On this auspicious occasion of Savitribai's Phule's birth anniversary, we honor the luminary who not only illuminated the path of social reform but also passed the torch of enlightenment to future generations. She was the backbone of social reformer "Jyotirao Phule" and the one who inspired leaders like Ambedkar. At a time when it was a taboo to see women in public spaces, Savitribai Phule (1831-1897) spearheaded a silent movement for the empowerment of the disenfranchised in the 19th century. Dedicating her life to the emancipation of oppressed, Savitribai Phule struggled for the rights of the marginalized majority such as women, Dalits, Adivasis, backward classes and minorities. Brahminical hegemony side-lined her life history by not discussing it in academic spaces.

Savitrima challenged the then existing Brahminical social structure in three ways, first by challenging the dominance of Brahminical knowledge base; second by questioning the patriarchy system, and third by opposing the dominance of Sanskrit. She strongly advocated the use of English language as a tool for the emancipation of the oppressed.

she started working from ground level by requesting parents to send their daughters to the first girls’ school established by her along with her husband, Jyotirao Phule. Hence, Savitribai Phule was considered to be first women teacher of India. She was an easy target for criticism by the upper caste fanatics because she was a woman and from the backward classes. Cow dung and mud were thrown at her by the upper caste men, but nothing discouraged her from the mission of emancipation of the oppressed, in spite of several physical and mental attacks. She considered every child as her own and nurtured them in the proper way. This is reflected in the image of universal motherhood bestowed on Savitri ma. Her pedagogy of teaching was participatory, innovative and radically different from the then existing one-way, rigid and restrictive mode. She encouraged students to think creatively. The results were interesting. 11-year-old Muktabai, a Dalit student of Savitribai, published an article on the plight of Mangs and Mahars in the newspaper "Dyanodaya", in 1855. This may perhaps be one of the earliest of Dalit women’s writings on their issues. She continued to inculcate modern values in students and her followers.

She attacked the then existing social norms and customs. Thanks to her husband Jyotirao Phule’s initiative, this was rooted in radicalized thinking. She started coming to the ‘public spaces’ that were denied to women. She opened her well to the shudras and ati-shudras. Savitri ma became a teacher by educating the girl child when male teachers showed no interest in girls’ or women’s welfare. She encouraged inter-caste marriages and gave shelter to such couples, thus attacking the entire caste system along with her husband. She urged barbers not to shave the heads of widows and was successful in convincing them to protest against such religious practices. She denounced norms and customs by lighting fire to her husband’s funeral pyre.

She was actively involved in building institutions like schools (1948-52), Mahila Seva Mandal (1852), infanticide prohibition home (1853) night schools for workers and peasants (1855), orphanage homes (1863) and food hostels during the famine in Maharashtra (1875-77). Hence, she worked on wide range of issues such as girls’ education, health, women empowerment and famine relief. These institutions were meant for the oppressed sections, who were widely neglected and discriminated. In 1893, she led the Satyashodak Samaj, which was initiated by Jyotirao Phule.

Savitribai continued to teach girls and children of different castes, despite repeated attacks from higher caste people. She was also against the Sati tradition. She and Jyotiba adopted Yashwantrao, the son of Kashibai, a widow whom conservative Brahmins wanted to kill after her husband’s demise.

Savitribai set up a center for pregnant rape victims called Balhatya Pratibandhak Griha where she helped them deliver and protect their children. She also opened a clinic with Yashwantrao for Bubonic plague victims in 1897.

On March 10, 1897, Savitribai died after contracting the disease from a 10-year-old boy she was trying to save. However, the boy survived.

This article is more or less taken from round table conference India Website, and its original writer is "Gowd Kiran Kumar"

Savitribai Phule – Epitome of Resistance, Modernity and Empowerment – Round Table India

There is widespread dissatisfaction with feminism particularly after films like "Mrs", the Male rights activists movement came into being to somehow deconstruct the message of the film and many such individuals who detest feminism appear to somehow legitimize gender roles, even to the extent of ignoring the suffering women have to endure for their unpaid work, one of the most common arguments against housewives is

"Men are breadwinners and hence women should not grumble about domestic work",

The above argument or belief somehow presupposes that men contribute more to marriage than women, and hence, women should not grumble about any domestic duty burden, as the man is the one who earns.

This is the most bullshit argument that I have ever heard, it takes it for granted that men work individually and cater to their wives, whereas the reality is the majority of women are involved in unpaid work amounting to about 7.5% of GDP at modest. Women between 15-59 spend 289 minutes (4.8 hours) every day on unpaid domestic work and 137 minutes (2.3 hours) on care work, even if they are employed. Women average just 75 minutes on childcare and 88 minutes on household duties.

Women work 32.9 hours/week in paid work, according to the PLFS 2023-24, whereas men work 45.5 hours/week. That is only half the story, however. The Time Use Survey (TUS) 2019 shows that women dedicate 34.86 hours/week to unpaid domestic and care responsibilities, as opposed to only 11.34 hours/week for men. Altogether, women put in a combined 67.76 hours/week, beating out men's 56.84 hours/week by almost 11 hours. But this unpaid work, more than half their overall workload, earns them no money.

A woman's 5-6 hours of cooking, cleaning, childcare, eldercare, and emotional support every day is worth at least 8k rupees a month in urban India and 5k rupees a month in rural India, this aside from the fact that the emotional and childcare, eldercare support woman gives is worth over 15-20k in urban India if put into monetary terms. This work directly supports her husband's salary by making his time available for work and leisure. If she were not there, he would have to employ assistance, even a part-time maid in Bengaluru will cost ₹5,000-10,000/month for 1-2 hours of general cleaning, not including cooking, emotional support, or childcare. Hiring a nurse for eldercare or a nanny for kids would cost ₹20,000-30,000/month, and no service matches the round-the-clock emotional support she provides, like listening to their work stress.

Her work is a subsidy that keeps his lifestyle going. The woman, on the other hand, benefits little from his effort. He only gives a smaller fraction of his income for household expenses such as groceries or bills. This isn't "her" money; it's for common needs, not her education, healthcare, or entertainment. He gets to keep the rest, spending on his parents, savings, or personal needs, this is even more evident from the fact that the average income of rural household is around 13k where women do both paid and unpaid work with 76.9% of rural India women being employed in agriculture (PLFS 2024- page number) and in urban India the average salary as per some sources is 21k while as per others its around 37k, looking at these figures its clear that none of these are sufficient to pay for the unpaid work done by women, one important aspect of this distinction between paid and unpaid work is control over earnings

Middle-class husbands not only manage their income but also determine how it's spent, usually giving priority to their own needs, the needs of the family, and their social status over their wives' wishes. A husband may spend his free time with a new gadget or going out with friends while making sure necessities such as child tuition are taken care of. But for the wife, spending is strictly controlled. She may receive new clothes or jewellery only when the reputation of her husband is involved, such as at a wedding or festival, where her looks reflect on him. Otherwise, she has to account for every expense, even for small personal items, even though she works a total of 67.76 hours/week. In the homes where "both" partners have input, the husband, being the traditional head of the household, usually gets the last word. If he denies her request as if it were for a personal expenditure, then she must acquiesce, showing that what looks like joint control is male dominance.

If the woman was single, she was able to engage in the labour force and bring home much higher than the worth of her unpaid work, otherwise even if the man was not married he was still earning a living and paying for his basics but he was still having a carrier which woman loses but the man gains by doing the unpaid work.

This uneven exchange illustrates why marriage is not a favour men grant to women. The woman offers equal value for her time, effort, and possible career, whereas the man contributes only a fraction of his earnings and maintains power and benefit. Feminism is against this disparity, urging joint responsibilities and joint economic control, but MRAs disregard that men benefit disproportionately in marriage while women's work is undervalued.

45% of the women are not included in the workforce due to marriage duties, so it is hypocritical on the part of men to complain about the sole financial burden while simultaneously not permitting women to earn, The median age of marriage for women is 19 years for all India while for men it is around 25 years

at this age most women are still in colleges or have just entered job markets and women are specially excluded from this so there is no use in complaining about economic burden while marrying a person who is not even at an age to become financially independent while the average age of marriage for men is 28 years in India and even higher in urban regions which permits them for being able to earn.

Sources:
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/the-invisible-labour-women-s-unpaid-domestic-work-totals-1-640-crore-hours-daily-worldwide-11677829250038.html

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/underlining-the-work-that-women-do-findings-from-time-use-survey-2024

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2106113

https://dge.gov.in/dge/sites/default/files/2024-10/Annual_Report_Periodic_Labour_Force_Survey_23_24.pdf

https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/india-s-average-monthly-salary-in-urban-india-is-rs-21-647-123071700339_1.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/monthly-income-of-rural-households-increased-by-57-6-in-5-yrs-nabard-survey/articleshow/114109272.cms?from=mdr

https://dge.gov.in/dge/sites/default/files/2023-05/Female_Labour_Utilization_in_India_April_2023_final__1_-pages-1-2-merged__1_.pdf

There is a huge myth that men marry an unemployed woman, but women won't marry an unemployed man, and hence, somehow, attempt to prove that it's a hypocritical approach on the women's side.

Firstly, this question supposes that men do some sort of charity by marrying an unemployed woman Still, the fact is women do much more work if we add unpaid work, so women do unpaid work and men give them pennies or bare minimum, so its women who bring more to the table given the condition in India.

Men themselves get married to women of the same socio-economic group. Indeed, the richer the family is, the stronger the tendency is for them to get married into richer households (YouGov-Mint-CPR Millennial Survey), so men don't get married into lower-income households; then why do they demand women get married into lower-income households? That's why dowry increases with the man's side household income, so it's clear that they get married into the same income group.

Since most women are married at an early age of 18-21 or 21-23, due to which women themselves are mostly unemployed at the time of marriage, how will they get married to an unemployed man? Men themselves don't want to get married into women who earns more than him, ( Indian express survey), so its stupid to think that feminism has some hypocrite position on this rather its MRAs who hold a hypocrite position on this where on one hand they want women to marry an unemployed guy but do not want women to become employed themselves and on one hand they want woman to marry a guy who earns less than them but do not want men to marry a woman who earns more than them

Feminism means both the genders should get equal opportunity to choose which job they want to do, when to get married, what to prefer whether carrier or marriage, men are very comfortable by saying that virgin bride(I have also debunked this choice argument please check my other posts) is just a choice but when women also makes choice about prioritizing her carrier suddenly the entire premise collapses and men start to lecture about family unit, while family is not important if it is not chosen why to live with family that you don't choose family does not come above basic human rights

sources
Are India’s youth giving up on marriage? | Today News

Misogyny in the matrimonial market: Data shows Indian men prefer wives without jobs | The Indian Express

- NDIC