Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson
Sort of. Part of the argument for girls' education is about all the things, economically, that the girls can achieve with that education and what that economic effect does for political stability and development more broadly. And that's a good argument, one I really do buy into. But talking to activists and economists in South Asia, I got the sense that if the men in poor communities are not also moving ahead, that leads to the women not actually making anything of their schooling because the men are still able, both physically and via social pressure, to keep the women from putting that education to work, so that the argument for what WOULD happen if the women worked becomes irrelevant.
Keep in mind that I was getting this from women activists too, people who have done stuff for girls' education, but worry that it has become a kind of obsession that doesn't really acknowledge challenges to implementation or what role poor men have to play in the formula.
Great reply, Preppy. I was thinking along the same lines when I read Jeff's question. The goal is to advance the country as a whole, and to do that you need to address the educational needs of everyone, concurrently.