Woman and Progress

a history of unhappiness

One of my favorite books is "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why some are so Rich and Why some are so Poor" by David Landes. He has described how early-Japanese industrial revolution (in textiles, silk, and cotton) was largely built on a workforce made up of woman. And that role was very important. In his words, "factory enterprise had the best of both worlds: labour cheap and yet industrious, committed to task, to group, to family."In some sense, that was true. It also meant that the worse conditions of the industrial revolution was suffered by Woman rather than man. Women did far worse than men during both the European and Japanese industrial revolution. They got the brunt of the abuse but less of the reward.

Ironically, compared to the previous norm of family-exploitation, one can even describe it as progress.

The movement of the textile industry from cottage (family) to factory was a shift from exploitation within the family to one which was external. Landes recounted a rather popular story about a woman who was a weaver at home, and what happened to her at pages 384-388. (Source: Hane, Peasants, Rebels and Outcastes: The Underside of Modern Japan (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982). The story is heart wrenching, but for sheer length, the rendition here will be rather impossible. But this was Landes' version of the conclusion:

"No one came her to see her in prison. She sat there huddled against the cold and the wind and comforted herself with songs about rhubarb shoots pushing through the snow - the same shoots she once picked for her own mother when she was a little child and her mother in her illness got comfort from them. Her son Mii wrote her only once: a family that brutalizes its women does not make men of virtue and gratitude. It was a prison mate, Yamashiro, who heard her out and preserved her story. The orphan mother and wife was then fifty years old." (at 388)

Even till today, what we cannot pay others to do, we will enslave/force/compel/influence others to do [FN1]. Slavery was condemned partly because it became increasingly inefficient for the exploiters considering the alternative (very very cheap but obedient labour). Appeal to kinship, nationhood, manhood, womanhood, family, and society itself have fared better. As Landes described, "Those who wonder at the resistance opposed by Japanese armed forces in the closing months of World War II and ascribe it to fanaticism or suicidal impulse are missing the point. This is a society whose sense of duty and collective obligation, in all realms, sets it apart from the individualism cultivated in the West." Back to woman.

In a recent NYTimes article (also featured in the Straits Times), it was reported:

"Two new research papers, using very different methods, have both come to this conclusion. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Pennsylvania (and a couple), have looked at the traditional happiness data, in which people are simply asked how satisfied they are with their overall lives. In the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. Today, the two have switched places."

In other words, man report being happier while woman report being unhappier. What is happening is not that "woman are working more" but "that they are doing different kinds of work". I am not surprised. I believe Singapore is following the way of United States. And unlike the individualism US is associated with, Singapore's communalist tendencies will definitely place greater pressures on womanfolk.

Larger expectations invariably leads to the potential for greater unhappiness. As a result, unlike the proverbial advice, one should aim steadily higher and not the moon at once. Or at least not the moon, the sun, and all the planets at once. Woman also seems to be doing better at school and the workplace. Purely on observation, there seems to be more girls in poly, more girls in JC, more girls in Uni. In Singapore, very unAsean, we have a larger number of woman in the legislative/executive wing of the ruling party. Woman also have equal political rights, and have participated in a larger say in the country in the US. Yet, unhappiness is greater.

"A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago — despite far more discrimination — is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then."

Although I grew up with the impression that my father worked very hard, while my mother worked less hard (but made up in ways that cannot be quantifiable) I increasingly realize that this was probably not going to be the rule in my generation. Increasingly, woman are required to build the 'GDP' of both country and home. Yet, the role of child bearer can only be undertaken by woman. At the same time, the role of home maker is primarily on the shoulders of the woman. The ideal woman the state has can be observed from one of those Mediacorp dramas. Ambitious, good of character, successful, wants to have a family and puts family before career. And then there are Western lifestyle pressures. Consumerism for the sake of happiness is getting really popular.

I can imagine (but not have sympathy) with the pressure. Woman are supposed to compete within the traditional male idea of "career" and "independence", play the traditional/Confucian/Asian role of dutiful daughter to the family, live the "exciting" life of a Western free "liberal" "individual", become the Mediacorp infused role of wife and home-marker, keep up with the fashion and dress sense of the fashionable and cool "woman, ad infinitum.

For man, if you don't want to drink beer, appreciate fine wine, enjoy soccer, be a ladies man, a womanizer, rich, drive a sports car, a family man, a dutiful husband, provide for children, family and yourself, somewhat angry, succeed in your career, be the envy of your peers and your own father, be able to fix electronic appliances and have a six-pack all at the same time - it seems okay - there is somewhat less pressure.

What happened perhaps was the realisation that people should not be forced to live similar lives and pursue similar objects. Perhaps it was the ability of man to succeed in achieving the above 'ideals' which revealed that those were not as good as they might seem. Perhaps its a matter of time that girls realise that the the ambitious career woman who looks very happy, pretty and young, smart and intelligent in that MediaCorp drama, with her three children in tow - still looking cool - is a myth, a path that she need not follow.

"What has changed — and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends — is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short."

I suppose its about cutting ourselves and others some slack.


[FN1]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1408233

[FN2] The NYTimes Article I quoted extensively from.
[FN3] Another interesting NYTimes article about Amazing Girls who feel inadequate

The Disapproving 70 percent

and how decriminalizing sex between males will change attitudes and win votes

For those not already in the know, apparently 7/10 Singaporeans "frown on Homosexuality." Mr Wang dissected this latest statistic and compared it to other acts many disapprove of, arguing, and he puts the case very high, that therefore homosexuality should be decriminalized. I think its very logical and sound.

Some have suggested Mr Wang has employed false analogies.

I believe that from their perspective, "homosexuality" is unnatural and morally depraved. In their brain, "homosexuality" falls under an entire different class altogether. It is unlike unlike premarital sex which is merely sinful in the "lust" aspect, or like theft, which is merely sinful in the "greed" aspect. I feel that their aversion to "homosexuality" is much greater, and from their perspective, to compare it with other "acts" which they also disapprove of, is somewhat misleading. They might have no answer to why, apart from their subjective feelings, the analogy is not acceptable but whether one should have sympathy with their worldview depends largely on how much you are willing to tolerate intolerance.

Public opinion polls in the US also suggest that a person's disapproval of premarital sex/adultery have no necessary correlation with their disapproval of same sex relations. (See below).

But one way to convince some of that 70 percent, is to ironically, change the law.

Learning from US History
Today, one might think that desegregation of schools and racial communities in the US is a given. Most White Americans today support desegregation. This was not the case in the past. What happened? The Civil Rights movement has a lot to do with it, but one should not forget the role of the law. The decision in Brown v. Board of Education had a huge impact. The Supreme Court found that desegregation was inherently unequal. Early reaction to that decision was very bad.

"Gov. George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students. This became the infamous "Stand at the Schoolhouse Door," during which Wallace declared "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."[15] He moved aside only when confronted by federal marshals and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach." [Link]

Yes. Racists do become politicians and Governors. So might homophobes. But when this law came down, attitudes change pretty quickly. Then the Civil Rights Act was passed. This was way back in 1964. "I have a dream."? Remember?

10 years after 1964, 'the percentage of White Americans who said that Blacks should be allowed to live in any neighborhood increased from 65 percent to 87 percent (ISR Newsletter, 1975) (Myers, Social Pyschology). As time went by, the KKK fell from grace, and their racist ideas seen as wicked. One should never forget that in the 1920, " the organization included about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men." Things can change very fast.

Today most Americans are arguing whether affirmative action should be a right. How far they have progressed! One can legislate against prejudice, and that will shape attitudes. That is why our Ministers should not be afraid of that so called "moral majority." When the law is passed, the moral majority might be one which is against "prejudice" based on sexuality. The law should do the right thing. And the powers that are might actually win support because of it.


____


FN1 [The US public disapproval ratings and other ways to change public opinion]
Even today, a large percentage of Americans disapproved of same sex relations. In fact between 1973 to 1991, those disapproving of same sex sexual relation in Americans stand at 71 percent and it was only until 2002, that it was about 55 percent. (Public Opinion Pros) . If you read that link carefully, you might find some interesting nuggets.

"Remarkably, this shift cannot be due to a widespread change in traditional sexual mores. In the same period, the share of Americans saying premarital sex is always wrong stayed just about constant (ranging between 26-28 percent), and the proportion of Americans saying adultery is always wrong has, if anything, risen (from 76 to 80 percent)....In sum, Americans have not become more accepting of nontraditional sexuality in general; rather, they have become more tolerant of gay sexuality in particular."

"Two concurrent phenomena may well account for much of this change—as they may also account for the changing levels of affect measured by the feeling thermometers. First, the proportion of Americans who said they had a close friend or acquaintance who is gay or lesbian more than doubled in a decade, from one in five in 1985 to a majority in 1996. Much of this, no doubt, is a function of the willingness of gay people to come out to friends and family and to put a human face onto something that had been an abstract taboo. Second, Americans increasingly believe that homosexuals are born, not made: In 1983, only 16 percent agreed that homosexuality was something people were born with, while in 2004, 32 percent held that belief. Those attributing homosexuality to upbringing dropped from 25 percent to 14 percent, while the share of Americans saying that gayness was a choice remained steady."

Finland's Egalitarian Shadow

what can we learn from Finland's Education System?

Singapore's Maths and Science scores have been the very envy of the world. In the United States and Israel, schools use Singapore maths textbooks. Like the United States, Singapore's education system thrives on meritocracy. As Singapore's Minister of Education quipped, ""Yours [the US] is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy." Mr Shanmugaratam praised the American system as one that imbued "creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition." But is meritocracy always that appealing? 

Not if you ask my mother. As a parent of two (then) young boys, she was worried her sons might not get into the right streams and the right schools. A movie which highlights the effects of streaming in Singapore "I not stupid" is generally popular.  In that movie, students' self esteem are seen to be unhealthily tied to their examination results and the stream they are in.

And if that sounds convoluted and odd to you, wait till you hear the details. At the top of the pyramid was the Gifted Education System, aimed at the top 1% of the cohort. Then there are the different bands catering to different abilities: EM1, EM2, EM3. These "streaming" takes place before the tender age of 10.

Then at age 12, the PSLE exam will determine whether one will end up in the special stream, express stream, normal academic, or the normal technical stream. At 14, within schools, there will be usually another round of internal streaming, which will determine what subjects you might take. For the budding doctor of age 14, not been able to do well to take biology might prove stressful. 

Each stage is intensely competitive. Students are under intense pressure to excel. Learning merely for the sake of the "exam meritocracy" is common. Moves towards a "talent meritocracy" meant greater focus on "creativity". That too however can be pressurizing in its own way, as creativity is less 'objective' and hard work might not necessarily bring out results. For parents and children, this represents another source of pressure.

Schools are also unequal. They are widely acknowledged to produce different academic standards and cater to different academic groups. Hence intense pressures to get into the right primary school mean long lines outside popular primary schools every start of the registration period. At the secondary school level, due to streaming, only those with the best academic scores end at various "better" secondary schools. Many end up at "better" JCs.

Finland's Shadow
Compare this with Finland. Finland too has produced very good Maths and Science scores. It has consistently been ranked as Europe's best education system. Finns are also very literate. Finns read newspapers, borrow books at public libraries, and train more musicians per capita, than any other OCED country. It is an education system, that although not perfect, have been widely acknowledged as being one of the best in Europe, and among OCED countries.

Finland education system is surprising for the outsider because of this one rather impressive (and rare) achievement: Schools are generally no better or worse. They just are generally good. Generally there is only a 4% variation in standard (based on student performance) between schools. This is very surprising since in other countries, schools fail when their students come from the surrounding poor communities. 

As one happy Finn parent say, "This is one of those big Finnish Principles that people adhere to and we really believe in it and that equity ... equality ... equal treatment for everybody. Nobody is left behind." And it is not very costly for taxpayers either. OCED figures rate it as only slightly above average.

And that is despite the high quality of teachers. The basic qualification to teach secondary and elementary school is a Master's degree. There are also a lot of applications for the teaching job. It is a respectable job and seen as a high quality ethical profession. Teachers are also given quite a bit of freedom to teach what they want, especially when the kids reach 16-17 years old. Teachers are very much seen as friends and partners both by the students and the community. In the words of one Finnish teacher, they are "trusted."

And the children have fun in a very relaxed environment. One trainee teacher described in her teaching experience of some months that the "toughest" thing she had to do to discipline a student was to send a student out of class. And she sounded quite regretful.

Elitism in Singapore : More than Stress
What Singapore can learn from Finland is not the wholesale import of her values. Equality has served Finland well, but only because it is generally accepted in Finland as a value. In Singapore, grudgingly or otherwise, meritocracy is generally accepted. After all, education policies can only properly serve a society when its underlying values are not antithetical to society's practices. Many in Singapore generally believe that ability should be well rewarded.

But this meritocratic ideal has drawbacks. Most scholarship holders - scholarships are available only to those who represent the best and brightest in the education system -  come from much better family backgrounds than the average Singaporeans. This has lead to envy, jealously and increased tensions. 

Advantages from being born in a rich family is significant from this perspective. It can translate to access to resources, better schools, and even access to quality overseas education and job. This quickly numbs the notion that ability is all that matters, and quite naturally, feelings of betrayal takes root. On the other hand, wages of the lower middle classes suffer due to globalization. Calls for a more equal society becomes more common in an increasingly unequal society.

As Young warned when he coined the term meritocracy, it can quickly become corrupted. ""So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves." His fear is shared by many Singaporeans. And no better place than in education to solve and nip any problem in the bud.

Singapore challenge is to tweak the education to not serve the interest of the elites but those of meritocracy. The best way to do so is to keep an eye of Finland's example and their practices. This must mean that standards within schools should not vary dramatically. The Ministry should aim that variation of standards within schools should not be more than 20%. This is still a far cry from the 4% that Finland has achieved, but I supposed we have different priorities. Success in this area is cumulative. As more parents recognize that the school of choice will not affect the child's ability to perform, they will be more comfortable in sending a child to any Singaporean school.

In order to do this, affiliation between primary schools and secondary schools which give advantages to old school boys and girls should be abandoned. The Gifted Education is already being phased out. Streaming should also be phased out. Every school should not have more than a fixed percentage of students coming from the top 20 percent of the PSLE exams.

Schools, if they are not doing so already, must start to work more effectively with the community leaders and interact more with families. Community leaders should work with teachers to spot social problems and counsel the families with school going children. Families should be encouraged to work with teachers.

Selection of teachers should be more rigorous. Teachers should at least possess a good honors degree before they teach primary and secondary school. This will ensure that all primary and secondary schools in Singapore get teachers who are well qualified. These suggestions are not unworkable in practice. Most people from the establishment will probably reject such ideas as fanciful or unworkable. It might be decried as expensive. Some, especially teachers who do not meet these standards, might think that the standards excepted of teachers are too high. It is no doubt difficult and goes against the grain of "old-networks" and the regurgitation of an elite class. 

Yet the advantages, as Finland examples shows, are manifold. Higher esteem for individual students, the resolution of tension, the restoration of meritocracy, and greater happiness for the greatest number. Finland example is not perfect, and our culture might mean we cannot follow most of it. But what we can follow will require commitment to an education that reward ability with an eye towards Finland's egalitarian example. 

Notes:
Quotes from the Singapore Education Minister : Newsweek (Jan. 9, 2006; page 37)

Quotes from Finland Students and Teachers from this BBC Podcast Top of the Class 1 available here.