The word is spreading: investing in girls is the catalyst poor countries need to break the cycle of poverty. The second half of the message often gets short shrift: gender equality benefits everyone -- girls, women, men, boys.
In the past few years, "the girl effect" has been explored by business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos and the G8 Summit here in Canada. Proponents of investing in girls' education in developing countries include such influential figures as Senator Hillary Clinton, Oprah and Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank. Zoellick has said that investing in girls is not only fair, it is a smart economic move.
I've engaged on this topic with groups ranging from the Economic Club of Canada to secondary school students to supporters of fundraising parties at fashionable stores. I've followed the excited chatter on Facebook and Twitter as young Canadian girls discover their power to contribute to expanding opportunities for their peers in poorer countries.
But I'm well aware as I do so of an underlying tension. What about the boys? In our focus on girls, are we leaving the boys behind -- making them the new disadvantaged group?
Truth is, the gender equality so many of us are working to achieve for girls in developing countries is good for boys too. Healthy, educated mothers have healthier children. They know how to provide proper nourishment and intellectual stimulation in the all-important early years of a child's development. They can use their skills to earn income, which they generally invest in their families' welfare. All their children -- girls and boys -- enjoy a better start to life.
Every member of a family benefits from the breaking down of gender stereotypes and role definitions that constrain personal choice. The world over, boys are conditioned to keep emotions bottled up and take set-backs "like a man." Wherever you stand on the thorny issue of how much so-called "male behaviour" is hard-wired versus learned, it can only be a good thing to teach boys emotional outlets other than aggression and violence.
The flip side for a boy of being chosen over his sisters as the one to get an education is the underlying assumption that it will be up to you to provide financial security for your family. That can be a terrifying prospect for any boy or man, particularly so in countries with weak economies. Societal norms aside, many secretly long for a spousal partnership in which both individuals are allowed to contribute to family life according to their gifts and interests, rather than rigid gender roles.
I certainly do not underestimate the challenge of making gender equality a global reality. It will require concerted action to change how children are educated, from their earliest days through their formal schooling. It will require public awareness campaigns that get people talking openly about uncomfortable issues. And it will require new laws.
Any approach to seeking gender equality that paints all men and boys with a broad brush as the "problem" rather than as partners in bringing about and benefitting from solutions is misguided and will eventually backfire. As a general rule, men still hold greater power than women in political, economic and familial circles. For that reason alone, they must be part of the solution.
It takes tremendous courage for a boy or a man to be the first in his circle to challenge stereotypes and act according to his own conviction that all humans share the same rights. In my work, I've seen so many stand up and do this -- from national and community leaders to very small boys. I've heard husbands say that doing housework with their wives has given them wonderful opportunities to share dreams and plans for their families. Fathers delight in time spent talking with their sons and daughters about their studies and their friends in cultures where "we only used to work." Over time, the actions of these agents of change will create new social norms.
It's not a zero-sum game, an either-or proposition. Investing in gender equality can benefit all.
Rosemary McCarney is CEO of Plan Canada, which has just released their fifth annual report on the state of the world's girls, this year titled "So what about boys?"
The truth is I would love to donate money to the poor, but I refuse to donate money to any organization to caters to women/girls and not men/boys. If we truly cared about ending poverty and empowering all peoples - not just women - we would invest in a gender blind way. The way things are going, I donate less and less and I am now more likely to donate only to organizations which allow me to choose who benefits.
You will never convince me that we should fight sexism with sexism. As the old saw goes: two wrongs don't make a right.
Take Haiti: how many men died because these so-called charitable organizations stopped feeding men? The world will probably never know...men are after all expendable. That is the sexism we should be fighting.
Now that female achievements are surpassing those of men (though we still do not have the power that men have), we're hearing that boys are being left behind. It's rather like it's ok for women to succeed as long as they don't upset the status quo.
I think the bigger question is how to level the playing field so that both men and women (boys and girls) are able to succeed without it being at the expense of the other. I would honestly like to see how men and women perform in gender neutral or gender-specific environments when given the same opportunities.
Second- to dig a little deeper- in which contexts does gender matter and why? in other words, why is it statistically acceptable to isolate gender and ignore other attributes? In which contexts would we determine it is sexist to do so?
Secondly, the article discussed the investment in girls and how that also benefits boys. This topic stems from the debate that schools have been feminized and that as such, boys are being left behind. My response focused on gender because the article and debate focus on gender. Were the article about socioeconomic status or other demographics and the effect they have on education and societal progression, my response would have reflected that.
You've argued before that institutions are biased towards women. Now you're saying that they are not. Which is it?
I totally agree. Investing in "gender equality" has certainly benefited boys in the US and Canada since the 1990's:
+ Boys are less likely than girls to be enrolled in advanced math and science
+ Boys are less likely to graduate high school, go to college, or graduate from college
+ Boys are more likely to drop out of high school
+ Boys are three to ten times more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder
+ Boys are six times more likely to commit suicide
+ Boys are typically 1.5 years behind girls in writing and reading by high school
+ Boys score higher than girls in standardized testing like the SAT yet consistently get poorer grades in school.
+ There is a White House Council on Women and Girls; the American Association of University Women, the Ms. Foundation, and others have been advocating for girls for years. There is no such advocacy for boys.
+ The WEEA (Women's Educational Equity Act) still receives federal funding even though girls have been ahead of boys in most measures of success at school for about 20 years now. No similar act exists for boys in the US.
+ There are many special scholarships for college women, non for men (outside of athletics).
Yes, I know the article is not about the US and Canada. Let's make sure we don't support repetition of the same mistakes.
http://plancanada.ca/Where-We-Work
I then went to theis world bank site where educational statistics for each of these countries is available here:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/0,,contentMDK:20573961~isCURL:Y~menuPK:282412~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282386,00.html
I didn't look at them all, but in perusing the first 10 African countries I found that their gender ratios range from 0.9 to 1.0 for primary education. The US statistic also available there is 1.0 for primary education. So basically all of these countries where Plan Canada is supporting girls over boys, there already basically is gender parity in education.
So maybe in the end they'll end up like the US where as a result of these same sorts of efforts, boys are seriously lagging at all levels of education and are far under-represented the farther along you go.