Very short answer type questions
1.where are the roots of gender inequality?
pls this question is very important for me.
Answers
Answer:
In our families.....
This is bitter truth
Answer:
Gender gaps favoring males—in education, health, personal autonomy, and more—are systematically larger in poor countries than in rich countries. This article explores the root causes of gender inequality in poor countries. Is the higher level of gender inequality explained by underdevelopment itself? Or do the countries that are poor today have certain characteristics and cultural beliefs that lead to the larger gender gaps?
I begin by documenting some basic facts about how gender inequality correlates with the level of economic development. I then discuss several mechanisms through which the process of economic development theoretically could improve the relative outcomes of women and review recent evidence on these mechanisms.
I argue that although much of the relationship between development and gender inequality can be explained by the process of development, society-specific factors are also at play. Many countries that are poor today have cultural features that exacerbate favoritism toward males. Being poor is insufficient to explain parents’ strong desire to have a son in China and India, for example.
I then discuss in greater detail the problem of the male-skewed sex ratio at birth, which differs from most other manifestations of gender bias in that it has been intensifying, not lessening, with economic development. Finally, I lay out some policy approaches to accelerate the narrowing of gender gaps.
women has indeed fallen sharply in the United States, from 47 h per week in 1900 to 29 h in 2005 (Ramey 2009). The cross-country pattern observed today mirrors the US time trend: The ratio of women’s to men’s time spent on home production, as well as the absolute amount of time women spend, declines with GDP per capita (see Supplemental Figure 3).
Dinkelman (2011) finds that electrification in post-apartheid South Africa increased FLFP. She shows supporting evidence that a likely mechanism is reduced time spent on home production, for example, because of a shift away from cooking with wood and toward electric stoves, as well as a greater endowment of productive time owing to electric lights. Coen-Pirani et al. (2010) conduct a similar analysis examining changes in the United States between 1960 and 1970 and find that greater ownership of household appliances is associated with higher FLFP.
Evidence on the impacts of the dowry system on women’s welfare is mostly anecdotal. This anecdotal evidence points to the dowry system causing pro-male bias. The prospect of paying dowry is often cited as a key factor in parents’ desire to have sons rather than daughters in India, for example (Arnold et al. 1998, Das Gupta et al. 2003). The financial burden of dowry indeed seems to loom large in prospective parents’ minds. Kusum (1993) describes a billboard that was put up when prenatal sex-diagnostic tests were just arriving in India; a new clinic in the city of Amritsar urged parents to “invest Rs. 500 now, save Rs. 50,000 later.” The 500 rupees today was for an ultrasound test, which would tell the parents if their fetus was female; the 50,000 rupees later—which was obvious enough that it did not need to be spelled out on the billboard—was the dowry the parents would save if they aborted the female fetus.
Having to pay a dowry for a daughter’s marriage should decrease the desire to have daughters but should not necessarily reduce investments in daughters. In principle, parents could recoup their investment in their daughter’s health and education in the form of lower dowry demands or a higher-quality son-in-law. However, this idealized market solution in which parents invest in their daughter’s human capital and the groom later compensates them for the investment does not seem to work in practice, perhaps because investments are not fully observable by the groom. In addition, parents have reason to care more about the quality of their daughters-in-law than their sons-in-law because daughters-in-law will live with them under patrilocality and raise their heirs under patrilineality. Besides reducing human capital investments, the dowry system also results in newly married women sometimes being victims of violence or, worse, so-called dowry deaths as punishment for the dowry amount being deemed inadequate by the groom (Bloch & Rao 2002).