(Economically Explained) Women in Development: The Overlooked & Overfocused Parts
The Perspective of A Cambodian Young Woman who believes in the possibilities & the need for women to speak for her rights….
The role of women in society is still disregarded and underestimated for centuries until now. The patronizing and male-dominant system has dug and sunk deeply into how society views women as a person and the disparities of men and women in performing particular roles. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became the first female UK Prime Minister and served the Congress for 11 years. Her more-than-a-decade premiership got her regarded as “Iron Lady” by the public, partly because of her ability as a woman, which was very rare from the rest during her time.
The Overlooked Parts
The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2020 indicates it will take more than a lifetime to make gender equality a reality. To date, we still struggle to see the fair placement of women’s roles in society, particularly in the workplace. If you google now and type “male professions” and “female professions”, answers will surprise you. Even though they appear to be quite similar, but the change of order is greatly different, which clearly indicates priority parity of both genders in particular roles. An Insider’s article on “10 occupations that are still dominated by men” published earlier this year shows clearly that even in a fast-developed country like the United States, there are some jobs that are still labelled as male-dominant, such as aerospace engineers, financial analyst, clergy, television’s operators and editors, architects and else.
Not only the gender disparity in the workplace but also the disparity of wage between men and women in performing the same job. According to the World Economic Forum again, a woman earns only 54 cents for every dollar a man earns; with that being said, it would take 202 years to close the gap. Economists explain the reasons behind this, such as i) women choose different occupations than men; ii) women more likely to work part-time than men, and surprisingly iii) there is a wage penalty for motherhood, meaning there is a reverse relationship between her pay and the number of children she has, while men would be paid higher the more children he has.
i) women choose different occupations than men: simply fall into a prior explanation on the male-dominant industry, and could easily close the gap by more encouragement such as scholarships to pursue particular major and the fair placement of men and women in the workplace. Not every great doctor or engineer should be men and not every accountant should be female.
ii) women more likely to work part-time than men: as far as I’m concerned, this comes from two specific factors — one is a side effect of nature (period and pregnancy), while the other is because women need to take care of household chores and wellness of her children. This comes to another question: is housewife a job?
The housewife is not counted as performing a job but as a role. Housewife, for many centuries, has been regarded as a female role, just as the term “-wife” itself. Economically, the housewife is one huge part of the underground economy or non-market activities that are not calculated into the GDP measurement. If you work as a cleaner or housewife for other households, you will be paid but won’t be for your own shelter. Regardless of paid or not, being a housewife is not calculated into GDP, just that it gives a different result to the savings of a household, with and without the expense on chores service.
If women are more likely to be paid less because she works part-time, then the household chores which have been performed at home should be paid based on hourly wage too. Suppose husband and wife earn $1,500 equally per month, their consolidated income should be $3,000, while $500 should be paid personally to the wife who performs household chores. This would easily close down two main things: the disparity of gender pay and gender-based role in performing household chores.
iii) there is a wage penalty for motherhood: why are women paid less the more children she has and men being paid more? Does that indicate a father is responsible for financial support to the family, while the mother just takes care of the household chores? Isn’t job supposed to be paid based on level, expertise and experience and not on gender?
Another point to notice is women’s role in contributing to the economy via population. What will happen to the economy if the population freezes, declines or grows?
With a revitalized health system and the rise of government initiatives in raising awareness on abortion and birth control, many economists still debate the beneficial and detrimental parts of population growth to the economy. Through the Economic-Demographic theory, many believe steep population growth; especially in the developing countries, has adverse effects on the economy because of the decline in GDP per capita and the increase in “burden of dependency” if the family has many children to take care of. However, an abrupt decline in population also provides negative effects to the national income which tends to hinder foreign investment through low labour supply in the market (the cost of production will be higher when there are an excessive demand and short of supply in the market). This; however, will depend on the country as it may be seen as an advantage for countries which have a high unemployment rate.
What I am trying to point out here is that growth of a particular country’s economy does have a relationship with the population rate (growth, decline or freeze) which comes directly from the decision making of every partner and women’s awareness in birth control, abortion or even seeking for medical care for fertility growth. One bad decision can’t have strong negative effects on society, but rapid mistakes and the influence on other women in behaving the same will, especially in the long run.
Overfocused Parts
For many years, women have been objectified as a piece of white cloth which become dirty with a single mistake, a housewife who’s revolving around the kitchen, and a person whose body and beauty have been considered as fundamental sources of value. Women who pass marriage age, normally 30 and above, are called “spinsters” and undeniably questioned by society. The gradual change of title from Miss to Mrs, furthermore, has shed light on how society cares mainly about her marital status rather than her actual person. Women can be successful in her career but have to deal in the face of harsh criticisms if underperforms her duty as a wife, a child bearer, and a mother. Recently, a public figure released a post comparing women to different countries based on her age, which indirectly indicates a women’s value is lessened the more she ages.
Does her value depend heavily on her virginity, the size of her legs, the scars on her body, the colour of her skin and the role she’s having inside the house? Does her value come from whether she’s wearing revealing clothes, wanted by many or get married before the age of 30?
Instead of focusing on these non-economical, conservative and gender-based factors, why not embracing her role in the society by encouraging more participation in science, entrepreneurship and innovation and helping her to perform less duty at home and more at work?
Men would not want other men to look down on your daughter, while women would not want your daughters to perform the kitchen tasks like you are doing now.
Your daughter’s faith in being a woman in society depends on your current actions which bring positive results in the future. If not now, then when?
