Barbara Bailey and Suzanne M. Charles, Contributors

Medical Sciences graduates applaud the achievements of their fellow graduates. File

Over the past month, quite a maelstrom has been created over the enrolment disparity at the University of the West Indies (UWI), which favours females to males 82:18 and, is in fact, similar to patterns in other tertiary level institutions in Jamaica and indeed the wider Caribbean.

To date, however, with the exception of a few cases, discussions around the issue seem to be driven by a sense of impending crisis consequent to the perceived and real negative socio-economic and developmental implications of the figures, not the least of which is the increased incidence of crime and violence in which some young males seem to be more involved than they are in formal education.

Bailey and Charles

shift in focus

It is the view of The Centre for Gender and Development Studies (Regional Coordinating Unit, UWI) that the debate requires a shift from the focus on individual attributes and behaviours (as important as these are) to ways in which macro-level systems and processes contribute to the problem. The micro-level focus actually masks the reality of a situation that is indicative of deeper systemic societal issues best understood through the lens of gender which assigns men and women specific and distinct roles, ordered hierarchically and resulting in different opportunities and life chances for either sex.

The debate also needs to be reframed within a global context as this gender disparity in enrolment in higher education reflects a global phenomenon and is in no way unique to Jamaica or the Caribbean.

Data on enrolment ratios from the 2003 UNDP Human Development Report indicate that in 41 of 47 (87 per cent ) of developed countries for which data were available, higher female than male participation at this level is evident.

Moreover, a clear understanding must be had of the factors at work within the international political economy which create conditions that allow education to be valued differently by males and females, resulting in the 82:18 ratio at the UWI and similar disparity in other tertiary level institutions.

An excellent point of departure is an examination of formal vs substantive equality in education, as referred to in the Education for All/Dakar Framework for Action, where the former speaks to numerical gaps in enrolment rates between the sexes, as we are now witnessing, and the latter to the importance and currency of certification to males and females beyond the gates of the school.

substantive equality

The current debate, centred as it is, like a simple numbers game on issues of formal equality, largely ignores issues of substantive equality as, despite numerical female advantage in institutions of higher learning, women remain disproportionately under-represented in the employed labour force, over-represented in the unemployed labour force, have higher job-seeking rates than males and, on average, earn less than their male colleagues at all levels of educational achievement. The latter point is clearly illustrated by statistics from recent Jamaica Housing and Population census data.

A possible explanation then of the gender disparity, which has been widening at the UWI since the 1983/4 academic year, is that males, no doubt, have realised that they need not invest in higher education in the same way as their female counterparts, as they are more readily absorbed into the labour market (both formal and informal) without the benefit or financial burden of tertiary education.

In part, this is facilitated by the traditional sex segregation of the curriculum at the high school level, which results in boys and girls being routinely encouraged, expected and coerced to pursue sex-specific subjects. Boys are clustered in the science-based and technical/vocational areas and girls in the domestic crafts and 'softer subjects', thereby facilitating boys' access to decently-paid employment directly out of high school, through apprenticeships and on the job programmes, options not so readily open to girls.

It is important to note that this situation is by no means incidental but is systematic and systemic, driven by the fixed and rigidly defined essentialist ideas around gender identity and the roles and boys/men and girls/women may legitimately assume in society. Bombarded from early childhood with these expectations, males and females are encouraged to pursue sex-specific activities, with sanctions for males, steeped in a macho-type masculinity demanded by the home, school and wider society.

But male privileging is a double-edged sword. The increased number of females now able to access education due in no small part to successive educational reforms at the local, regional and international levels during the 20th century - partly in response to the international agenda for improving the situation of women - has made education no longer the preserve of men nor an avenue through which males gain control of the public domain.

Faced with such a challenge, males are now in the process of finding other avenues for exercising the control and dominance perceived as an essential element of masculinity and maleness. Consequently, as Figueroa, a leading voice in the debate, suggests, "There is evidence that boys actually actively assert their maleness by resisting school ... with respect to certain subjects that are seen as feminine." The absence of males from higher education systems can, therefore, be possibly explained as a deliberate withdrawal to create distance between themselves and what has come to be seen as a primarily female, and therefore, decidedly not-male, activity.

It seems then, that in society's establishment of the roles of males and females in diametric opposition to each other and privileging the former over the latter, males are now entrapped by the same hegemonic masculinity that once allowed them the privilege, at the expense of their female counterparts, of the very education they now shun.

It is useful too, in the discussion of the 'crisis' to remember that the current trends of enrolment have only been in favour of women for the last two decades, and drew no comment when they favoured men for the century or so during which, in the Caribbean and globally, education was the business of men. Moreover, men still dominate in areas still perceived as masculine areas. The disparity is not uniform throughout all disciplines and men still dominate in areas such as agriculture, natural sciences and engineering, with parity in some disciplines of the humanities. In fact, the performance of boys who remain in the education system is on par with their female counterparts, as is clearly demonstrated in the article Boys Bounce Back, published by the Gleaner on October 18, 2007. The focus of concern needs to be around who drop outs of the system and answers need to be sought to questions related to the intersection of class and race, such as which boys drop out and why.

Perhaps an appropriate response to the perceived 'crisis' would be, instead of racing towards solutions in affirmative action, to erode the hard won victories of women, and suggestions of compulsory military training for boys, which would only serve to reinforce an anti-school macho-type of masculinity, would be a frank examination of the gendered identities that restrict males and females from being their true and best selves but necessitates males, as a group, seeing themselves as dominant and having power over females. This coupled with the allure of quick money, a critical marker of masculine gender-identity, only serves to discourage men from pursuing the route of education which they perceive as requiring too much time and effort with too little return to satisfy the socially imposed role of bread winner and provider.

Ways in which globalised crime provides vast and varied opportunities to satisfy this need for quick money cannot be ignored. The 1999 UNDP Human Development Report estimates that international crime, including trafficking in illegal drugs and weapons is a growing business grossing $1.5 trillion a year even rivalling, at the time, multinational corporations. The fact is that Caribbean island states are well-positioned as transshipment points for many of these activities an a few females have been involved, opportunities for engagement mainly appeal to young males.

The global movement of these goods and services and offshoot regional activities, has created more lucrative, even if not desirable, means for men to create wealth. These opportunities risky, offer immediate gratification and require less formal education and, therefore, in our opinion, has been a factor which cannot be ignored in looking for factors that explain the under-participation of males in the higher levels of Caribbean education systems. The gains of legitimate educational pursuits are in no way comparable to these new economic activities pursued by many young males, making the idea of (economic) marginalisation questionable at best.

Ultimately, the debate needs to bear in mind that despite challenges made to existing gender systems, increased opportunities for women must be viewed against the backdrop of the resilience of patriarchal systems, which continue to serve traditional interest and motive and which combine to maintain the status quo and ensure that the gains of men are not significantly disrupted. Regrettably, this system works not only against women, but is also inimical to many men.

n Professor Barbara Bailey is the director of the UWI's Centre for Gender and Development Studies, Mona, and Suzanne M. Charles is Research Fellow in the Regional Coordinating Unit.