Tweet
Gender politics II
published: Wednesday | October 24, 2007
Last week I wrote that the academic discipline of 'Women's Studies' was replaced by 'Gender Studies' because it had become clear that both genders were trapped in the same oppressive system, and the liberation of one was inexorably wrapped up in the liberation of both. I also charged that there were a number of female supremacists masquerading under the cover of 'Gender Studies'. I suggested that even though the ratio of women to men at the University of the West Indies (UWI) was 82:12, these gender politicians would find a way to argue that "no matter how bad the imbalance in favour of females appeared, women were still being oppressed by men." Published in the Sunday Gleaner last (October 21) is an article by two venerable ladies from the Department of Gender and Development Studies, UWI, Mona - one a Professor and the other a Research Fellow - which displays my point exactly!
See if you can pick your way through the academese: "It is the view of The Centre for Gender and Development Studies - that the debate requires a shift from the focus on individual attributes and behaviours (as important as these are) to ways in which macro-level systems and processes contribute to the problem. The micro-level focus actually masks the reality of a situation that is indicative of deeper systemic societal issues best understood through the lens of gender which assigns men and women specific and distinct roles, ordered hierarchically and resulting in different opportunities and life chances for either sex." In other words, do not be fooled by the fact that there are four females for every male at UWI; these numbers actually mask the deeper systemic oppression of women.
More academese
More academese: "The current debate, centred as it is, like a simple numbers game on issues of formal equality, largely ignores issues of substantive equality as, despite numerical female advantage in institutions of higher learning, women remain disproportionately under-represented in the employed labour force, over-represented in the unemployed labour force, have higher job-seeking rates than males and, on average, earn less than their male colleagues at all levels of educational achievement." So the numerical preponderance of women at UWI is not substantive inequality.
But it was not always so: "The increased number of females now able to access education due in no small part to successive educational reforms at the local, regional and international levels during the 20th century - partly in response to the international agenda for improving the situation of women - has made education no longer the preserve of men nor an avenue through which males gain control of the public domian."
Ironically, there was also a report in last Sunday's Gleaner of a recent survey by the Mona Institute of Business showing a rapid expansion in wholesale and retail businesses owned by women in Jamaica. Women-owned businesses exist in manufacturing, construction, hotels and real estate, agriculture, wholesale and retail. This is only what you would expect to happen: there will be a lag of a number of years between the dominance of women in the education system and their dominance in the economy; you need at least one employment cycle for the men to die off or retire; in a few more years the control of the public domain by women will be complete!
Main thesis
Now the main thesis: "Faced with such a challenge, males are now in the process of finding other avenues for exercising the control and dominance perceived as an essential element of masculinity and maleness. The absence of males from higher education systems can, therefore, be possibly explained as a deliberate withdrawal to create distance between themselves and what has come to be seen as a primarily female, and therefore, decidedly not-male, activity." There are few men at UWI because they have deliberately withdrawn from education, since going to UWI is perceived as a female activity. The fact that there are 14 high schools in Jamaica for girls and only seven for boys, and that most co-educational high schools have vastly more girls than boys, has nothing to do with it!
"Perhaps an appropriate response to the perceived 'crisis' would be, instead of racing towards solutions in affirmative action, to erode the hard-won victories of women - would be a frank examination of the gendered identities that restrict males and females from being their true and best selves but necessitates males, as a group, seeing themselves as dominant and having power over females. This, coupled with the allure of quick money, a critical marker of masculine gender-identity, only serves to discourage men from pursuing the route of education which they perceive as requiring too much time and effort with too little return to satisfy the socially imposed role of breadwinner and provider." So because men are burdened with the responsibility of supporting women, and the salaries of UWI graduates are less than what they can earn as drug dons, men are staying away from UWI in droves and are becoming drug dealers to get "quick money".
And so their real point is that men must be freed from their "socially imposed role of breadwinner and provider" so that they can become "their true and best selves". That, we all can agree, will really liberate men!
And so this is what passes for 'Gender and Development Studies' at UWI. By the way: How many males teach and do research in this fully gendered department? More next week!
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
published: Wednesday | October 24, 2007
Last week I wrote that the academic discipline of 'Women's Studies' was replaced by 'Gender Studies' because it had become clear that both genders were trapped in the same oppressive system, and the liberation of one was inexorably wrapped up in the liberation of both. I also charged that there were a number of female supremacists masquerading under the cover of 'Gender Studies'. I suggested that even though the ratio of women to men at the University of the West Indies (UWI) was 82:12, these gender politicians would find a way to argue that "no matter how bad the imbalance in favour of females appeared, women were still being oppressed by men." Published in the Sunday Gleaner last (October 21) is an article by two venerable ladies from the Department of Gender and Development Studies, UWI, Mona - one a Professor and the other a Research Fellow - which displays my point exactly!
See if you can pick your way through the academese: "It is the view of The Centre for Gender and Development Studies - that the debate requires a shift from the focus on individual attributes and behaviours (as important as these are) to ways in which macro-level systems and processes contribute to the problem. The micro-level focus actually masks the reality of a situation that is indicative of deeper systemic societal issues best understood through the lens of gender which assigns men and women specific and distinct roles, ordered hierarchically and resulting in different opportunities and life chances for either sex." In other words, do not be fooled by the fact that there are four females for every male at UWI; these numbers actually mask the deeper systemic oppression of women.
More academese
More academese: "The current debate, centred as it is, like a simple numbers game on issues of formal equality, largely ignores issues of substantive equality as, despite numerical female advantage in institutions of higher learning, women remain disproportionately under-represented in the employed labour force, over-represented in the unemployed labour force, have higher job-seeking rates than males and, on average, earn less than their male colleagues at all levels of educational achievement." So the numerical preponderance of women at UWI is not substantive inequality.
But it was not always so: "The increased number of females now able to access education due in no small part to successive educational reforms at the local, regional and international levels during the 20th century - partly in response to the international agenda for improving the situation of women - has made education no longer the preserve of men nor an avenue through which males gain control of the public domian."
Ironically, there was also a report in last Sunday's Gleaner of a recent survey by the Mona Institute of Business showing a rapid expansion in wholesale and retail businesses owned by women in Jamaica. Women-owned businesses exist in manufacturing, construction, hotels and real estate, agriculture, wholesale and retail. This is only what you would expect to happen: there will be a lag of a number of years between the dominance of women in the education system and their dominance in the economy; you need at least one employment cycle for the men to die off or retire; in a few more years the control of the public domain by women will be complete!
Main thesis
Now the main thesis: "Faced with such a challenge, males are now in the process of finding other avenues for exercising the control and dominance perceived as an essential element of masculinity and maleness. The absence of males from higher education systems can, therefore, be possibly explained as a deliberate withdrawal to create distance between themselves and what has come to be seen as a primarily female, and therefore, decidedly not-male, activity." There are few men at UWI because they have deliberately withdrawn from education, since going to UWI is perceived as a female activity. The fact that there are 14 high schools in Jamaica for girls and only seven for boys, and that most co-educational high schools have vastly more girls than boys, has nothing to do with it!
"Perhaps an appropriate response to the perceived 'crisis' would be, instead of racing towards solutions in affirmative action, to erode the hard-won victories of women - would be a frank examination of the gendered identities that restrict males and females from being their true and best selves but necessitates males, as a group, seeing themselves as dominant and having power over females. This, coupled with the allure of quick money, a critical marker of masculine gender-identity, only serves to discourage men from pursuing the route of education which they perceive as requiring too much time and effort with too little return to satisfy the socially imposed role of breadwinner and provider." So because men are burdened with the responsibility of supporting women, and the salaries of UWI graduates are less than what they can earn as drug dons, men are staying away from UWI in droves and are becoming drug dealers to get "quick money".
And so their real point is that men must be freed from their "socially imposed role of breadwinner and provider" so that they can become "their true and best selves". That, we all can agree, will really liberate men!
And so this is what passes for 'Gender and Development Studies' at UWI. By the way: How many males teach and do research in this fully gendered department? More next week!
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
bout '64 or '65 to present a Munro/Hamption connection. 
dem lef school guh Uwi tigeda...got married in '69...an still goin strang! 
Comment