Charlotte Perkins Gilman argued for the need for women empowerment through economic independence. Her 1898 manifesto, Women and Economics, promoted a radical shift from the tradition of gendered occupations. In her view, the conventional wisdom at her time was not only hurting females but also men and families as well. She opined that the elimination of hurdles would have a positive influence on motherhood, marriage, as well as the production of goods and services (Gilman, 2017). Ladies were already seeking employment opportunities in large numbers, including in areas which were considered to be for men (May & Dimand, 2019). It is clear that women have long believed that economic independence is the best approach to dealing with gender inequality.
Economic Dependence and Gender Inequality
Gender inequality and economic dependence have a mutual effect on one another. Therefore, a society that pursues one of them inevitably ends up with the other. By staying at home and depending on the man for survival, a woman is condemned into a subservient status. She and her children are vulnerable because their livelihood is dependent on the husband’s whims. This is not the case in families where wives are gainfully employed (Carella & Ackerly, 2017). In a scenario where the wife is employed, either of the parents has the means of supporting themselves as well as other dependents, and this is the most remarkable benefit of emancipation.
My grandmother was a stay-at-home mom and, based on her accounts, such life was unappealing. She did not have the freedom to please her family as she would have wanted to. On the contrary, my mother has had the liberty to pursue her needs as well as happiness. I am of the view that my mom’s life has been more fulfilling than the one of her mother. In addition to improving personal lives, the economic liberation of women is also good for the economy. Where inequality persist, labor force participation is notably reduced and approximately half of the population’s talents remain underutilized (Gilman, 2017; May & Dimand, 2019). As females become gainfully employed, the level of productivity increases across the board.
At the organizational level, women tend to help diversify viewpoints and approaches, which a firm utilizes to attain its organizational goals. My personal experience is that there is multiplicity of perspectives within a work environment that is comprised of female participants. Their involvement sparks creativity, which seems to be the basis for innovation. Moreover, I believe that women help firms to spot and seize opportunities. Having them on board tends to improve group collaboration, and when this is multiplied in a significant number of companies, a nation’s economic performance is enhanced (Carella & Ackerly, 2017; Gilman, 2017). It was a mistake to romanticize the gendering of occupations, and this process might have hindered the socioeconomic progress of countries across the world.
Conclusion
Gilman’s efforts to challenge gender stereotypes were relevant because this happened at a time when the audience was receptive. A significant number of women had started to seek employment beyond the limits, which had been imposed by the traditions. The progress towards economic independence has improved the lives of female members of the society, as well as those of their children. They now have the liberty to pursue happiness in a manner that was impossible at the time when they had to depend on their male counterparts for existence. The emancipation has also been beneficial to employers and the economy at large.
References
Carella, A., & Ackerly, B. (2017). Ignoring rights is wrong: re-politicizing gender equality and development with the rights-based approach.International Feminist Journal of Politics, 19(2), 137–152. Web.
Gilman, C. P. (2017). Women & economics: The economic relation between men and women as a factor in social evolution. e-artnow
May, A. M., & Dimand, R. W. (2019). Women in the early years of the American economic association: A membership beyond the professoriate per se.History of Political Economy, 51(4), 671–702. Web.