By Anya Kamanetz:
Fact is, the desire and the data don’t match up. In the 21st century, there’s a compelling case for girls as the equal–and in some cases, optimal–gender for roles in leadership, innovation, and economic growth. Women excel in education, the most crucial factor in tomorrow’s workforce; we are 56% of undergraduates in the U.S. and approaching parity in China and India. Our socialization is geared toward the right stuff for the changing requirements of success in the 21st century: Women are likely to have a more balanced, empathetic leadership style, better communication skills, a knack for fostering innovation through collaboration. Consider the results of a recent study by psychologists at MIT and Carnegie Mellon, who divided people into teams and asked them to complete intelligence tasks together. The IQ scores of the groups’ members barely affected collective performance. The number of women on a team, however, affected it a lot–the more women, the better.
The evidence is mounting that baby girls are a strong investment. “An important future indicator for a developing economy is its treatment of women,” says Sheryl WuDunn, coauthor with husband Nicholas Kristof of Half the Sky, a best seller turned PBS series turned online game that dubs girl power “the best way to fight poverty and extremism.” A country that gives girls equal opportunity has twice as much talent and brainpower to draw on and is likely to be more open and flexible in ways that promote international trade. World Bank numbers also show that development dollars invested in projects that target girls and women show a 90% return; the figure for projects focused on men and boys hovers between 30% and 40%. The Grameen Bank, the best-known microfinancier, makes 97% of its loans to women, whose repayment rates are much higher….
I’ve heard it said the most important thing about girls is that they know how to sit down and shut up and that is a big advantage in today’s society.
Comment by DRT — November 28, 2011 @ 2:27 pm
…I forgot to add the most important point…
.know how to sit down, shut up and *concentrate*….
I guess you can see I fail that test.
Comment by DRT — November 28, 2011 @ 2:34 pm
Scot, thanks for posting this. I am doing research on talking to girls about sex and am committed to helping young women have a voice. The research from MIT and Carnegie Melon sounds very interesting, I’ll have to get my hands on it. I find it fascinating that no matter how much I talk to my daughters about some of these issues (I have four teenage daughters) they are still very strongly influenced by the culture and media. While there is a strong preference for desiring male babies as the article notes, there is also a strong preference for desiring “hot” females in other realms. Thanks for keeping the topic of women in ministry alive and well here on your blog.
Comment by Elizabeth Chapin — November 28, 2011 @ 3:06 pm
It’s interesting that if the genders were reversed in the article, it would be lambasted as being a misogynistic remnant of knuckle-dragging patriarchy.
Comment by Daniel S. — November 28, 2011 @ 3:21 pm
@ 4
You’re right it would, because the data doesn’t support that conclusion.
Comment by Richard — November 28, 2011 @ 3:39 pm
Daniel S.,
The beginning of the article (not quoted here) and the impetus for the campaign is the issue of female infanticide and the abortion of female fetuses. So the misogynism and knuckle-dragging patriarchy are already there.
Comment by Anna — November 28, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
@5. I think you’re missing the point.
Comment by Daniel S. — November 28, 2011 @ 4:01 pm
I’m on the side that wants to end infanticide and abortion.
That said, note the pink sidebar that tells us about the 74% of women “on teams that created ads for this article” but only 3% of “female creative directors in the ad industry”. A big part of the reason for that type of situation is that the director’s of the world aren’t the kind of people who sit down, shutup, and concentrate. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with women, maybe there’s something wrong with directors, but anyone with big ambitions is well served by recognizing reality.
Comment by JohnM — November 28, 2011 @ 5:34 pm
I was just researching & writing about 3 women who’ve had prominent positions and the opportunities to speak truthfully and strongly vs. the financial practices, nationally & internationally, that brought about the financial meltdown. One of the links I posted was to a Washington Post article, right in the midst of the meltdown at the end of 2008, where Brooksley Born was shut down forcefully by, IMHO and experience, an insiders’ boys club of men who didn’t want the full truth exposed.
Women, in healthy contexts, provide balance and insights from perspectives that men don’t have. They can be helpful, if they’re not coopted, at mitigating our natural tendency to Group-think.
Comment by Ann F-R — November 28, 2011 @ 8:17 pm
Daniel S., #4, seems not have read the article to have made those remarks.
Comment by Ann F-R — November 28, 2011 @ 8:22 pm
@7
I caught your point, I just reject your cynicism.
Comment by Richard — November 29, 2011 @ 7:08 am
Something like 75% of the couples in the US who use procedures to try and have a baby of a particular sex are doing it to have a girl. Whereas men as better suited for a pyramidal, hierarchical command-and-control society, women are better suited for a networked, relationship-based society.
Given that scripture came from a time when women were basically property, the implications to Christianity of a society in which women are in charge are huge.
Comment by Fish — November 29, 2011 @ 8:00 am
@11.
Cynical or not, it’s objectively correct.
Comment by Daniel S. — November 29, 2011 @ 8:40 am
#4 & 11, “if the genders were reversed…” You are objectively correct but I’m not sure why you are making the point. For centuries the genders HAVE BEEN reversed. We may not have ads promoting preference for baby boys, but the cultural milieu has promoted a preference for boys in SO many ways it’s impossible to recount and so difficult to reverse that we are still struggling with this issue today. I often get into this discussion about gender equality – with people asking why we have to make such a big deal about promoting women to the exclusion of men in some way or another – isn’t that reverse discrimination, they ask. My generalized response is that we often have to swing the pendulum in the other direction before getting to the balanced place of gender equality – though I seriously doubt we will ever live in a world where women command and control men and men are viewed as property or of very little value. I also think the ads in the article use hyperbole and humor to make a valid point – though some make it in ways that I don’t find helpful.
Comment by Elizabeth Chapin — November 29, 2011 @ 11:25 am
Daniel – countries definitely do better when they invest in the education of girls. I’m sure you don’t object to that as your posts seem to imply. Also, think about this: in India, my mother saw billboards advertising abortions for female fetuses. Do you see anything wrong with objecting to that?
Comment by P. — November 29, 2011 @ 11:29 am
@15.
“countries definitely do better when they invest in the education of girls.”
- I absolutely agree.
“I’m sure you don’t object to that as your posts seem to imply.”
- My posts imply nothing of the sort.
My objection is to the touting of female superiority when the touting of male superiority is frowned upon. And that, as has been pointed out above, is objectively true.
Comment by DLS — November 29, 2011 @ 2:15 pm