Chapter 2 cover photo credits: Mark Henley / Panos Picture
Yüklə 4,33 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
35 Stemming girls’ chronic poverty: Catalysing development change by building just social institutions have seen projections of 30 to 40 million more men than women in China alone by 2020 (The Economist, 2010). In India, 2001 Census data indicate a national sex ratio of 933 women per 1,000 men, which is even lower in some states, such as Rajasthan, where the ratio is 921 women to 1,000 men (ibid). It is important to note that, despite substantial evidence that poverty increases the likelihood of sex-specific abortions and reduces provision of health care to young girls (see below), there is also evidence that son bias among higher-income families is prevalent in some contexts (Klasen and Wink, 2003). This is especially the case in China, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, where a combination of fertility control policies, the importance of securing a male heir for economic and culturo- religious reasons (see above) and the ability to access often expensive new reproductive technologies have fuelled highly unequal sex ratios (see Table 2). Health and nutritional biases Although the figures for female infanticide are alarming, and are arguably especially linked to poverty (as better-off households are able to afford high-tech solutions), underinvestment in girls’ health and nutrition during childhood is also of critical concern, given potential life-course and intergenerational impacts. Pande (2003) argues that gender bias may be: ‘The result of “active” bias (e.g. “intentional choice to provide health care to a sick boy but not to a sick girl”), “passive” neglect (e.g. ”discovering that a girl is sick later than would be the case for a boy, simply because girls may be more neglected in day-to- day interactions than are boys”) and “selective favouritism” (“choices made by resource constrained families that favour those children that the family can ill afford to lose”).’ See Box 12 on immunisation and gender bias. Save the Children (2010), for example, argues that gender is an important dimension of child survival inequality in India. Whereas male neonatal mortality is higher than female neonatal mortality, reflecting physiological differences between the sexes, this trend is reversed for under-five mortality, reflecting differences in the care male and female children receive. Females have 36 percent higher mortality than males in the post-neonatal period, and 61 percent higher mortality than males at ages one to four (IIPS, 2007). 13 In the
same vein, Arnold et al. (1998) found that son preference led to particularly high levels of discrimination against girls in Table 2: SIGI son preference scores by country income level Son preference (2009) High-income countries 0.28
Upper-middle-income countries 0.10
Low-middle-income countries 0.14
Other low-income countries 0.13
Middle East and North Africa 0.38
Source: http://genderindex.org Box 12: Immunisation and gender bias
Evidence of immunisation rates favouring sons or daughters within households varies. Socioeconomic status appears to play a key role in the decisions that households have to make. Poorer households appear to have to choose more frequently between children in terms of vaccinations. Although increased maternal education increases household investments in health, decisions still display gender preferences. Regional differences exist in how sex differentials are manifested. South and Southeast Asia show a bias against girls’ coverage, ranging from a 13.4 percent gap in India to 4.3 percent in Nepal. Pakistan has a 7.8 percent gap and Cambodia shows a 4.3 percent difference. However, coverage depends on household composition: girls with at least two older brothers and no sisters are as likely to be vaccinated as siblings. Girls who have at least two older sisters are 1.72 times less likely to be vaccinated compared with boys (Pande and Malhotra, 2006). Sub-Saharan Africa shows variation between countries. In Gabon and the Gambia, there is also a bias against girls, with a gender gap of 7.2 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively. However, in Madagascar, Nigeria and Namibia, there is a bias against boys of 12 percent, 7.9 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively. It is suggested that this bias against boys owes to fears that vaccinations may reduce male fertility. Source: Jones et al. (2008)
36 2 | Son bias medical treatment and in the quality of food consumed in a number of Indian states where son preference was prevalent. 14
result of parents’ greater investment in sons. As breastfeeding reduces postnatal fertility, girls are weaned early so mothers can become pregnant in the hope of conceiving a son (Jayachandran and Kuziemko, 2010). This is especially the case for girls who do not have an older brother, putting them at greater risk of disease from reduced immunity from breast milk and greater exposure to dirty water or food (ibid). 15
Indeed, Fikree and Pasha (2004) argue that the effects of discriminatory social practices contribute to higher death rates of female infants, such that, in Pakistan and India, a girl has a 30 to 50 percent higher chance of dying than a boy between the ages of one and five. 16 And in China, Li and Lavely (2003) found an even stronger association between attitudinal bias towards sons and sex-specific infant death, with female infants whose mothers reported it important to have a son almost twice as likely to die than their male counterparts (11.5 versus 6.1 percent). Female infants whose mothers expected a son to be a source of financial support also had a higher risk of death than male infants (9.1 versus 5.2 percent). This bias is often higher in resource-constrained households. Choe et al. (1998) found that, in Egypt and Bangladesh, where parents were constrained by limited family resources, the preference for sons caused parents to allocate nutrition and health care preferentially to them. Reduced educational opportunities Although there is broad recognition in development circles that girls’ education provides a high return of investment for current and future generations (Quisumbing, 2007), 17
disparities in education persist, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South and West Asia. 18 Substantial progress has been made over the past two decades in gender parity in primary education, but 28 countries still have fewer than 90 girls in primary school per 100 boys, 18 of these in sub-Saharan Africa (UNESCO, 2010). The disparities are much higher again at the secondary school level (ibid). In other regions, although national-level gender disparities in education are much lower, gender gaps do persist among some vulnerable communities, for example among indigenous communities in Latin America. In Mexico, over 90 percent of all male and female children complete at least three years of secondary education but the © Sanjit Das / Panos Pictures (2008) India, Fatehgarh Saheb, Punjab. In a male dominated society, women and young girls are advised to stay indoors all the time. Yüklə 4,33 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|