capitalists can make more profit from women’s labor, without society Collapsible if the beds are not made on time, the men do not have hot dippers everyday. Socialist feminists may have to re-evaluate theories of the relationship between capitalism and domestic labor, between the family and the welfare state.

One of the most notable features of the change in the nature of domestic labor has been the decline of productive work explicitly done in the home (for example, making cloth for bottling fruit and making jams) and replacing it with a production of goods, commodities and services. Bought the series in the market. For example, home cooking, as Ehrenreich noted,

 

 

 

Food is being displaced from food purchased at fast food outlets or other types of restaurants, most clothing is now purchased off-peak rather than made by women at home, and other activities, such as cleaning and child care, are also purchased. Can This ‘commodification’ of domestic labor has been intensified by the entry of women into the labor market. Paradoxically, at the same time, other types of goods are being purchased and used at home to replace previously market-based goods.

 

Music systems and video recorders are good examples here, as are DIY prerequisites. Rosemary Pringle suggests that these home-based activities are regarded as ‘leisure’ rather than ‘work’ and while ‘production’ is considered a qualifying activity. Consumption becomes trivial. He suggests that we should break away from this identification of work with production and consider the labor processes of consumption. Nevertheless, it is clear that the home is still the center of work for women and an increasing part of this is so-called community care.

9.8 Feminization of Work

Sociologists divide people’s lives into ‘work’ (paid employment), ‘leisure’ (time when people choose what they want to do) and ‘duty time’ (periods of sleep, eating and other necessary activities). Huh. Feminists have pointed out that this model reflects the male view of the world and is not necessarily consistent with the experiences of most women. This is partly because unpaid domestic labor is not recognized as work – it is ‘hidden’ labor – and partly because many women participate in some leisure activities outside the home. It is not only the organization of work that is based on gender but also the cultural values with which paid work and domestic labor are attached; Paid work and the workplace are largely seen as the domain of men, the home as that of women. Rosemary Pringle summarizes some of these issues when she states that:

Although the home and private life can be romanticised, they are generally considered to represent the ‘feminine’ world of the personal and emotional, the concrete and the ‘special’, of the domestic and sexual. The public world of work sets itself up as the opposite of all these things: it is rational, ‘abstract, ordered, concerned with general principles, and of course, masculine… For men, home and work are both opposites and complementary. Huh. [For ladies)

Home is not a respite from work but another workplace. For some women work is actually a respite from home!

 

 

 

Most classical sociological studies of paid work were for example male coal miners, affluent assembly line workers, male clerks, or salesmen – and, until

More recently, the findings of these studies formed the ’empirical data’ on which to base sociological theories about the attitudes and experiences of all workers. Even when women were included in the samples, it was (and still is) assumed that their attitudes and behavior differed little from men, or that married women were seen as working for pin money. was seen; Paid employment is being seen as ‘secondary relative to their domestic roles’.

However, a growing body of feminist and pro-feminist research has challenged these assumptions, and sociologists are increasingly considering the relationship between gender, work, and organization.

provided a more detailed understanding of, and in particular how men and women have different work experiences.

 

Feminists have argued that domestic labor is work and should be treated as such. She has also stated that most women do not take up paid employment for ‘pinmoney’, but rather out of necessity, and that paid work is seen by many women as meeting important emotional and identity needs. This does not mean that women’s experiences of paid employment are the same as men’s, however, and feminists have highlighted the many ways in which work is gendered.

In Britain, for example, 46 percent of people in the labor market are women. However, 44 percent of women in employment and only 10 percent of men work part-time. Average hourly earnings are 18 percent lower for women working full time, and 40 percent lower for women working part time than for women working full time. 52 percent of mothers of children under five are unemployed, compared with 91 percent of fathers of children under five. There are 4.5 children under the age of 8 for every location registered with a childminder, in full daycare or out of school clubs. Modern apprentices in hairdressing and early years care and education are predominantly female, while those in construction, engineering and plumbing are predominantly male. Women are by far the majority in administrative and secretarial (80 percent) and personal service jobs (84 percent), while men hold most skilled trades (92 percent) and process, plant. and machine operative jobs (85 percent). Feminist sociologists have tried to explain these patterns in terms of a number of concepts, especially the sexual division of labor.

 

care and support work

Many women are expected to care not only for their husbands and children but also for other dependents, and generally for people in the community in a voluntary capacity. Women

 

 

 

As Janet Finch (1983) has demonstrated, this goes beyond the wives of managers and businessmen, who are expected to entertain on behalf of their husbands. This labor benefits the employer. Finch also notes that in many professional occupations, women often “support” or substitute for their husbands in more peripheral aspects of their work (in the case of clergy, politicians, and so on). Goffey and Case (1985) ) have suggested that wives play an important role in helping self-employed husbands, who are often heavily dependent on (unpaid) clerical and administrative work performed by their wives. Wives are often seen as ‘self-made’. are forced to give up their own careers to reduce the male’s efforts. In addition, given the long hours’ self-employed men often work, many wives are left to cope with children and household responsibilities alone. is left for.

 

Sallie Westwood and Parminder Bhachu (1988) point to the importance of (unpaid) female relationship labor in Black and Asian business’ communities in the UK, although they also emphasize that a business is a joint venture between husband and wife. There can be strategy.

Women are also expected to care for elderly or dependent relatives. However, some feminists have criticized the concept of ‘caring’, arguing that it detracts from the reciprocal nature of many caring relationships. Other feminists have noted that the policies of ‘community care’ (as opposed to care in institutions), which have been advocated by successive governments since the 1950s, have a hidden agenda for women. Such policies, which often involve closing or not providing large-scale residential care, often assume that women are ready to take on the responsibility of care.

 

Furthermore, research shows that the majority of caregivers of elderly or dependent relatives committed to providing care on a long-term basis are women. While it is generally suggested that ‘where possible care should be provided by the family’, in practice this often means that care is provided by women within families. It is commonly believed that caregiving is part of a woman’s role and that women are natural caregivers.

Sally Baldwin and Julie Twigg (1991) summarize the key findings of feminist research on care work and indicate that ‘informal’ care work reflects

• that care for non-spousal dependents falls primarily to women;
• that it is not shared substantially by relatives, statutory or voluntary agencies

 

that it creates burdens and material costs that are the source of significant inequalities

 

 

 

 

 

gender gap :

• Although the focus on gender difference is a minority position in contemporary feminism, some influential contributions to modern feminist theory take this approach (Baker Miller, 1976; Burnico, 1980; Gilligan, 1982; Kessler and McKenna, 1978; Ruddick, 1980; Snitto , 1979). There are also research papers (Masters & Johnson, 1966; Height, 1976) with findings on male/female differences that have deeply influenced contemporary feminist thought. Contemporary Literature on Gender Differences

The central theme is that the inner mental life of women, in its overall configuration, is different from that of men. in their core values and interests (Rudick, 1980), the way they make

 

 

 

• value judgments (Gilligan, 1982), their formulation of achievement motives (Kauffman and Richardson, 1982), their literary creativity (Gilbert and Guber, 1979), their sexual fantasies (Height, 1976; Redway, 1984; Snitto, 1983), In their sense of identity (Law & Schwartz, 1977), and their general processes of consciousness and selfhood (Baker Miller, 1976; Kasper, 1986), women have a distinct vision and a distinct voice for the construction of social reality. The second theme is that the overall configuration of women’s relationships and life experiences is unique.

 

• women relate to their biological offspring differently from men (Rossi, 1977; 1983); boys and girls have distinct styles of play (Best, 1983; Lever, 1978); Adult women relate to each other (Bernico, 1980) and to women’s studies as scholars (Asher et al., 1984) in unique ways. In fact, the life experience of women from infancy to old age is fundamentally different from that of men (Bernard, 1981). This in conjunction with the literature on differences in consciousness and life experience offers a unique answer to the question, “What about women?” The second question, “Why?” Picking up identifies key lines of variation within this overall focus on gender differences. There are essentially three types of explanation of psychological and relational differences between women and men: biological, cultural or institutional, and largely constructed, social psychological.
• In this context, this chapter deals with theories of gender inequality in relation to biological explanation, cultural explanation and Marxist interpretation of inequality. In the following chapter, we would like to explain the feminist and postmodernist perspective of gender inequality.

 

 

• Biological explanation of sex differences :
• The biological perspective says that the sexual division of labor and inequality between the sexes are determined to some extent by some biological or genetically based differences between men and women.
• Biological explanations have been helpful for stereotypical thinking on gender differences. Freud traced the different personality structures of men and women to their different genitalia and the cognitive and emotional processes that begin when children discover their physical differences.
• Clearly women are biologically different from men. Although there is disagreement about the exact nature and consequences of this distinction, some sociologists,

 

 

 

• Anthropologists and psychologists argue that this is sufficient to explain the basic sexual division of labor in all societies. Contributions to the explanation of gender inequality from a biological perspective are given below.
• Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox – The Human Biographer:
• Contemporary sociologists Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox (1971) write of “biogrammers” as determining variables in early hominid development that motivated females to bond emotionally with their infants and males to bond pragmatically with other males. does. The Biogrammer is a genetically based program that primes mankind to behave in certain ways. These predispositions are not the same as instincts because they can be greatly modified by culture, but they are fundamental influences on human behavior. Partly they are inherited from the primate ancestors of man, partly they evolved during the existence of man in hunting and gathering bands.

 

• Tiger and Fox argue that it is reasonable to assume that, to some extent, he is genetically adapted to
• Life. Although the biogrammers of men and women are similar in many ways, there are important differences between them. Tiger and Fox argue that males are more aggressive and dominant than females. These characteristics are genetically based; Specifically they result from differences between male and female hormones. These differences are partly due to genetic inheritance from man’s primate ancestors, partly due to genetic adaptation to a hunting way of life.

 

• Males do the hunting which is an aggressive activity. They are responsible for the band’s security and for alliances or wars with other bands. Thus, men monopolize positions of power. By comparison, females are programmed by their biogrammers to reproduce and care for children. Tigger and Fox argue that the basic family unit consists of mother and child. In his words, “Nature intended mother and child to be together. It does not matter particularly how this basic unit is supported and protected. This may be in addition to the single male, as that in the case of the nuclear family, or by the impersonal services of a welfare state.
• George Peter Murdock – Biology and Pragmatism :
• Murdock (1949) sees biological differences between men and women as the basis for the sexual division of labor in society. However, he does not suggest that men and women are guided by genetically based predispositions or characteristics to adopt their particular roles.

goes. Instead, he merely suggests that biological differences, such as the greater physical strength of men and the fact that women bear children, drive gender.

 

 

 

• Roles out of sheer practicality. Given the biological differences between men and women, the sexual division of labor is the most efficient way of organizing society. In a cross-cultural survey of 224 societies ranging from hunting and gathering bands to modern nation states, Murdock examines the activities assigned to men and women. He finds tasks such as hunting, lumbering and mining to be predominantly male roles, tasks such as cooking, gathering, carrying water and making and repairing clothes to be predominantly female roles. Women are tied to the home base because of their biological function of childbearing and parenting. Murdock found that the sexual division of labor is present in all societies in his sample and concluded that the advantages inherent in the division of labor by gender probably account for its universality.

 

• Talcott Parsons – Biology and the ‘expressive’ woman :
• Parsons (1959) sees the isolated nuclear family in modern industrial society as specializing in two basic functions: the socialization of youth and the stabilization of adult personalities. For socialization to be effective, a close, warm and supportive group is essential. The family fulfills this need. Within the family, the female is primarily responsible for socializing the young. Parsons turns to biology to explain this fact. He states that the fundamental explanation of the allocation of roles between the biological sexes lies in the fact that the birth and rearing of children establishes a strong presumptive primacy of the mother’s relation to the younger child. Moreover, the absence of the husband and father from the premises of the house for such a long time means that they have to shoulder the primary responsibility of the children. Parsons characterizes the woman’s role in the family as ‘expressive’ meaning that she provides warmth, protection and emotional support. This is essential for effective socialization of youth. They argue that for the family as a social system to operate efficiently, there must be a clear sexual division of labor. In this sense, the supporting and expressive roles complement each other. Like a button and buttonhole, they snap close together to promote family togetherness. Although Parsons goes far beyond biology, this is his starting point. Biological differences between the sexes provide the basis on which the sexual division of labor is based.
• John Bowlby – The Mother-Child Bond:

 

• John Bowlby (1946) has examined the role of women, especially their role as mothers, from a psychological point of view. Like Parsons, he argues that a mother; place in it

 

 

 

• Home, caring for your children, especially in their early years. Bowlby conducted several studies of juvenile delinquents and found that the youngest experienced psychological distress and separation from their mothers. Many grew up in orphanages and as a result were deprived of maternal love. They appeared unable to give or receive love and were forced to embark on careers of destructive and anti-social relationships. They conclude that it is essential for mental health that ‘the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate and continuing relationship with their mother’. Bowlby’s arguments imply that there is a psychological need for a close and close mother-child relationship genetically. Thus the role of the mother is strongly associated with the woman.
• wine.
• Biological arguments have also been used in writings more sympathetic to feminism. Masters and Johnson’s exploration of the anatomy of female sexuality has given feminist theorists the fundamentals to rethink the whole question of the social patterning of sexuality, and Lyce Rossi (1979; 1983) has focused heavily on the biological foundations of gender-specific behavior. attention from. Rossi linked the different biological functions of males and females to different patterns of hormonally determined development over the life cycle and this, in turn, accounts for sex-specific differences such as sensitivity to light and sound and differences in the left and right brain. . She feels that these differences feed into the different patterns of childhood noted by Carol Gilligan (1982), Janet Lever (1978) and Rafaela Best (1983); for the famous female “math-anxiety”, and also the obvious fact that ermines are more sensitive to caring for infants than males. Rossi’s feminism seeks to compensate for biologically “given” disadvantages, through social education, but as a biosociologist she also argues for a rational acceptance of the implications of biological research.
• Second. Gender Inequality: Cultural Theory:
• Cultural interpretations of gender differences often place too much emphasis on the specific tasks of women and the care of infants. This responsibility for motherhood is seen as a major determinant of the wider sexual division of labor that typically ties women to the functions of wife, mother, and domestic worker, to the private sphere of home and family, and thus to events. and differs greatly from men by a lifelong range of experiences. this setting

n this, women develop specific interpretations of achievement, specific interests and values, characteristics but also the skills necessary for openness in relationships.

In this, women develop specific interpretations of achievement, specific interests and values, characteristics but also the skills necessary for openness in relationships.

इसमें महिलाएं उपलब्धि की विशिष्ट व्याख्याएं, विशिष्ट रुचियां और मूल्य, विशेषताएं विकसित करती हैं बल्कि रिश्तों में खुलेपन के लिए आवश्यक कौशल भी विकसित करती हैं।

In the U.S., women develop specific interpretations of achievement, specific interests and values, characteristics but also the skills needed for openness in relationships.

“caring for others”,

 

 

 

• and special networks of support from other women (mothers, daughters, sisters, co-wives and friends) who live in their different regions. While some institutional theorists of difference accept the sexual division of labor as a social necessity (Berger and Berger, 1983), others recognize that separate areas for women and men lead to gender inequality (Bernard, 1981; Kelly -Godol, 1983) or even be embedded within a wider pattern of victimization (Rudick, 1980).
• Many sociologists begin with the assumption that human behavior is largely guided and determined by culture, which is the learned prescriptions for behavior shared by members of a society. Thus norms, values and roles are culturally determined and socially transmitted. From this perspective, gender roles are a product of culture rather than biology. Individuals learn their respective male and female roles. The gender division of labor that gender roles are normal, natural, right, and appropriate.
• Ann Oakley – Cultural Division of Labour:
• Ann Oakley, a British sociologist and supporter of the women’s liberation movement, came down strongly in favor of culture as a determinant of gender roles. Her position is summarized in the following quote, ‘The division of labor by sex is not only universal, but there is no reason why it should be so. Human cultures are diverse and endlessly changing. They owe their creation to human ingenuity rather than to invincible biological forces. Oakley First takes Murdock to task by arguing that the sexual division of labor is not universal, not that some tasks are always performed by men, others by women. She biases Murdock’s interpretations of her data because she tolls on other cultures through both Western and male eyes.

 

o Specifically, she claims that the pre-judicial role of women in the context of the Western housewife-mother role. Oakley examines a number of societies in which biology has little or no influence on women’s roles. The Mbuti Pygimes, a hunting and gathering society who live in the Congo rainforest, have no specific rules for the division of labor by sex. Men and women hunt together. There is no special difference in the role of father and mother. Both sexes share the responsibility of caring for the children.

o Among Australian Aborigines in Tasmania, women were responsible for seal hunting, fishing, and catching opossums (free-living mammals). Turning to present-day societies, Oakley notes that women are an important part of many armed forces, notably those of China, Russia, Cuba, and Israel. Thus, it shows that there are no specific female roles and that biological characteristics do not prevent women from having specific jobs. he is regarded as a myth 

2022 SOCIOLOGY-COMPLETE SOLUTIONS

SOCIOLOGY IN ENGLISH: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuVMyWQh56R3KgAeBpmbY8Gv6201xh2dQ

 

• ‘The biological inability of women to do heavy and demanding work’. Oakley also attacks Parsons and Bowlby’s arguments by pointing to the kibbutz to show that systems other than the family and the role of the female mother can effectively socialize the group. Using the example of Alor, an island in Indonesia, Oakley shows how in this and other small-scale horticultural societies, the world
• Males are not bonded to their offspring, and this has not been shown to have any harmful effects on children. In traditional Aloris society, women were largely responsible for the cultivation and collection of vegetables. This involved him spending a lot of time away from the village.

 

o Within a fortnight after the birth of their child, women returned to the fields leaving the infant in the care of a sibling, father or grandparents. Turning to Western society, Oakley rejected Bowlby’s claim that an ‘intimate and constant’ relationship between mother and child was essential to the child’s well-being. Shane notes that a large body of research suggests that the employment of another has no detrimental effect on a child’s development. Some studies indicate that children of working mothers are less likely to be delinquent than children of stay-at-home mothers. Oakley is particularly harsh in his attack on Parsons’ view of the family and the role of the ‘expressive’ woman in it. She accuses him of basing his analysis on the beliefs and values of his culture, and especially the myths of male superiority and the sanctity of marriage and family. They argue that the expressive housewife-mother role is not necessary for the functioning of the family unit. It exists only for the convenience of men. They claim that Parsons’ interpretation of gender roles is only a valid myth for ‘domestic subjugation of gender roles’, a valid myth for ‘domestic subjugation of women’. Finally, Oakley concludes that gender roles are culturally, not biologically, determined.

 

o Bruno Bettelheim is a psychotherapist specializing in child development. His study of group parenting in Ekibutz indicated that close, independent socialization was necessary for effective socialization.

Can be reduced without Da. The male employees still seem capable of doing their jobs without cooked breakfasts and ironed clothes. Although it is women who continue to do the majority of domestic labor … the total number of hours worked has declined in the majority. By definition, women who work for wages have less time for other pursuits. But a massive shift has also fueled the capital’s indifference to what is going on at home. The importance of labor force produced in situ has declined.

The state, unlike capital, is dependent on women’s unpaid labor in the field of reproduction. This is seen most clearly in the movement towards ‘community care’ rather than institutional provision for the elderly, disabled and seriously ill. In the debate about community care there has been a familiar juxtaposition of moral responsibility and individual achievement as well as collective provision which exhausts the initiative.

The welfare state and benefits system in Britain is dependent on an idealized gender division in the nuclear family that no longer exists. This dependence of women on men in the welfare sector has strengthened in a decade when changes in the economy have increasingly challenged it. This contradiction between reorganization in the spheres of reproduction and production has, so far, been contained by greater investment of female labor in both spheres. But the resulting ‘social momentum’ is not infinitely expandable.

The seeds of a crisis, but also of struggle and reconstruction, lie in this contradiction. In the post-Fordist era the relationship between industrial organization and the institutions of social regulation is being restructured in a paradoxical way that centers gender relations. Women’s labor force is an increasingly important element in both production and reproduction. Capital has resolved the contradiction between the short-term prerequisites of the economy for cheap female labor and the long-term requirements for social reproduction, in favor of the former. At the same time, the state is retreating from the latter sector as well.

 

  This contradiction has so far been resolved by an individually affluent minority purchasing goods and services for reproduction in the market and increasing dependence on the labor of individual women in almost all households.

Competing and conflicting needs and interests regarding women’s roles in the home and in the labor market create new cleavages and create scope for new alliances. Any ‘economic’ analysis that ignores the centrality of the gendered division of labour, and neglects domestic work, child care and support of a growing dependent population, is an inadequate explanation of the nature of contemporary industrial reorganisation. Nor can such an analysis lead to a political understanding of how such restructuring can be challenged.

 

  Domestic work Women’s domestic work:

Feminists interested in work are concerned with the sexual division of labor, the allocation of tasks based on sex. It establishes the work of women and men both at home and in the paid workforce, as well as the subordination of ‘home’ to ‘work’. The gender division of labor cannot be understood in purely economic terms. It also has sexual and symbolic dimensions. It is not only imposed on people but comes as part of a social package in which it is presented as right, natural and desirable. Our identity as masculine or feminine is tied to it.

Domestic labor can have a timeless quality about it, a job that women have always done. But apparently this has changed dramatically. the concept of ‘housewife’; One who stays at home and takes care of the household, husband, and children is essentially a modern woman—before the twentieth century few women had this option, other than the affluent with domestic servants. The advent of running water, gas, electricity, refrigerators and washing machines, dishwashers and microwave ovens, and the decline of domestic service have markedly influenced the nature of domestic work, which is now lighter than it used to be like factory work. has gone. But whether it is less time consuming, or more widely shared, is a matter of debate.

 

 

 

One thing that doesn’t seem to be changing is that most women do it, even if the contribution of other household members has changed. Even the most biological functions of childbirth have been affected by technology, while changes in decisions about the number, timing and spacing of children have affected childcare responsibilities.

 

Women now have fewer children than in the past, but it can be argued that they are expected to devote more attention to child care.

Mental and emotional well-being compared to the past. While technology now tends to remove much domestic labor, the expectations of the home as a dimension of personal fulfillment have given it a new set of meanings. Rather than simply being ‘hard work’, it has sexual, emotional and symbolic significance. Yet, there are indications that the time spent by women in the paid workforce on housework is declining; Husbands and children do not seem to be lifting more, but women are doing less (Hartmann: 1981).

Feminist strategies focused on the interrelationship of family and production in capitalist societies.

Tried to analyze. It was clear that inequalities at work were related to inequalities at home.

 

Women’s wage work was constructed as secondary, their wages viewed as pin money; Often their paid work was considered an extension of what they did at home—office wives, service and care work. But equally clearly, inequality at home was linked to their employment choices. Without equal provision of jobs and child care, a woman has no choice but to find herself primarily as wives and mothers. Recent changes in the economy and welfare sector also raise the question to what extent contemporary capitalist societies are based on the old model of an adjustment between capital and patriarchy. Socialist feminists see the world as a bargain between men and capital, based on support for the traditional nuclear family, in which a wage-earning man is served by the domestic labor of a home-based woman, and the welfare state. Institutions bargained. But it now seems that the ideal male workers of earlier eras, who worked solidly at a single job their whole lives, are no longer needed, and capitalists can make more profit from women’s labor, without society Collapsible if the beds are not made on time, the men do not have hot dippers everyday. Socialist feminists may have to re-evaluate theories of the relationship between capitalism and domestic labor, between the family and the welfare state.

One of the most notable features of the change in the nature of domestic labor has been the decline of productive work explicitly done in the home (for example, making cloth for bottling fruit and making jams) and replacing it with a production of goods, commodities and services. Bought the series in the market. For example, home cooking, as Ehrenreich noted,

 

 

 

Food is being displaced from food purchased at fast food outlets or other types of restaurants, most clothing is now purchased off-peak rather than made by women at home, and other activities, such as cleaning and child care, are also purchased. Can This ‘commodification’ of domestic labor has been intensified by the entry of women into the labor market. Paradoxically, at the same time, other types of goods are being purchased and used at home to replace previously market-based goods.

 

Music systems and video recorders are good examples here, as are DIY prerequisites. Rosemary Pringle suggests that these home-based activities are regarded as ‘leisure’ rather than ‘work’ and while ‘production’ is considered a qualifying activity. Consumption becomes trivial. He suggests that we should break away from this identification of work with production and consider the labor processes of consumption. Nevertheless, it is clear that the home is still the center of work for women and an increasing part of this is so-called community care.

9.8 Feminization of Work

Sociologists divide people’s lives into ‘work’ (paid employment), ‘leisure’ (time when people choose what they want to do) and ‘duty time’ (periods of sleep, eating and other necessary activities). Huh. Feminists have pointed out that this model reflects the male view of the world and is not necessarily consistent with the experiences of most women. This is partly because unpaid domestic labor is not recognized as work – it is ‘hidden’ labor – and partly because many women participate in some leisure activities outside the home. It is not only the organization of work that is based on gender but also the cultural values with which paid work and domestic labor are attached; Paid work and the workplace are largely seen as the domain of men, the home as that of women. Rosemary Pringle summarizes some of these issues when she states that:

Although the home and private life can be romanticised, they are generally considered to represent the ‘feminine’ world of the personal and emotional, the concrete and the ‘special’, of the domestic and sexual. The public world of work sets itself up as the opposite of all these things: it is rational, ‘abstract, ordered, concerned with general principles, and of course, masculine… For men, home and work are both opposites and complementary. Huh. [For ladies)

Home is not a respite from work but another workplace. For some women work is actually a respite from home!

 

 

 

Most classical sociological studies of paid work were for example male coal miners, affluent assembly line workers, male clerks, or salesmen – and, until

More recently, the findings of these studies formed the ’empirical data’ on which to base sociological theories about the attitudes and experiences of all workers. Even when women were included in the samples, it was (and still is) assumed that their attitudes and behavior differed little from men, or that married women were seen as working for pin money. was seen; Paid employment is being seen as ‘secondary relative to their domestic roles’.

However, a growing body of feminist and pro-feminist research has challenged these assumptions, and sociologists are increasingly considering the relationship between gender, work, and organization.

provided a more detailed understanding of, and in particular how men and women have different work experiences.

 

Feminists have argued that domestic labor is work and should be treated as such. She has also stated that most women do not take up paid employment for ‘pinmoney’, but rather out of necessity, and that paid work is seen by many women as meeting important emotional and identity needs. This does not mean that women’s experiences of paid employment are the same as men’s, however, and feminists have highlighted the many ways in which work is gendered.

In Britain, for example, 46 percent of people in the labor market are women. However, 44 percent of women in employment and only 10 percent of men work part-time. Average hourly earnings are 18 percent lower for women working full time, and 40 percent lower for women working part time than for women working full time. 52 percent of mothers of children under five are unemployed, compared with 91 percent of fathers of children under five. There are 4.5 children under the age of 8 for every location registered with a childminder, in full daycare or out of school clubs. Modern apprentices in hairdressing and early years care and education are predominantly female, while those in construction, engineering and plumbing are predominantly male. Women are by far the majority in administrative and secretarial (80 percent) and personal service jobs (84 percent), while men hold most skilled trades (92 percent) and process, plant. and machine operative jobs (85 percent). Feminist sociologists have tried to explain these patterns in terms of a number of concepts, especially the sexual division of labor.

 

care and support work

Many women are expected to care not only for their husbands and children but also for other dependents, and generally for people in the community in a voluntary capacity. Women

 

 

 

As Janet Finch (1983) has demonstrated, this goes beyond the wives of managers and businessmen, who are expected to entertain on behalf of their husbands. This labor benefits the employer. Finch also notes that in many professional occupations, women often “support” or substitute for their husbands in more peripheral aspects of their work (in the case of clergy, politicians, and so on). Goffey and Case (1985) ) have suggested that wives play an important role in helping self-employed husbands, who are often heavily dependent on (unpaid) clerical and administrative work performed by their wives. Wives are often seen as ‘self-made’. are forced to give up their own careers to reduce the male’s efforts. In addition, given the long hours’ self-employed men often work, many wives are left to cope with children and household responsibilities alone. is left for.

 

Sallie Westwood and Parminder Bhachu (1988) point to the importance of (unpaid) female relationship labor in Black and Asian business’ communities in the UK, although they also emphasize that a business is a joint venture between husband and wife. There can be strategy.

Women are also expected to care for elderly or dependent relatives. However, some feminists have criticized the concept of ‘caring’, arguing that it detracts from the reciprocal nature of many caring relationships. Other feminists have noted that the policies of ‘community care’ (as opposed to care in institutions), which have been advocated by successive governments since the 1950s, have a hidden agenda for women. Such policies, which often involve closing or not providing large-scale residential care, often assume that women are ready to take on the responsibility of care.

 

Furthermore, research shows that the majority of caregivers of elderly or dependent relatives committed to providing care on a long-term basis are women. While it is generally suggested that ‘where possible care should be provided by the family’, in practice this often means that care is provided by women within families. It is commonly believed that caregiving is part of a woman’s role and that women are natural caregivers.

Sally Baldwin and Julie Twigg (1991) summarize the key findings of feminist research on care work and indicate that ‘informal’ care work reflects

• that care for non-spousal dependents falls primarily to women;
• that it is not shared substantially by relatives, statutory or voluntary agencies

 

that it creates burdens and material costs that are the source of significant inequalities

2022 SOCIOLOGY-COMPLETE SOLUTIONS

SOCIOLOGY IN ENGLISH: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuVMyWQh56R3KgAeBpmbY8Gv6201xh2dQ

 

OUR TOP COURSES 

 

1.

This course is very important for Basics GS for IAS /PCS and competitive exams

 

**Army*

*Police**

*Group c*

*Forest guard*

 

*

https://www.udemy.com/course/gk-gs-course-for-all-competetive-exams-in-two-months/?couponCode=BC88E2C64C8ABDBB959E

 

2.

 

*Complete General Studies Practice in Two weeks*

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/gk-and-gs-important-practice-set/?couponCode=CA7C4945E755CA1194E5

 

3.

 

**General science* *and* *Computer*

 

*Must enrol in this free* *online course*

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/computer-and-science-practice-set/?referralCode=048E245C40 xxx76D77B987A

 

4.

 

**English Beginners* *Course for 10 days*

*

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/english-beginners-course-for-10-days/?couponCode=D671C1939F6325A61D67

 

 

5.

 

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY

समाजशास्त्र का परिचय

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/social-thought-in-english/?couponCode=1B6B3E02486AB72E35CF

 

 

6

 

.SOCIAL THOUGHT IN ENGLISH*

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/social-thought-in-english/?couponCode=1B6B3E02486AB72E35CF

 

7.

ARABIC BASIC LEARNING COURSE IN 2 WEEKS

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/urdu-to-arabic-basic-learnings-in-2-weeks/?couponCode=8E9A6484C86EAD0337C4

 

8.

Beginners Urdu Learning Course in 2Weeks

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/learn-hindi-to-urdu-in-2-weeks/?couponCode=6F9F80805702BD5B548F

 

9.

Hindi Beginners Learning in One week

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/english-to-hindi-learning-in-2-weeks/?couponCode=3E4531F5A755961E373A

 

10.

Free Sanskrit Language Tutorial

 

 

 

https://www.udemy.com/course/beginners-sanskrit-learning-course-in-one-week/?referralCode=ED0999261E938E52F663

 

 

Follow this link to join my WhatsApp group: https://chat.whatsapp.com/Dbju35ttCgAGMxCyHC1P5Q

 

Join Teligram group

https://t.me/+ujm7q1eMbMMwMmZl

 

Join What app group for IAS PCS

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GHlOVaf9czx4QSn8NfK3Bz

 

Join Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/masoom.eqbal.7

 

Instagram link

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cdga9ixvAp-/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=