by Sara Kleinman
Stereotypes exist in the world today that exclude women from parts of society and contribute to a clear gender gap in access to education. Social exclusion and male preference are means that elucidate the realities of this female stereotyped society. Despite a recent surge in the female empowerment movement in recent years, it is undoubtedly evident that girls continue to disproportionately lack access to education compared to boys. In 2013, authors Maile Arvin, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill proposed two theories, “heteropatriarchy” and “heteropaternalism,” which offer frameworks to conceptualize the harmful stereotypes that certainly exist and contribute to the gender gap in education. However, the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI) is an intervention that aims to create systemic change in girls’ access to education. It supports countries decisions and investments in creating policies and programs that promote gender equality. Essentially, stereotypes of girls as nurturers and boys as leaders exist in society, reflect the ideas of heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism, and enforce the gender gap in education. The United Nations Girls Education Initiative works to dismantle these harmful ideas by forming partnerships and supporting countries in efforts to bring equal access to education for all.
In no cryptic manner have gendered stereotypes existed throughout society that define the ways men and women are expected to behave. Many aspects of early childhood are stereotyped, including the types of toys, colors, and clothes that girls and boys are expected to be appealed to. For example, girls should play with dolls while boys should play with cars, girls should like the color pink while boys should like the color blue, and girls should wear dresses while boys should wear pants (Gender Equality Law Center). Similar stereotypes are perpetuated in adolescence, where girls are expected to be well behaved while boys can act out, girls should engage in the arts while boys should play sports, and girls should take care of their appearances while boys should not care about their appearances (Gender Equality Law Center). In adulthood, stereotypical expectations of men and women continue. The personalities of men and women are dictated by society’s conventions of women being nurtures and men being leaders. When women are assertive, they are deemed bossy. However, they are also deemed too emotional to complete certain kinds of work. The stereotypical methods of childcare are also dramatically different for men and women. Not only are women presumed to always want children, but they are expected to not work in order to care for their children, while men are expected to be the “breadwinners” and financially provide for their families (Gender Equality Law Center). Tragically, stereotypes remain in all stages of life and are harmful to the ways women are perceived.
Additionally, these biased and gender conventions are evident in the ways women are socially excluded from aspects of society. Social exclusion on the basis of gender refers to the ways women are discriminated against and prevented from engaging with certain aspects of society. A study conducted in Sweden over two decades found that women experienced more exclusion from material resources than men (Dahlberg et al.). Essentially, this notion of social exclusion contributes to real differences in the access to resources women are allowed.
Comparably, male preference is embedded in many cultures around the world and reflects the male hierarchy over females and the differences in resources males and females receive. Qadir and her team research gender in Pakistan and explain that “preference for boys over girls is deeply culturally embedded,” which reflects the reality that “from birth, many women experience gendered disadvantages; less access to scarce resources, poorer health care, higher child mortality, limited education, less employment outside of the home and circumscribed autonomy” (Qadir et al). Stereotypes of women conduce social exclusion and male preference, which create concrete disadvantages for women in their access to resources.
Not only are these gendered expectations of women harmful in the division of resources, but specifically, they contribute to unequal access to education. The link between stereotypes and the gender gap is evident in authors Lewis and Lockheed’s research. They explain, “…parental beliefs about the current and future occupational and social roles of boys versus girls affect their expectations for children’s schooling” (Lewis and Lockheed, 15). To further their argument, they discuss parents in Bangladesh and parts of rural China who prioritize good marriages over good jobs, which impacts their decisions to send their daughters to school (Lewis and Lockheed, 15). Undeniably, gendered stereotypes are affiliated with the lack of female access to equal education.
The association between gendered social exclusion, male preference, and the gap in education is also apparent. Authors Hallman and Roca identify this nuisance in their discussion of social exclusion. They explain, “female social exclusion begins in early life and is especially notable at life transitions such as puberty and marriage. Exclusion is also evident in many obstacles girls encounter during the transition to adulthood. Adolescent girls encounter barriers to entering and staying in school, finding work…” (“Reducing…” 1). Lewis and Lockheed additionally describe the connection between male preference and the education gap. They write, “Families may have a preference for paying costs associated with schooling boys, as the returns would be higher given labor market opportunities, and, socially, girls in many societies are ‘married away’ joining the husband’s family and no longer providing for or living with her family” (Lewis and Lockheed, 12). These authors explore the relatedness between social exclusion, male preference, and the gap in education that are all so visible today.
In order to conceptualize the relationship of negative stereotypes, social exclusion, and male preference to the gender gap in education, one can utilize the theories of heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism as outlined in Arvin, Tuck, Morrill’s 2013 work called “Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy.” They describe heteropatriarchy as “the social systems in which heterosexuality and patriarchy are perceived as normal and natural, and in which other configurations are perceived as abnormal, aberrant, and abhorrent” (Arvin, Tuck, Morrill, 13). They also explain heteropaternalism to be “the presumption that heteropatriarchal nuclear-domestic arrangements, in which the father is both center and leader / boss, should serve as the model for social arrangements of the state and its institutions” (Arvin, Tuck, Morrill, 13). As illustrated here, heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism reflect the stereotypes that exist today and create social exclusion and male preference, which prevent girls from having equal access to education. Arvin, Tuck, and Morrill express the stereotypes illustrated by heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism in their writing that “both heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism refer to expression of patriarchy and paternalism that rely on very narrow definitions of the male / female binary, in which the male gender is perceived as strong, capable, wise, and composed and the female gender is perceived as weak, incompetent, naïve, and confused” (Arvin, Tuck, Morrill, 13). Essentially, heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism illuminate the stereotypes that exist in society today and contribute to the gender gap in education.
Data reveals that these negative stereotypes, social exclusion, and male preferences as seen through the heteropatriarchal and heteropaternalist lenses all culminate in empirical data of women having disproportionately less access to education than men. While 10 million boys will never enter primary school, 15 million girls never will (Strategic Directions, 4). Additionally, out of the 796 million illiterate people worldwide, two-thirds of them are women (UN Women). A shocking example of the literacy disparity exists in Cambodia, where 48 percent of rural women are illiterate while only 14 percent or rural men are illiterate (UN Women). This data reveals how severe the gender gap in education truly is.
However, the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative is a powerful initiative working to dismantle these inequalities by promoting more equal access to education for girls. In essence, UNGEI is a platform for advocacy and collective action that seeks to achieve “gender equality in and through education” and the “empowerment of girls and women” (Strategic Directions, 5). It draws its goals from the Education for All initiative, works together with the Global Partnership for Education and UNICEF, and partners with multilateral and bilateral development agencies, nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and regional civil society networks to increase awareness and support government programming that favors equal access to education (“Guidance for Developing…”).
The United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative recognizes the connection between negative stereotypes and the gender gap in education. The UNGEI Strategic Directions of 2018-2023 is a document that outlines the goals of the UNGEI program. It explains, “traditional models of masculinity undermine the rights of women and girls as well as gender non-conforming students to quality education and safe and supportive learning environments” (Strategic Directions, 5). UNGEI distinctly expresses its awareness of the harmful impacts gendered stereotypes have on the gap in education.
The goals of the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative indicate desires to bridge this gap in education and the stereotypes that contribute to it. As stated in UNGEI’s Strategic Directions document of 2018-2023, it envisions “a world with equitable and universal access to quality education at all levels, and a world in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality and all legal, social, and economic barriers to their empowerment have been removed” (Strategic Directions, 3). In general, UNGEI mainly focuses on “effective inclusion of marginalized and excluded groups,” “elimination of school-related gender-based violence,” “improved learning outcomes for girls,” and “increased transition to secondary school and post primary learning opportunities” (Guidance for Developing…). It works with its partners to create awareness and provide evidence of effective policies by centering its action on four main goals that all partners must adhere to. The first goal is “equality and non-discrimination,” which ensures that partners must agree to promote female empowerment and gender equality. The second goal is “mutual accountability and participation,” so that partners agree to hold each other accountable in their efforts. The third goal is “collaboration among partners,” where partners agree to transparently share the agenda. The fourth goal is “local decision-making and action,” in which partners agree that the decision-making should include the local girls themselves that they are trying to help increase access to education for (Strategic Directions, 2-3). The scope of UNGEI is international in nature and works at the global, regional, and country levels to ensure that policies actually benefit girls and improve their access to education.
UNGEI outlines how its success can be determined in great detail. Fundamentally, UNGEI defines success as gender equality, where “gender equality means all girls accessing early learning opportunities and primary school, and transitioning to secondary education or alternative learning pathways, with a vision of completing secondary school and progressing to higher education” (Strategic Directions, 5). Clearly, its goal of increased access to girls’ education is evident. UNGEI’s “theory of change” statement is also quite informant of how the initiative’s success is determined:
If education policies and plans promote girls’ education and gender equality at all levels and are effectively implemented, including in crisis- and conflict-affected contexts; if evidence of good practices in gender-responsive education and effective teaching and learning approaches, including those designed to address the needs of marginalized girls and harmful gender norms, are known and employed; if capacity to understand and address gender issues in education is strengthened among men and women across the education system; then gender equality in education can be achieved and all girls and boys can learn. (Strategic Directions, 7)
Although appearing daunting, UNGEI’s goals to create gender equality in education are necessary.
Essentially, the United Nations Girls Education Initiative works to disassemble the stereotypes conceptualized by heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism that perpetuate negative conventions of women and contribute to the gender gap in education itself. By asserting the importance of girls receiving equal educations to boys, it combats the societal stereotypes that depict girls as only homemakers and child raisers. UNGEI allows girls the possibilities of futures in the workforce, which defies the patriarchal expectation that women must stay home while men must go out of the home to work and provide for their families. This initiative helps reduce the stereotype of the heterosexual family by creating flexibility and asserting that women are as capable of providing for their families as men are and deserve the same opportunities to succeed professionally as them. It discounts the automatic stereotypical assumption that women will marry men and stay home and also provides space for non-nuclear families. Demolishing the harmful stereotypes is specifically outlined in the Strategic Directions 2018-2023 document, which explains that “efforts should be carried out with a focus on changing gendered relations and norms, so that the underlying causes of girls’ disadvantage can be addressed” (Strategic Directions, 2). The document also explains that “it is essential to… transform harmful and restrictive gender norms and stereotypes of people of all genders” (Strategic Directions, 5). In essence, by working to close the gender gap in education, UNGEI is challenging the stereotypes of heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism.
Despite the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative’s effective work in eliminating stereotypes to close the gender gap in education, it must consider how its work can exemplify the “white savior complex” of Western societies trying to “fix” underprivileged children. Although one of its specified goals is “local decision-making and action” to include the girls themselves, UNGEI must be mindful not to present its desires to help in dehumanizing and shameful manners (Strategic Directions, 2-3). Special attention should be paid to ensuring UNGEI is truly listening to what the girls need while remaining compassionate and empathetic. Ultimately, negative stereotypes of women exist in society today that create social exclusion and male preference and are culminated in unequal access to education. Heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism are helpful frameworks to conceptualize these harmful narratives that society communicates. In working to close the gender gap in education, the United Nations Girls Education Initiative dismantles these notions and provides the space for women to have more equal access to education and lives beyond the stereotypical expectations of them to stay home and raise children. In order for true gender equality to be achieved, the underlying perceptions and biases of women must be deconstructed, and the UNGEI provides a helpful method of destroying these negative stereotypes.
References
Arvin, Maile, et al. “Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy.” Feminist Formations, vol. 25, no. 1, 2013, pp. 8–34., doi:10.1353/ff.2013.0006.
Dahlberg, Lena, et al. “Trends and Gender Associations in Social Exclusion in Older Adults in Sweden over Two Decades.” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Elsevier, 5 Mar. 2020, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167494320300261.
“Examples of Gender Stereotypes: Gender-Equality-Law.” Gender Equality Law, www.genderequalitylaw.org/examples-of-gender-stereotypes.
Facts & Figures. UN Women. (n.d.). https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/commission-on-the-status-of-women-2012/facts-and-figures#:~:text=Women%20make%20up%20more%20than,urban%20boys%20(60%20percent).
Hallman, Kelly, and Eva Roca. “Reducing the Social Exclusion of Girls.” Promoting Healthy, Safe, and Productive Transitions to Adulthood, Sept. 2007.
Lewis, Maureen, and Marlaine Lockheed. “Social Exclusion and the Gender Gap in Education.” Google Books, The Wold Bank, Mar. 2008, books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uzeCiOkjluMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22education%2Bgender%2Bgap%22%2B%22stereotypes%22&ots=F7kogJqu2G&sig=nhFvNbBQn9syNYeV0qN5KKf2zAA#v=onepage&q=%22education%20gender%20gap%22%20%22stereotypes%22&f=false.
Sciences, N. E. F. of S. (n.d.). Gender Stereotypes. Annual Reviews. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719?casa_token=1bFKkpQQu-EAAAAA%3AbQCQcKyFmEObXMdeIx8j1rkj5fVwVZPLJdcT-AuVbGAlcMppcPmuKiLs5RGBkeNmmA5qjxdcKtQm.
Qadir, Farah, et al. “Male Gender Preference, Female Gender Disadvantage as Risk Factors for Psychological Morbidity in Pakistani Women of Childbearing Age – a Life Course Perspective.” BMC Public Health, BioMed Central, 29 Sept. 2011, bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-11-745.
UNGEI Strategic Directions 2018-2023. United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative.United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI), Global Partnership for Education (GPE), & UNICEF. (2017, January). Guidance for Developing Gender-Responsive Education Sector Plans. UNGEI.org. https://www.ungei.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/2018-02-gpe-guidance-gender-responsive-esp.pdf.