My old friend Sita is a strong and highly vocal feminist though her feminism stopped short of getting married and allowing a man into her life. But marriage did not change her views. For instance, she drew the line at a Vedic marriage which would involve her following her husband around the ritual fire and she categorically ruled out such “archaic customs” as a kanya daan. “I refuse to be given away like a chattel,” she said. Furthermore, she refused to wear any of the symbols of bondage that is customary for Hindu women to don.

“Marriage is a strictly equal partnership,” she insisted. Fortunately for her, her husband shared the same views. When their children arrived, both she and her husband felt equally responsible for their welfare, right from changing their nappies to feeding and educating them. Together they coped with chores and problems alike through 15 years of marriage.

With both husband and wife on the same wavelength, it was a successful and happy marriage. Workwise too, everything worked out well. Sita’s husband had a highly lucrative practice as a doctor, a factor that enabled Sita to give up her banking job in favour of school teaching. Her salary was small, but the family income was large, and they had no financial problems.

It is possible that this idyllic state of affairs would have continued indefinitely. However, her husband suddenly dropped a bombshell. Aware that with the children needing her less, and now somewhat bored with teaching, Sita had decided to accept the offer of an excellent job, once again in banking, he told her that he thought the time was ripe for him to give up his practice and fulfil a lifelong desire to do research. His income would shrink drastically, he explained, but with Sita earning a handsome salary, the family would not suffer.

Sita found herself in a state of shock. She suddenly realised that her share and share alike philosophy had never applied to the mundane matter of money. She now made the horrifying discovery that subconsciously she had always taken it for granted that he would be the breadwinner. The prospect of supporting the family, including her husband, was both daunting and unappetising. Though in her more honest moments, she knew that it was only fair that her husband had an equal right to do what he wished to, she still found it almost impossible to stomach this reversal of positions.

How many of us ‘emancipated women’ would react as Sita did? I suspect that where great many of us women are concerned, it is not just a question of who earns the bread and who provides the jam. It is also a matter of cake — the sort that one can have and eat too!