So, basically: are equality and parity synonymous, at least between the genders? And why?
Unlike my other posts, this one will be rather short; the main reason being that I am not really sure about my opinion on this topic.
The motivation for this question was another Broadsheet post by Kate Harding with the title College gender gap levels off, about the proportion of men earning bachelor's degrees having stabilized at 43%. Ms Harding does not seem worried by the fact that 43-57 isn't exactly 50-50, and one can wonder what she would say if the proportion were stabilizing at 43% for women rather than for men. In fact, she even goes on to comment that some schools still favor men in their admission procedures, thus giving rise to an apparent contradiction: if it is wrong for certain schools to increase the proportion of male students, leading to a male majority, why isn't it wrong that the number of men in high education is now less than 50%?
I understand that this difference may be caused by non-discriminatory factors -- but this is also possible for cases in which men are the majority. An observed gender disparity is not immediate proof of discrimination either way; there are other possible explanations.
But independently from the question of what causes disparity and how to achieve parity, or the question of whether some feminists actually want parity, or rather a female preponderance (both interesting questions), there remains the (to my view more interesting) question of whether this is indeed the goal.
What would equality mean? A society in which everything is split 50-50 between the genders -- all activities, all areas, all fields, everywhere? Or a society in which everybody is given the same opportunities and then told to compete with everybody else, and may the best candidate win?
(My guess is that equality of opportunity is better than full universal parity, because equality of opportunity seems to be the spirit of true equality -- but this would mean having to accept disparities that don't arise from inequalities in access to opportunities. And since we're all lately geared towards thinking that disparities always imply discrimination... are we going to be able to live with them?)
Yes indeed, it is a question for American culture. Is the 50-50 ratio the desired outcome (i.e. equality of results), or is fair competition between individuals starting at the same point the desired outcome (i.e. equality of opportunity)? What is the best equality, what are its consequences, and how can we live with them?
Please tell me your opinions.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
knecht2
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
In America 47% men to 53% women in the 17 to 21 age range sounds about right, but it wouldn't surprise is the percentage of women in the 17 to 21 year old range is actually higher.
You also have to take into account older women who are entering college at a later age, because they could not do so when they were younger.
In any case I highly doubt institutions of higher education are intentionally enrolling more women than men.
As a man with no college degree, and unlikely to ever get one, but with fourteen years of work experience, I don't exactly feel a need to go back to college.
If there is a disparity between the number of women and men who are enrolling in higher education, then that is more a sign of the times than anything else.
In my case it was the military, which as an organization has a ratio of about 10 men to every woman.
Most vets with 10 or more years of service under their belts don't exactly feel a need to get a college degree, though in a lot of cases they should probably get them.
But that is just one example.
Increased crime rates among young men will certainly play a factor in the number of men who will enroll in college, and the gender ratio among prisoners is probably 20 males to every female.
Drug addition and alcoholism may also play a role, but those might affect women more than they do men.
And there are probably a lot more men than women who want to hit the job markets rather than attend higher education.
Should we be encouraging our sons and nephews to go to college?
Of course, but I don't think we need to set up a quota system on colleges to make the parity 50/50.
Indeed the disparity may be a sign of the times -- but what does it mean? The idea is that one shouldn't jump to the conclusion of discrimination as the one and only explanation for cases of disparity; it is, however, true that some feminists did exactly that.
Which is why I ask: what is the role that parity has to play? Should those interested in gender equality talk about 'the need for parity' -- 50-50 everywhere where it matters? Or do we accept arguments like 'women often make career choices that exclude them from certain fields' (e.g. hard science research), or also arguments like the ones you exposed here to explain why there are more women than men in higher education?
In general, I am against parity per se as a mesure of the level of equality. But that goes both ways: a majority of men in some colleges and/or areas (which Ms Harding laments in her post) is not necessarily bad for equality.
Life is complicated.
To the best of my knowledge there has never been an affirmative action program - in the USA - designed to favor women, but there may be something I don't know about.
There are scholarship and grant programs designed to favor women, but that is not the same thing as affirmative action.
I'm never going to throw stones at a grant or scholarship program, regardless of who they are designed to aid, because I think we need more grant and scholarship programs all around.
Even so, I would find it hard to believe that a gender disparity in college enrollments was due to grants or scholarships.
The biggest reason I can think of for a disparity in gender in college enrollments, if there is one (which I am not convinced that there is one), would be because young men feel less of a need for college education than women do.
No one has ever shown any proof that colleges were intentionally disenfranchising men, and the notion that a college would intentionally disenfranchise men is absolutely laughable. From what I understand the administrators, deans, and members of boards of education - in the USA - are still largely white and male.