Introduction

Educational inequality as it relates to the patriarchy affects women from across the globe. In many countries, women are regarded as inferior to men, second-class citizens, and best kept at home tending to domestic duties. Young girls from families of low socioeconomic status are many times forced to give up their education in order to assist with the economic burden their families carry, as their male siblings are deemed more deserving of obtaining an education. In extreme cases, girls are forced into early marriages and prostitution to ease the family’s financial stress.

On the other hand, women who are fortunate enough to obtain an education still find themselves the victims of a male-dominated, patriarchal system that seeks to keep them disempowered and marginalized. Many women whose achievements and merits eclipse those of their male counterparts still struggle to ascend to the same educational heights and are not afforded equal academic opportunities.

This paper will explore the links between humanitarianism and the patriarchy. It will evaluate past initiatives and methods employed to attain gender equality regarding education, and critique their outcomes through an intersectional lens to answer the following questions: Why are women not supported as equally as men? Are humanitarianism and patriarchy truly similar in that they possess shared power dynamics? Is humanitarianism as it relates to educational equality indeed working to reinforce the patriarchy? How can introducing intersectional solutions help to alleviate the issue?

The Problem

Education, in general, is vital in promoting a country’s growth both economically and developmentally. Not only does the education of both males and females increase their livelihoods and level of advancement, but the education of females specifically constructs them as positive role models for their own children, thus aiding in their children’s schooling and well-being (Cooray & Potrafke, 2011). Yet, in many parts of the world, girls and women are not afforded the same educational opportunities as males, particularly in patriarchal societies (2011).

Patriarchy is a term that has been defined in several different ways, but all have the same underlying theme: the oppression of women. Patriarchy is the idea that men are superior to women, and that women are their subordinates. Patriarchy is seen in systems starting as small as the household, and morphing into greater networks such as politics, economics, culture, religion, and social organizations (Makama, 2013). The degrees to which men exert their control over women differs from country to country and structure to structure.

Regarding the education of girls, patriarchal ideals have created an array of issues negatively impacting girls’ access to schooling and even their attitudes. For example, in India under a caste patriarchy, girls are only assured they will be educated for the first eight years of their schooling (Yunas, 2021). Furthermore, the deregulation of child labor guidelines in India is sadly forcing marginalized families to make a choice between educating their girls or sending them into the workforce to help support the family (Yunas, 2021). In Afghanistan, cultural and religious standards have encouraged some extremists to take violent action upon young girls seeking to obtain an education by throwing acid at them, and even detonating toxic gas bombs while the girls are playing at school recess on the playground (Cooray & Potrafke, 2011). In the small coastal town of East Java in Indonesia, the dropout rate for girls is particularly high (Sudarso, Keban, & Mas’udah, 2019). East Java is a humble fishing town, where most of the inhabitants work in the maritime industry. Many of the families have no need for a formal education as their lives revolve around fishing, which in turn significantly hinders the development of the curriculum offered to students. Furthermore, the Madurese culture found in this part Indonesia is highly patriarchal. Women are viewed as weaker than men, and in need of their protection and close watch. This leads to early marriage for a lot of girls. In addition, women in this culture are conditioned to be obedient to their husbands and prescribe to them the image of “all-knowing” as the provider (Sudarso, Keban, & Mas’udah, 2019).

Additionally, in patriarchal countries such as Zimbabwe and Nigeria, gender discrepancies in education are significantly seen in the area of Sciences, Mathematics, and Technical subjects (SMTs) as culture and socialization leads girls to believe these subjects are better suited to boys (Chikunda & Chikunda, 2016; Makama, 2013). Girls are similarly subjected to sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and even sexual abuse in schools, thus motivating them to drop out (Chikunda & Chikunda, 2016). School curriculum reflects patriarchal values and can oftentimes be considered sexist. Teachers also can play a role in the exodus of young girls as their attitudes and teachings also reflect the patriarchal attitudes of the learning materials and culture (Chikunda & Chikunda, 2016; Makama, 2013).

In Anne Firth Murray’s book From Outrage to Courage, she details the many perils of women in developing countries (Firth Murray, 2013). In chapter three, she speaks specifically to the issue of lack of education and the many reasons it continues to plague so many. Most horrifying is the violent ritual of female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM leaves many girls with ongoing health issues, not to mention physical and psychological trauma. Moreover, many of the women who force their daughters to have the procedure and even women who are performing this invasive operation do not want to. They follow through as they fear wrath or punishment from those in charge in these patriarchal societies. Many girls cannot return to school after FGM due to health issues, or because they are quickly married off (2013).

Previous Efforts to Balance Gender Inequality in Education

To remedy the concerns regarding gender imbalances as they pertain to education in patriarchal societies, many humanitarian efforts have been initiated through policy and legislation. In 1958, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa was founded in an attempt to equalize the rights of women to obtain an education (Dlamini & Adams, 2014). However, after more than 60 years since its inception, the problem of gender inequality in education still extends throughout Africa. Likewise, Zimbabwe enacted the Zimbabwe National Gender Policy to update school curricula to promote educational equity between boys and girls, yet patriarchal ideology still pervades (Chikunda & Chikunda, 2016). And, perhaps most notably, the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was instituted in 1979 by the United Nations (Makama, 2013). To date, this treaty has been ratified by 189 states worldwide, and serves as a bill of rights of sorts for women across the globe. Yet, many of the states who have adopted CEDAW continue to operate under a patriarchal form of oppression.

Likewise, to remedy the impact of a patriarchal system on the education of women, humanitarian organizations such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (NCWGE), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Oxfam have acted, as well as religious charitable organizations such as Catholic Charities USA and World Vision. Some solutions have included economic empowerment of poor families, religious reform, initiation of policy, the formation of women’s groups, workshops and seminars, and the list goes on.

The question remains: With all the previously mentioned legislative and humanitarian efforts, why do so many girls and women across the globe still struggle to have the same access to education as boys and men?

Critical Analysis of Humanitarian Efforts to Remedy Educational Inequality

Neutrality has been defined as “not taking sides in hostilities or engaging at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious, or ideological nature” (Fal Dutra, 2019). Many humanitarian aid organizations, including churches, claim to be disinterested third parties just trying to make a difference. But in Fal Dutra’s blog, he criticizes this notion of indifference. He argues that the standard of neutrality is both militarily and ideologically based, and the gender-transformative movement is viewed by some as a breach of ideological neutrality when calling out the injustices of the patriarchy. Humanitarians are forced to participate in a patriarchal world during all stages of crisis and are subject to its rules. So, even though many humanitarians may not realize it, they might be working to actually perpetuate the patriarchy. For example, specifically as it pertains to women, humanitarian marketing often depicts them as fragile and defenseless (2019). This message absolutely caters to the notion of male superiority in a patriarchal society.

Furthermore, in a patriarchal culture, the concept of neutrality is defined and established by a system that is already male dominated. Fal Dutra gives the example of man who will never feel bodily insecurity until a time of war, whereas a woman feels that insecurity on an ongoing, if not daily, basis where patriarchy is present (2019). Claiming to be neutral when there are already gender inequalities is a breach of humanitarianism. Fal Dutra sums up his thoughts on neutrality by quoting Desmond Tutu: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” (2019).

There are many charitable organizations that operate under the guise of religion. In Peters’ article regarding the many weaknesses of humanitarianism, he specifically states that charity is rooted in religion (Peters, 2019). He reflects on the foundation of charity in the Elizabethan times of 16^th century England, where church regulations were made to sometimes punish the poor with legal or physical intimidation. Policies on whether an individual was deemed worthy to receive charity or not were flimsy, unjust, and cruel to many.

As a present-day example, the decline of the welfare state has catapulted the desire for many to donate to charity. This in turn takes pressure off the government in terms of assisting the poor and leaves the door wide open for comparison to colonial times as religious institutions pick up the slack (Peters, 2019). Additionally, many charitable institutions operate under a tax-exempt platform, drawing the interest of many in the previous presidential administration. The “Christian Right” worked under the cloak of charity and Christianity to enact policies that were detrimental to the lives and well-being of so many worldwide, thus steering the destiny of humanitarianism down a patriarchal path. Who can forget 2020’s image of many peaceful protestors in Lafayette Park being gassed by police to clear a path for Donald Trump to cross the street and pose with a bible in front of St. John’s Church? Religion is a tool that has been repeatedly manipulated by the patriarchy to perpetuate their power and pad their pockets.

Given the previous dissection of the patriarchal roots of religion and its ties to the Christian Right working to strip the rights of others while collecting a paycheck, the question remains: Do patriarchy and capitalism go hand in hand? The roots of capitalism trace way back to the 19^th century abolition of slavery. In Haskell’s article, he discusses how the end of slavery was basically thanks to the beginning of capitalism (Haskell, 2018). He argues that capitalism has causal influence on humanitarianism. When slavery was abolished, he believes that it was not the cause of a moral shift or the humanization of those enslaved. Rather, Haskell believes the changes in the economy are what shifted the narrative on slavery as the bourgeoises were certainly advancing fiscally from the emergence of capitalism. He argues that capitalism was framing anti-slavery and structuring the way humanitarianism disguised as anti-slavery would materialize (2018). This is a prime example of humanitarianism intermingling with politics, thus bolstering the patriarchy.

Now that we have established capitalism is indeed rooted in patriarchy, let’s bring it back to how the relationship between capitalism and patriarchy affects women. In her article Does Capitalism Really Need Patriarchy?, Johnson argues that patriarchy and capitalism go hand in hand. She suggests that capitalism is asserted on the subservience of females. She explores the patriarchal core of the “family wage”, and its ties to capitalism. In 1918, women in the workforce were making a measly 54% of the wages afforded to men (Johnson, 1996). Hence, the birth of the “family wage”, or the pay that was deemed feasible at the time to support a family. Johnson explores the question of why it would be beneficial for an employer to pay the wage of a family yet only get the labor of one member in return. She concludes that by promoting this patriarchal strategy, capitalists were successfully able to exclude women from the workforce and keep them where the patriarchy felt they were most useful: at home (1996).

Johnson does not stop there. She traces the roots of disqualifying women back to the days when women were unable to own property to account for why most capitalists are men. Women’s inability to have any wealth prohibited them from being capitalists. Thus, they simply did not possess the human rights that were so readily afforded to men. Furthermore, she also explores the glaring fact that many male workers may be turned off to equal wages for women as that could also equate to lower wages for men (Johnson, 1996).

The ”Girl Effect” movement, an NGO founded by the Nike Foundation and the NoVo Foundation in 2008, was built on the premise of empowering young girls to take a pivotal role in the development of their communities (Yunus, 2020). Slogans such as “poverty ends with her” and “invest in a girl and she will do the rest” make these girls the target of patriarchy in that they intentionally make them victims. Furthermore, this movement fails to take into account the level of poverty most of the marginalized young girls in poorer countries are living in as a result of patriarchal forms of government and authority. As a result, these girls are further exploited via reproductive labor, also known as domestic labor, which keeps them at home and further advances capitalism. Peters, in his article discussing the many faults of humanitarianism, addresses the topic of “philanthro-capitalism”, also known as “philanthropic colonialism”. Philanthro-capitalism can be quickly defined as a way of providing a charitable service while simultaneously making a profit. Movements such as “Girl Effect”, who again are funded by the Nike Foundation, are easily lumped into the category of philanthro-capitalist in that they exploit the perils of young girls from marginalized countries in order to promote their brand (Peters, 2019). The manipulation of the humanitarian narrative serves to further promote the patriarchy and turn a profit.

Intersectional Solutions to Gender Inequality in Education

To alleviate the effects of the patriarchy on girls and women and their access to education, we can take a couple different intersectional approaches. First, ensuring a gender balance in political representation will work to alleviate patriarchal oppression for women and girls. For example, in Nigeria, it is policy that the representation of lawmakers be made up of at least 30% of either sex, and a maximum of 60% for either sex as well (Makama, 2013). This law is a result of the Beijing Conference, and it indicated major progress in terms of women’s representation immediately following.

Additionally, the promotion of Affirmative Action also goes hand in hand with proportional representation. Affirmative Action seeks to allot the same representation to different groups regardless of race, gender, sex. sexual orientation, nationality, or creed within a particular organization or governmental structure (Makama, 2013). This quest for diverse representation within Affirmation Action embodies the concept of intersectionality, and bolsters the need for female role models to balance the inequality of gender representation. Affirmative Action speaks to the challenges of discrimination, civil rights, gender inequality, and more. Therefore, legislation promoting the balance of male/female representation in political matters is essential to promote gender equality in education worldwide. Instilling such guidelines will not only secure a more equitable representation, it will also provide a wider array of political opinions and positions, thus reaching a more diverse base of people.

In addition, Dlamini and Adams reiterate the need for equal representation not only in government, but in academic institutions as well (Dlamini & Adams, 2014). As previously stated, many young girls in primary and secondary school are discouraged from continuing education due to the patriarchal ideals that are impressed upon them even by their teachers. Incorporating and intersectionally diverse group of women into their education can give the girls a role model, and encourage them to stay in school.

However, research has shown a direct link between gender attitudes and education, and how it differs from country to country. Researchers Liao and Luo performed an intersectional study on gender, education, and attitudes towards women's leadership. They found there are some countries where well-educated men are more agreeable to women in power, and other countries where the opposite was true (2021). When employing an intersectional approach towards educational discrepancies, it is important to bear this in mind. The results should not be expected to be the same across the board. Transforming patriarchal ideals will take longer for some areas of the world than others.