It was the noted playwright author William Shakespeare who popularised the phrase ‘Ides of March’ — the day on the Roman calendar that corresponds to March 15. It acquired notoriety as the date of assassination of Julius Caesar in 44BC. And the ides of March continued to be the most talked about date in the month of March. So much so, that an American political drama film was made with the same name in 2011. But with the United Nations declaring March 8 as the International Women’s Day the ides of March seems to be losing its place in terms of popularity. As the UN made this year’s campaign theme ‘Be bold for a change’ resonate around the globe a question that cropped up was why do we celebrate International Women’s Day and for whomIJ Is it just a symbolism or a serious endeavourIJ This may not be easy to answer and definitely not a politically correct way to raise an issue. But with many sections of the media making a lot of noise and some of the newspapers coming out with a pink front page and masthead, it appeared as if individuality is still not considered equality. Women’s day celebrations veered around the women achievers, or that is what these women who appeared prominently on the media on international women’s day were termed. Shrieking headlines and catchy slogans all appeared to sing paeans about the accomplishment of the exceptional few. But in the process a gross injustice was meted out to the large majority, the silent class and the real foundation of the societal edifice — the housewife, the homemaker. There is an old saying that not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted. So in the process of counting what could be counted, society missed the point that everything that cannot be counted also counts. It is something like ignoring the contribution of someone like Jonty Rhodes in the one-day cricket. In fact, these days’ experts admit that sloppy fielding is as significant an aspect as batting or bowling in a game of cricket. Catches win matches and runs saved are as crucial as runs made. In case of housewives this can be explained with the help of the concepts of Economics like opportunity cost, replacement cost and the hidden costs such as peace, health and development of children. This is in no way to undermine the importance of the working women but to suggest that the house wife is no less a contributor in the family income and the society. It was some three decades back that a leading business magazine quoted a British survey asserting that the value of a wife was around £ 230 per week. It also quoted the Chase Manhattan Bank claim that a wife was worth US $754 a week. The count is immaterial. What counts is that the count should not be discounted. The methodological considerations notwithstanding, it has to be borne in mind that much of what goes on within the house in unrecorded. Measuring the worth of wife or mother per se is not the issue. What is important is the economic and the psychological services provided by these ladies who are considered not working, yet keep on working. The first to get up and the last to sleep this woman counts a lot and must be counted.
The writer is a professor of management and public speaker. He can be reached at ppathak.ism@gmail.com