Greenhalgh Gender Inequality

Greenhalgh focuses on different socioeconomic aspects such as education, occupation, income, property and three areas of personal autonomy: job selection, residence, and control of income, to prove her theory that “in the great majority of families sexual stratification increased in postwar period” (Greenhalgh 1985: 276). She states that even though it looks like has been an increase in self-development opportunities for women after 1949, parents started using them to ultimately further improve the opportunities for their sons and secure their own long-term wellbeing. Even in the new post-war reality, they kept using the same tools – traditional intergenerational contracts (Greenhalgh 1985: 276).

Greenhalgh argues that there has been a systematic

First, there was a substantial gender gap in job mobility. Daughters were highly controlled by their parents, who expected them to start repaying their debt much earlier than sons and that required job stability. Sons, on the other hand, were encouraged to experiment on the job market, in order to find better-paying jobs and be able to return more to the family in the long run (Greenhalgh 1985: 286-289). Tighter control over the daughters’ lives was also manifested in their residential situation. Unmarried daughters usually continued living with their parents, while unmarried sons were not only allowed, but even encouraged, to move out and live on their own (Greenhalgh 1985: 292-294). Greenhalgh notices a growing gender gap in the occupational structure. Although women moved up on the occupational ladder, they still remained in the lower half. What is more, the decrease in sex differentiation in the bottom only means that women moved to jobs with higher social status, with no increase in income. I would argue, however, that comparing only unmarried daughters with both unmarried and married sons influences the outcomes of Greenhalgh’s research (Greenhalgh 1985: 289-292). Nonetheless, the gender gap in income did continue to rise, as sons benefited from the head start provided by their sisters. The differences in the access to education also played a big role in the sex stratification of

Even though her hypothesis may be correct, I’d argue that the data she provides is insufficient to prove it. Greenhalgh based her claims on the study of 80 native rural families from northern Taiwan, that delivered data from years 1954-1978. I would say that neither the focus group, nor the time period is broad enough to allow for talking about nationwide trends. Even though she recognizes that herself, she still tries to extend her findings to other East-Asian countries, mainly Japan and Korea and tries to predict future tendencies for the Taiwanese society. I do agree with her claims that the traditional Confucian economic relations within the family influenced gender inequalities in the opportunities (mainly educational) provided for the children, but I would say that a broader study is needed to prove this