http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\07\13\story_13-7-2011_pg3_3
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
ANALYSIS: Genesis of gender discrimination -Jamil Nasir
Addressing the constraints women face in the labour market requires
gender-sensitive market regulations. It is a matter of common observation that
women are doing various household jobs like babysitting, cooking, cleaning,
etc, outside their homes, but such employment is not covered through labour
legislation or social security laws
A baby girl born in South Asia starts her journey of life with acute
disadvantages due to the prevalence of deep-rooted gender discrimination in the
region. Professor Alesina of Harvard with his two other colleagues has recently
come up with evidence that suggests that gender discrimination is as old as the
horse and plough. Further, use of the plough as a tool of ancient farming is an
important variable in explaining the unequal gender roles even of today. In
their research-based article titled 'Women and the plough', Alesina and his
colleagues suggest that the use of the plough in agriculture has a positive
correlation with gender inequality. It is negatively correlated with female
labour force participation, female firm ownership, and female participation in
politics, according to the evidence presented by these economists.
The evidence presented by Professor Alesina and his team is not that
startling and cannot be termed new in the true sense of the word. We can find
exhaustive historical and sociological accounts on the influence of social,
political and historical forces that have been instrumental in shaping the
present-day gender roles, especially in a traditional society like ours. In
modern times, Ester Boserup's book titled Women's Role in Economic Development
presents a vivid description of how the gender role differences owe their
genesis to various forms of agriculture practised in the history of mankind.
How did the plough contribute towards formation of unequal gender roles?
The argument runs that plough agriculture is capital-intensive compared to hoe
agriculture, where the hoe and the digging stick are used as a substitute for
the plough to prepare the soil for sowing. In hoe farming, women actively
participated in agriculture whereas in plough farming, more upper body strength
was required either to pull the plough or control the animal that pulled it.
Moreover, the use of the plough reduced the need for weeding (a task generally
performed by women and children) that, in turn, reduced the economic role of
women. Thus, societies characterised by plough farming developed the norms and
beliefs that required women to stay confined within the boundaries of the home.
Put another way, in hoe farming, almost all family members, male and
female, participated in agricultural farming and contributed towards the
earnings of the family. On the other hand, in plough agriculture, it was
generally the male member(s) of the family who was responsible for ploughing
the land, meaning female members were either confined to domestic chores or did
the job that could not be accounted for in terms of currency, or could not be
traded/bartered. In a way, the economy, being capital-intensive in nature, was
not able to absorb women workers.
The point is that the evidence or findings of Professor Alesina and his
colleagues do not have much newness but the empirical analysis conducted by
them has lent credence to this line of argument. Moreover, one thing is
abundantly clear from the above line of argument of these economists that it is
the economic power/earning capacity that really matters. Against this
background, without the economic empowerment of women, reducing gender
disparities will remain a distant dream.
In order to economically empower them, employment of women in decent
work/jobs is important. In the last decade or so, we have taken a number of
important steps like increasing the number of women seats in the legislature
and fixing a quota for women in the civil services. These steps are laudable
but they are not sufficient in view of the enormity of the problem. There is a
need to initiate policy actions to make their presence felt in every public and
private sector department. The rural areas need to be the main focus as gender
discrimination is more entrenched in rural Pakistan.
Addressing the constraints women face in the labour market requires
gender-sensitive market regulations. Women's activities are confined to the
informal sector, small-scale farming or unpaid/lowly paid domestic work. It is
a matter of common observation that women are doing various household jobs like
babysitting, cooking, cleaning, etc, outside their homes but such employment is
not covered through labour legislation or social security laws.
Gender-sensitive regulations need to be devised to ensure fair treatment of
such poor women. Further, institutional frameworks that limit women's access to
decent employment need to be revisited.
Facilitating access to assets like land, housing and property should be
the second broad area of focus for empowering women economically. Access to
financial resources is equally important. Provision of easy loans and technical
assistance for setting up businesses can go a long way in financially
empowering women. The experience of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh is a case in
point. Traditionally, women have remained the main focus of Grameen's
activities. According to various accounts, women seldom defaulted on their
loans. Further, the female loanees put their earnings to more productive uses
like educating their children. Therefore, economic empowerment of women spurs
development through other channels like female education, poverty alleviation,
population control, etc.
If the labour market does not absorb women, then it is very likely that
incentives for educating the girl child will not be there. But if they have
access to the labour market and are free to participate in business/economic
life, parents will be incentivised to provide education to baby girls. Female
education is central to containing population growth. According to Nobel
laureate Amartya Sen, it is empirically proved that two variables, i.e. female
literacy and female labour force participation have a significant effect on
fertility. He further says that the joint benefits of the family can be widely
shared if women earn an outside income or their work is recognised as
productive.
Economic empowerment is thus the key to eliminating gender discrimination
in society. Designing a gender-responsive employment promotion policy is the
need of the hour. The wasteful discrimination that blights the developmental
potential of our country needs to be removed to spur economic growth and
development.
The writer is a graduate from Columbia University, USA in Economic Policy
Management and studied economic governance in the UK. He can be reached at
[email protected]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
