A couple of lines in Broowaha writer Randy Mitchell’s “Image is not everything” article went on like this: “My husband has never made enough money for me to be happy, I wish he’d change jobs or do something else”… the words were spoken in a disappointing almost in angry tone…. perhaps his lack of money and earning power had caused her to become bitter and resentful. Further the words “I wonder how long my marriage would last if I were to loose my job?” impressed me equally. That means he is suspecting that if he is to lose his job his wife will leave him. So the relationships have become that much brittle, if there is no money relations might end at any moment. So, wife and husband relationships in the present society are being dictated by money, and money itself has become a criteria for smooth relationship between a wife and husband, at least for some period, unless and until some other natural primordial factors in man-women relationship, comes in the way.
As I understood from the wordings of the writer and in cross-cultural social observations that a woman any where in the world, always wants that his man must acquire and accumulate money more and more for her happieness. If more and more money is acquired by him, he would be respected despite his unnatural behaviour or habits, and if not more money is acquired by him he would be humiliated with derogatory words, despite his honorable behaviour. So a man’s money is criteria for quite a good majority of women, or in another words, woman gives value to the Wallet of men, but not to the men (specifically husbands). Without expecting more and more money earning from husband, wives gererally do not care and share anything with the husbands. Refuting this is very easy. But we can understand this very clearly if we deeply snoop into the personal lives of many middle class and poor peoples’ lives in the society.
If you go back to the history right from the “Adam and Eve” incident and into the subsequent phases of history, you will find that behind every man’s ups and downs there were women. But, only the wording that “Behind every man’s success there is a woman” had acquired greater importance, whenever the men-of-achievement generously stated that behind his success his wife’s role was there (I’m exempting mother’s role, because mother’s role is quite different and above and all conditions and do not expect returns). He ascribes his success to his wife. Not only this, men also usually, never exposes their wife and ascribes anything against her of his down fall or if any problems are being faced by him. For instance: if an Officer in a Bureaucracy is caught red handed when taking huge bribe, or when he being a public servent, caught for having accumulated disproportionate assets in discharge of his duties, he would be suspended from public service. He would face prosecution in the court, but he would never depose evidence before the court that “there is my wife behind my corruption” for whose pleasure and to provide luxuries to her and on her prompting, he has resorted to such corrupt activity.
I know personally there is a Judicial Magistrate, whose wife’s avarice made the Magistrate to get deviant from the Judicial uprightness and to acquit the culprits discharged from crimes, he used to take money from backside and ultimately caught redhanded and he was suspended from the judicial service, but he says outside world that he had taken voluntary retairment. He became scapegoat due to his wife’s avarice for luxuries and comforts that prompted him to corruption and led to his suspension. Many officers in the Bureaucracy are being suspended from the services for their corrupt activities, upon the prompting of their wives. This situation is going unnoticed since long time. The women beind the corruption would rest in home, while her husband sits in prison counting prison rods.
Where is the need for man to earn more and more money if he has no ‘she’? If you question a young man, for whose sake you are trying to earn more and more money, he replies to spend for his girl friend, or to get married with a beautiful girl who comes forward to marry him only if he is earning well. Or if a man is already married, if you aks for whose sake you are earning more and more money, he says for my family. Family means wife first, chidren next. For soothing and satiating the materialistic desires of his wife he will earn more money, either by hook or by crook. And the children who come through her would also share that money for their needs. Otherwise, a solo man needs how much money to eat and how much space he needs to rest? Any amount beyond his nominal eating and living capacity goes to his wife only. If ‘she’ is not there, there is no need for ‘him’ to earn more and more money at disproportionate levels, by violating the law. So when he is acquiring and accumulating money by violating law, in discharge of his duties, means he is having ‘she’ and with her prompting and to satiate her, he is earning illegally.
In fact, despite economic recession and growing prices any middle class women can lead happy life normally within their means, if unhealthy desires for owning whatever modern things are seen in the market, is checked. If avarice is grown to own everything that is seen glittered, then pressure would mount on husbands to buy them for wife, by resorting to illegal money acquiring methods.
So, we must honestly admit as if ‘Behind every man’s success there is a woman, behind every man’s corruption there will be a women’. By dchaitanya