I am writing this article not for me to be viewed as a chauvinist but out of compassion for the struggle that the female gender is staring in the name of feminism. Lets begin with the functionality of gender in the society. God has created two genders with individual social responsibilities. They have their own chemical, biological and hence physical limitations on each other. A man is not given the physical ability to reproduce while he is capable of more strenuous work. The "equality of the genders" needs to be an understanding that comes through education and not through a social mob struggle.

By fighting for the so called rights, I pity the women who are doubling their efforts of existence. They cannot dispense their motherly instincts. At some point of time they need a man in their life. They need to think about a family as a conviction for a social living. Having said that about women, I also stress the need for a women in a man's life. The man needs her more than a woman needs him. The existence is mutual. No one is superior to the other.

I do not say that women should not go to school. Education is the only means that people can understand the idea of equality. The priority is what matters. For a women, and her smooth living , the social responsibility needs more attention than her corporate personality. A women in social responsibility fills the position of her partner's mother to pour affection, a sibling that can understand his anger vents and above all be a good partner too. When the adaptation needs quite a substantial amount of time, the smoothness of the operation is hindered by the choice of pursuing corporate goals. Is it not double work now for the women? Work for a company and work for the family...? The struggle seems to me like a means of escaping family responsibility more than struggle for equality.

I see the "career" women affecting the society in two ways. They will not be satisfied with equality. They ask for more. A female manager in the Fortune #7 looks for a partner in Fortune #1.As an effect, not only have they contributed to the increase in competition towards the survival of the fittest but have mounted more pressure on the the more responsible gender of the society. The other aspect is their neglect of the social responsibility that soon vents out as frustration. From the aspect of the males, they need to view it as a responsibility to house a family and not restrict the freedom of his dependents. Its difficult but I perceive it smoother than the struggle.

There is one understanding and everything else will fall in place.

Let me get this clear. According to you a woman who is career oriented is actually trying to ge away from her duties that lies within her family??? And also that though women should go to school they should not be employed according to their educational capability. Right?

The crux of the analysis is:

Is the struggle for gender equality worthy from both gender's perspectives? Social and corporate responsibilites are hard to be taken care of at the same time. The more the equality the more is the pressure on women and hence on men. I am talking in general terms and scene. Don't look at the women in metros, spare some thought over the struggling women of the sub-urban and rural areas.

"Struggling women of the sub-urban and rural areas?" I dont understand what you mean by this but I think that career oriented women lay more emphasis on their "corporate goals" because they want to be independent and fulfill their dreams. Its not merely a fight for equality amongst men and women. If men strive for high corporate goals then cant women have the same thing? Giving their ambiton the name of "escaping family responsibility more than struggle for equality" is wrong and unfair to the business woman of todays world! Are women bound to their so-called social job of taking care of their family??(which I think was given to women by men in the stone age because of their physical inferiority and lack of strength.) At least thats what I think you were trying to potray. If you meant to convey something else then please feel free to explain what you meant.

Don you are correct but if a woman desires to compete with man then they can do so because man are not in position to stop the advancement of woman.
Infact it is benificial for man in long run..

The structure of society is changing from rural to urban areas..more woman in work force.it is infact good for economy of family ..

I may sound selfish but i respect the working woman their hardwork to be equal bread winner for the family at the same time taking care of the childeren and family(womanly gifts)If not again woman suffer - broken family - kids- kids and Job..Man have tendency of running away from these (not all though)
therefore who benefits??

From all these MAN benefit, double responsibility on woman whereas MAN still get by having less responsibilty in house hold as they are not gifted(excuses).

You did not get the gist it seems or may be I was not transparent enough. Anyways, the thing is, I urge you and other readers to view this in a broader sense. I was not against the gender equality myself but with timely analysis, I have gathered more rationale and hence this article.

The gender-based social structure that our forefathers had been living with is changing w.r.t. time. Women used to be an integral part of the family and social loop. With education impartment and technological advances, women are becoming more career-oriented which is heartening. But, we have not been able to look at the negativities which are brought about by this social reformation.

1) Most of the career oriented women have family crisis (in one form or the other). Research have shown that.

2) Incompetent women are rising because of gender advantage. Sometimes capable men have to sacrifice their opportunities for women. So this has brought about negative impact on men's right. Where is the equality?

3) If you go to sub-urban or rural places (say eg. in Ktm itself), most of the women who work in offices are lazybones, who either knit sweaters, or gossip about what they cooked in the morning. The reason is simple. \They get exhausted with an overwhelming family and social obligations so inefficiencies at work is evident.

I can write on and on, however let me see if you have any objection or need any clarification on these readings.

Correct !!!even then it's ok...hehehe i want my wife to work(knit sweaters at work ) and make some $$$ also work at home..heheh(i am such a selfish,lazy ass)

On serious note:i see what you are saying but if you tell this to woman .be ready to face some sandals and nails ..hehehe

Woman of nepal don't only need 33% they need 50% reservation..And i have always said ..reservation or affirmative action is not effective method !!!!

well , but here is the deal ..a sexy lady walks for interview and their is this guy for interview..requirement of the job is such that you don't need rocket scientist anybody who is willing to work and has bachelors can do it..SO would you hire this sexy gal or this boring Guy??????
What i have seen ..Woman managers hire mostly woman and Freaking male managers also hire woman..heheheh

Don.Corleone,

you mentioned what women should actually be doing and what men should do. well and good. BUT this is not 16th century. one person cannot earn enough for a living. if it's hard for a woman to work at home as well as office then HELP HER WITH HER HOUSEHOLD WORKS!!!!! encourage men to be more supportive to their mothers/wives/sisters to help her out in the unbalanced society like nepal. not all homes are unfair to women, but MAJORITY of women don't have choice in nepali society.

For men and women who try to compete with each other. God help them!!!

Give me a break. Women empowerment is here to stay. Embrace it or get left out.

I do think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Why make so much fuss about career-oriented women? Look, men don't care about women's intellectual capacity. In an ideal scenario for a man, which would be one of financial security, what's coveted is a hot body that's shaped like a coke bottle, or an hour glass, that comes with big breasts, preferably with silicone implants, and a nice tight butt that can make one's eyes pop right out of the sockets. This subject has been beaten to death. The consensus basically, from all the research papers I have read on this issue, seems to be that while women seem to go for the wallet and the security, men go for the beauty. Judging from your fortune # 7 vs fortune #1 example, you probably think that someone in the fortune #15 will stand virtually no chance vis a vis fortune #1. That is probably true, but what you should realize is that a male who's making a lot of money would not want an ugly woman with brains; he is more than likely to find himself a beautiful woman who may even be dumber than a suitcase of rocks. For example, consider Howard Stern. He divorced his wife of 20 some years--his college sweetheart-- only to date a supermodel countless years younger than him. And how about Hugh Heffner? The ugly hombre is leading a pretty hedonistic lifestyle, what with all the playboy pets he can get his hands on. And Larry Flynt pulls no punches either. Now, I do confess that there are some folks out there who really do stick with their highschool sweethearts and what have you through thick and thin. These folks are pretty rare. Of all people, Salman Rushdie, the balding curmudgeon, is dating a hot Indian broad. Ravi Shankar cheated on his wife and got it on with some White woman, only to produce the very sultry Norah Jones( and I must say I'm quite thankful for that philandering decision of his).
As far as the rest of us middle class are concerned, I say the difference is minimal at best. If you're middle class, then you're not much different from a middle class female who's just a notch or two above you.
The really, really smart females really, really have a hard time finding their soul mates. Condoleeza Rice will die like she was born if you ask me. And what about Harriet Myers? The conclusion basically is that being supersmart is a curse for a woman. You and I know that they would happily trade brains for beauty if God gave them the power to do so.

Why would Elizazabeth Hurley marry a fugly Indian businessman were it not for the money. Girls want diamonds, peals and necklaces. They are gold-diggers by nature. There is nothing wrong with being a gold-digger, because that is the genetic predilection of women in the first place.

men dont care about women's intellectual capacity.....just ask rajkpandey who advertises here every now and then.

On a note of levity, smart women like Condi seem to choose dumb men like George : - http://www.wonkette.com/politics/white-house/the-bushcondi-rumors-an-update-182711.php

Really RPU??? ahem.... i didn't know that..thanks for the info. why do people commit the sin of generalizing? siva siva...

Rajk Pandey..is good man ..he is trying to see that he cares about those thing but he will settle for anything..

There are some points ...RPU 's are good..

Anyways woman are here to stay ..hehehe we need them more than they need us.On average woman have lower IQ , lower job competency..blah blah blah...etc..but
i will still hire woman ..cause they are good looking objects(oh my god !!!what did i just say) hehehe..i really don't think that please don't mis understand me :) here is the reasons:

Well there are very positive aspects of having female in work place:they always talk at work and make life litlle interesting beside work, they are fun , they like going for lunches and you get chance to socialize, they bring goodies at work so you have free breakfast.Woman are more loyal and stable worker.And i believe in equal rights :)no seriously... woman should work at office and work at home too.

so would i be right if i say men are lazy bones...they only know how to sit on sofa and sip on beer?

men have more muscles so men should work more...both at home and office....anyone wants to argue against my statement???

sajhauser, human - men/women have about 640 named muscles in their body, so we(men) do not have more muscles than you(women). same quantity. Muscle strength could be different?

on a serious note:
Don, I think i understand what you are trying to approach. But words got around ya. maybe? If your "career" woman, has to do double job, that is to take care of family and take care of work, then that leads to instability on one side. either work or family. If it hurts family, then the kids growing up correct? if its just couple living together, then it hurts their relationship. If she leans towards "family" then workplace is different.

Don't you think this is a bit biased? What about Men? They have to take care of the family as well.
Get home, "honey, im home, gimme a beer", watch tv, sleep, wake up, work, and get home and same thing over and over could possibly depict a true characteristics of a man. but..this will be the Man of "back then" ages. Now a days, men do work, and keep eyes on family, and women are no different either.

So, like others said, feminism is here to stay, and "career oriented" women are out there, and they are good looking. plus, these types of women are tough and aggressive. i like aggresiveness...its a plus point!

what ????i want to argue..what muscle has to do with working at office and home.

hmmm...
does working in office requires an ability to be able to life 100 lbs from one place to another all day????
does working in kitchen require ability to life 20 pound of eggs?????

what are u talking ..go sleep you lazy worker..you are good just surfing sajah at work!!work less waste more time..inefficient worker.

woman should work and make money $$ and also work at home..Men should work at office as well as should play basketball and videogames with kids at home.:)

sajha...men know lotta things. But things they love doing the most is lay on their sofa, watch TV without women yapping, some food and then sex. Thats it.

EDIT:

If it hurts family, then the kids growing up are affected, correct?

I wish Sajha had edit feature, instead of making us repost.

san dai, you listening? :P