Indian Work_Life Balance & Progress.
At Work or Jobs (For status & money) office Roles are mostly Non-Gendered as its about brain and handiwork (except few domains which are Body-based work eg. Soldiers, Labourers, Bollywood, Sex Workers, etc). Industries Where one gender can replace other gender for Money-making, (Competitive and Cooperative people thrive get more money for themselves). Roles like- Worker, Manager, CEO.. etc.. Memes Based.
But at Home or Family (For Progeny & Harmony) Home Roles are Mostly Genders as its about body, kids and clan building. (Here Gender Roles cant or are hard to be replaced by other genders, since its are & body based roles.. eg. Romance, Intimacy, Maritals,..(Roles are.. Husbandship, Wifeship, Reproductive-partnership, Fatherhood, Motherhood, Grandparents etc.) its Gene-based.
What if I told you that a single income once provided a home, a car, and a comfortable life for an entire family?
One shift in the economy made sure that would never happen again.
Here’s how they used feminism to double the workforce, slash wages, and turn two incomes into a necessity.
In the 1960s, a factory worker, teacher, or small business owner could afford a house, raise a family, and retire comfortably—all on one income.
Today, two full-time salaries barely cover rent.
What changed?
Feminism was pushed as a movement of “empowerment,” but who really benefited when women flooded the workforce?
- Corporations gained double the labor supply.
- Wages stagnated, as the market became saturated with workers.
- Taxes doubled because the government now had two incomes to tax instead of one.
Before the 1970s, businesses had to pay men enough to support a family.
But once women entered the workforce, the market became flooded with workers, and wages stagnated.
- Instead of one paycheck being enough, families now needed two just to keep up with rising costs.
- What was sold as “choice” was really a necessity, as the middle class became financially dependent on dual incomes.
The result? A shift from financial independence to a system where families were stuck in the grind to survive, rather than thrive.
In the 1970s, a home cost 2-3 times the average yearly income.
By the 2000s, that price had skyrocketed to 7-10 times the average income.
- Banks, investors, and landlords adjusted prices to accommodate the rise of dual-income households.
- What was once a middle-class goal—homeownership—became an unattainable dream for many.
Instead of seeing a rise in wealth, families were locked into an endless cycle of debt, with owning a home no longer a symbol of success, but a financial burden.
With both parents working, someone had to raise the children.
Enter daycare, public schools, and media indoctrination.
- Children were no longer raised by their families, but by institutions and strangers.
- The system shaped young minds, grooming them to accept the new reality and lose connection with family values.
The result? A generation of kids raised by the state, with family stability eroded, and parental influence fading.
To keep people distracted, they were sold an illusion of happiness through consumerism.
- Credit cards, loans, and vacations were marketed as the key to fulfillment.
- Instead of families building generational wealth, they were pushed into debt, working harder than ever to sustain an image of success.
While banks and corporations profited, families found themselves trapped in the perpetual rat race, endlessly chasing a dream they could never fully reach.
So, who really won?
- Corporations gained double the workforce without raising wages
- Banks created a nation of lifelong debt slaves
- Government doubled its tax revenue overnight
- Investors and landlords made homeownership out of reach for most
But, the average person? OVERWORKED, UNDERPAID, and ROBBED of the comfortable life their grandparents had.
UNDERSTAND THE MATRIX & Learn to Escape it.
BullyWood Big Boss Effect.
On the topic of corny bollywood stuff made in the 80s (and 90s), let me draw your attention to this particular song…..
The lyrics go like….
“Bahut Khoobsurat Jawan Ek Ladki
Sadak par akeli chali Jaa Rahi thi
Fakat naam ke usne pehene they kapade
Ajanta ki moorat nazar aa rahi thi
Koi manchala ussey takara gaya
Mere doston tum karo faisala
Khata kiski hai, kisko de hum sazaa”
For those who don’t understand Hindi, the lyrics literally mean….
A beautiful young girl was walking down the street alone
She was wearing clothes only for name aka skimpy clothes
A wanton dude happened to collide with her
So you, people, need to decide who is actually at fault here and who should be punished.
This song was right after a scene where a sarong wrapped Zeenat Aman gets eve teased by a wayward guy and goes to the Police station where the Inspector (Amitabh) while arresting the guy, gives her a huge lecture on morality and how she should have dressed more appropriately.
The song literally justifies victim blaming, puts the onus of sexual harassment on the victim (provocation) and gets the people to judge against the woman instead of the perpetrator.
This song is from the movie Dostana, which became one of the super hit movies in 1980.
In the movie the song was sung by Amitabh Bachchan.
The original singer was Kishore Kumar
The lyrics were by Anand Bakshi
The music was by Lakshmikant Pyarelal.
And the song was a runaway hit too.
I remember a time when I was singing this song, I was around 14ish then and a big fan of Kishore da and my Mom told me to not sing it.
I loved the tune, I loved the song, I loved Kishore Kumar, so I didn’t understand why I shouldn’t sing it.
That was probably because I didn’t try and understand the lyrics back then.
Now whenever I listen to this song, I can’t help but cringe and quickly shut it off.
Disclaimer: This song is a classic representation of how the “rape culture” in India was validated and justified through Bollywood.
Darshan Mondkar
GRP_VCare2Dare 