Tweet
The economics behind gender imbalance
published: Sunday | October 28, 2007
Cedric Wilson
Professor Carolyn Cooper's response to Edward Seaga's call for serious research into the imbalance between males and females at the University of the West Indies (UWI) was interesting. Indeed, the current ratio of less than one male to four females is more than enough to set off alarm bells everywhere. Yet, the position of Professor Cooper in a Sunday Gleaner article "Who marginalised men?" two weeks ago was 'So what?'
In the first place, she argued that the teaching profession in the post-slavery period was a male-dominated sphere and the recent reversal to one in which the female reigns is the direct result of an exodus of men to better-paying jobs. Thus, the feminisation of the classroom is entirely the fault of the men. In her words: "So, who really marginalised men? They themselves."
Second, she pointed out that the imbalance is nothing to worry about since it is not merely a domestic issue, but reflects a global trend.
Implications for how society evolves
Certainly, Professor Cooper's observation that the feminisation of the classroom is primarily driven by economics is correct. However, to suggest that it is not an issue that should cause serious concern is at best, flippant. Wherever there are imbalances, whether it is a matter of lower pay for women doing the same job as men, or a case of gender asymmetry in the classroom, it should be the subject of investigation. An imbalance of this type has implications for how the society evolves, and while the consequences might not be immediately apparent, invariably they will turn up.
It is important that we learn from nature. Practically everything dangerous that is encountered in the natural environment is an attempt by nature to achieve balance. This is equally true of a brick falling from a skyscraper as it is for a Category Five hurricane carving a path of destruction through the Caribbean. What is critical is that social imbalances are detected early and addressed proactively so that they do not become obstacles to development later.
With respect to the fact that the gender imbalance at UWI is part of a wider global trend, Professor Cooper could very well be right. However, using this as the premise for dismissing the cause for concern reflects a tragic flaw. The point is not whether it is a global phenomenon; what is crucial is whether it is good for the society. If the society stands to benefit from the imbalance, then fine. But if there is a chance that it might retard development in the future, then we have a problem. In essence, Professor Cooper's assertion is tantamount to saying there is no need to worry about obesity because it is consistent with a global trend.
Notwithstanding the weaknesses in Professor Cooper's arguments, we cannot overlook her allusion to the fact that the problem has its roots in economics.
For sure, there is an army of men now working decent bucks in the private sector who started life professionally as teachers. The reality of the low wages paid to teachers presents serious challenges for a man who believes that he should be the bread winner in the family. Jamaican males still believe, for whatever reason, they should have more money in their wallets than their women and if that is not the case, it is the ultimate marginalisation.
Another factor associated with the imbalance is the increasing emphasis on materialism in the society. As a result, the importance assigned to being respectable and honest in previous generations has declined. In an increasingly global society where the magic of the free market is everywhere, money is king.
Therefore, for the Jamaican male at the bottom of the social pyramid, the appeal to decency and the benefit of the books has less resonance than the force of the dollar.
Yes, education is human capital. But, the returns from the investment in education for the poor in Jamaica take a long time to materialise. Therefore, education is not viewed as the most efficient route to social mobility and the acquisition of power. The young male graduate who struggles to get into a bus to get to work, that is if he has a job, can only show a B.Sc. But he will very likely be able to point to a less educated friend from high school that can show you a BMW.
Absence of convincing role models
The absence of convincing role models who link personal economic success with academic prowess is another factor which may explain the imbalance. Tourism mogul, 'Butch' Stewart, is not a man that is known to boast about his academic record; but as a businessman, he is incredibly successful. Michael Lee Chin, who presides imperially over a vast financial empire, has bragging rights about his education, but he did not make his fortune in Jamaica.
The images of success that capture the mind of the young are seldom those of men dressed in business suits or professors engaged in path-breaking research. Success is tied to dancehall celebrities, hip-hop artistes, and an assortment of dubious characters who have gone from rags to riches in a dramatic fashion. For men who tend to be more risk averse than women, the pursuit of higher education may be safer, but less attractive.
The source of the imbalance may be fundamentally economic in nature, but the implications are deep. Undoubtedly, the consequences, with respect to the country's development, may run deeper than a female doctor having to settle with an uneducated 'ductor' as a partner.
There is enough evidence to show that societies with better gender balance are more likely to achieve greater progress. The call for more research in this area, therefore, should not go unheeded.
Cedric Wilson is an economics consultant who specialises in market regulations. Send your comments to: conoswil@hotmail.com.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...cleisure5.html
published: Sunday | October 28, 2007
Cedric Wilson
Professor Carolyn Cooper's response to Edward Seaga's call for serious research into the imbalance between males and females at the University of the West Indies (UWI) was interesting. Indeed, the current ratio of less than one male to four females is more than enough to set off alarm bells everywhere. Yet, the position of Professor Cooper in a Sunday Gleaner article "Who marginalised men?" two weeks ago was 'So what?'
In the first place, she argued that the teaching profession in the post-slavery period was a male-dominated sphere and the recent reversal to one in which the female reigns is the direct result of an exodus of men to better-paying jobs. Thus, the feminisation of the classroom is entirely the fault of the men. In her words: "So, who really marginalised men? They themselves."
Second, she pointed out that the imbalance is nothing to worry about since it is not merely a domestic issue, but reflects a global trend.
Implications for how society evolves
Certainly, Professor Cooper's observation that the feminisation of the classroom is primarily driven by economics is correct. However, to suggest that it is not an issue that should cause serious concern is at best, flippant. Wherever there are imbalances, whether it is a matter of lower pay for women doing the same job as men, or a case of gender asymmetry in the classroom, it should be the subject of investigation. An imbalance of this type has implications for how the society evolves, and while the consequences might not be immediately apparent, invariably they will turn up.
It is important that we learn from nature. Practically everything dangerous that is encountered in the natural environment is an attempt by nature to achieve balance. This is equally true of a brick falling from a skyscraper as it is for a Category Five hurricane carving a path of destruction through the Caribbean. What is critical is that social imbalances are detected early and addressed proactively so that they do not become obstacles to development later.
With respect to the fact that the gender imbalance at UWI is part of a wider global trend, Professor Cooper could very well be right. However, using this as the premise for dismissing the cause for concern reflects a tragic flaw. The point is not whether it is a global phenomenon; what is crucial is whether it is good for the society. If the society stands to benefit from the imbalance, then fine. But if there is a chance that it might retard development in the future, then we have a problem. In essence, Professor Cooper's assertion is tantamount to saying there is no need to worry about obesity because it is consistent with a global trend.
Notwithstanding the weaknesses in Professor Cooper's arguments, we cannot overlook her allusion to the fact that the problem has its roots in economics.
For sure, there is an army of men now working decent bucks in the private sector who started life professionally as teachers. The reality of the low wages paid to teachers presents serious challenges for a man who believes that he should be the bread winner in the family. Jamaican males still believe, for whatever reason, they should have more money in their wallets than their women and if that is not the case, it is the ultimate marginalisation.
Another factor associated with the imbalance is the increasing emphasis on materialism in the society. As a result, the importance assigned to being respectable and honest in previous generations has declined. In an increasingly global society where the magic of the free market is everywhere, money is king.
Therefore, for the Jamaican male at the bottom of the social pyramid, the appeal to decency and the benefit of the books has less resonance than the force of the dollar.
Yes, education is human capital. But, the returns from the investment in education for the poor in Jamaica take a long time to materialise. Therefore, education is not viewed as the most efficient route to social mobility and the acquisition of power. The young male graduate who struggles to get into a bus to get to work, that is if he has a job, can only show a B.Sc. But he will very likely be able to point to a less educated friend from high school that can show you a BMW.
Absence of convincing role models
The absence of convincing role models who link personal economic success with academic prowess is another factor which may explain the imbalance. Tourism mogul, 'Butch' Stewart, is not a man that is known to boast about his academic record; but as a businessman, he is incredibly successful. Michael Lee Chin, who presides imperially over a vast financial empire, has bragging rights about his education, but he did not make his fortune in Jamaica.
The images of success that capture the mind of the young are seldom those of men dressed in business suits or professors engaged in path-breaking research. Success is tied to dancehall celebrities, hip-hop artistes, and an assortment of dubious characters who have gone from rags to riches in a dramatic fashion. For men who tend to be more risk averse than women, the pursuit of higher education may be safer, but less attractive.
The source of the imbalance may be fundamentally economic in nature, but the implications are deep. Undoubtedly, the consequences, with respect to the country's development, may run deeper than a female doctor having to settle with an uneducated 'ductor' as a partner.
There is enough evidence to show that societies with better gender balance are more likely to achieve greater progress. The call for more research in this area, therefore, should not go unheeded.
Cedric Wilson is an economics consultant who specialises in market regulations. Send your comments to: conoswil@hotmail.com.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...cleisure5.html
Comment