Why immigrant women may be the stronger sex
Sat, 2007-11-03 03:50
#1
Agent 204
Why immigrant women may be the stronger sex
Sat, 2007-11-03 03:50
#2
Agent 204
Not quite sure where to place this (feminism? anti-racism? Probably not here...)
quote:
This week Statistics Canada released a patchy report highlighting the disparity between second-generation men and women. The latter, it turns out, are outperforming their male counterparts academically and economically by a wide margin.While the report was long on demographic and economic data – second-generation women earn more than women with similar education whose parents were born in Canada, while second-generation men earn considerably less than their male peers – there was little that actually explained why.
From [url=http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/273126]here.[/url]
Sat, 2007-11-03 05:15
#3
a few weeks ago i met a woman from Guatemala on the bus. she was riding from her job at a restaurant to her home.
probably one of the gutsiest people i've ever met.
alone, illegally, in the United States.
she spoke very little English and my Spanish is S L O W. she gave me her phone number and i called her. i told her i was using a "computadora" to help me translate.
she freaked. scared of computers i think, scared of US immigration.
certainly, a very strong person.
Sat, 2007-11-03 05:53
#4
Maysie
The article is about second generation men and women, not immigrants. The Star is deliberately trying to be provocative as only they can be. Blech.
Why is it when women "outperform" men, a dicey concept to begin with, it becomes instantly problematized, but when men outperform women, such as overall income disparities, this is considered acceptable?
Setting up "immigrants" against "Canadian born" is a racist construct, made odder by the fact that the image accompanying the article online is that of a white woman, in a "Rosie the Riveter" pose. Rosie is another manufactured construct, this time of (white) women vs (white) men, work and WWII.
Agent 204, is there a link to the original study rather than the Star's so-called liberal interpretation?
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Sat, 2007-11-03 06:56
#5
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]The article is about second generation men and women, not immigrants. The Star is deliberately trying to be provocative as only they can be.[/b]
The story always refers to the subjects of the study as "second-generation", occasionally followed by "immigrant", but never as simply "immigrants".
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Why is it when women "outperform" men, a dicey concept to begin with, it becomes instantly problematized, but when men outperform women, such as overall income disparities, this is considered acceptable?[/b]
Any possibility of you pointing out where the article considers this to be a "problem"?
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Setting up "immigrants" against "Canadian born" is a racist construct, made odder by the fact that the image accompanying the article online is that of a white woman, in a "Rosie the Riveter" pose.[/b]
She doesn't really appear white at all. More likely South Asian. But perhaps that a question to direct at the illustrator; Raffi Anderian
Sat, 2007-11-03 07:26
#6
RevolutionPlease
[url=http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071029/d071029a.htm]Here is the Statistics Canada story[/url]
Found this quote interesting:
quote:
The study found that among young men born in Canada to two immigrant parents, visible minorities fared markedly worse. Everything else being equal, their earnings were significantly lower than those of young men with Canadian-born parents.
[url=http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75-001-XIE/2007110/articles/10372-... believe this is the full study[/url]
Sat, 2007-11-03 08:33
#7
Agent 204
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]The article is about second generation men and women, not immigrants. The Star is deliberately trying to be provocative as only they can be. Blech.Why is it when women "outperform" men, a dicey concept to begin with, it becomes instantly problematized, but when men outperform women, such as overall income disparities, this is considered acceptable?[/b]
I certainly agree that the headline is lousy (giving them the benefit of the doubt, they may have been being sloppy rather than deliberately provocative). I don't see them necessarily problematizing the fact that men do worse, though I do think it's a pretty poorly written article about an interesting phenomenon.
Turning to the actual study (thanks to RevolutionPlease for finding it) the quote posted above is indeed interesting, and unsettling. The interesting part is that the disadvantage suffered by second-generation men of colour, which presumably results from racism, doesn't apply to the women. In fact, this seems to suggest the opposite:
quote:
With only age and panel taken into account (Model 1), established immigrant women, as well as women with two immigrant parents, have significantly higher year 1 hourly earnings than their counterparts with two native-born parents—roughly 13% and 19% higher, respectively (Chart A). Furthermore, since rates of earnings growth among the various groups are not significantly different from one another, these initial advantages are maintained over the six-year period.
This is just a speculation, but I wonder if women are better equipped for dealing with racism than men, perhaps because they're already used to being discriminated against for being female and have thus had to develop a thicker skin, whereas the men (especially from some parts of the world) grow up with the expectation of being in charge, and have a hard time dealing with the reality? That doesn't, however, explain why immigrant and second generation women do better than women with two native-born parents, though.
Sat, 2007-11-03 08:34
#8
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]
Why is it when women "outperform" men, a dicey concept to begin with, it becomes instantly problematized, but when men outperform women, such as overall income disparities, this is considered acceptable?
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ][/b]
For those who are not familiar with standard research methods, it should be noted that collecting statistics and observations is usually and often done by different people than those who do a further theoretical analysis. It requires a different expertise and very often a different mindset as well. Looking at the study briefly, it appears this particular one was more concerned about simply collecting the information and properly tabulating it. The data are available to other researchers to do a proper scholarly analysis now.
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Sat, 2007-11-03 09:18
#9
Catchfire
I'm not sure why people are having trouble reading bcg's posts (although really, bcg, did you have to use the word "problematize"? We're on land leave, sailor,) but she is obviously pointing out that in rare instances when women "outperform" (code for earning more money, comrades) it becomes an issue to be parsed (a.k.a. "problematized"), but the fact that men earn more in virtually every other demographic never seems to make the front page (or the back page).
And, again, as bcg points out, the provocative and dishonest headline (IMMIGRANT!) feeds into the typical Canadian myth that we are a lovely multicultural family and aren't our newcomers doing so well? There's not much critical rigour going on in the article, some halfhearted gestures toward the "burden of masculinity" and "second-generation women so hungry for opportunity in the West once freed from the strictures of traditional family roles." I wonder if these successful women make as much as their white counterparts? Fortunately, the Rosie the Riveter assuages my fears (and forecloses any further analysis) by affirming the empowerment of immigrant women in this country....
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Sat, 2007-11-03 10:01
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]I'm not sure why people are having trouble reading bcg's posts (although really, bcg, did you have to use the word "problematize"? We're on land leave, sailor,) but she is obviously pointing out that in rare instances when women "outperform" (code for earning more money, comrades) it becomes an issue to be parsed (a.k.a. "problematized"), but the fact that men earn more in virtually every other demographic never seems to make the front page (or the back page).And, again, as bcg points out, the provocative and dishonest headline (IMMIGRANT!) feeds into the typical Canadian myth that we are a lovely multicultural family and aren't our newcomers doing so well? There's not much critical rigour going on in the article, some halfhearted gestures toward the "burden of masculinity" and "second-generation women so hungry for opportunity in the West once freed from the strictures of traditional family roles." I wonder if these successful women make as much as their white counterparts? Fortunately, the Rosie the Riveter assuages my fears (and forecloses any further analysis) by affirming the empowerment of immigrant women in this country....
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ][/b]
I guess I personally, can't get fired up by something I've accepted for a very long time. That something being we can't rely on the mainstream media to summarize some technical observation. Doesn't matter if it's superconductors, climate change, or in this case economic performance of second generation Canadians. I started a trend a few months back to post the original research on babble along with the msm article, and I'm glad to see it's continuing.
Now as for your first comment, I don't agree. The average is that men make about 30% more than women, and this is regularly portrayed as a problem worth investigating and tackling, which it is. You'll need more evidence of your claim that women's issues are ignored because I read of them regularly. Barring any genetic findings which we have not made, there simply should not be any significant performance stratification among large and geographically equivalent populations like adult men vs adult women or second generation men vs second generation women. Each of these issues has distinct causes causing distinct pain to our society and will require different researchers and lobbyists to specialize on them.
ETA: My solution to the journalism problem is to do away with journalism school. Instead hire people who have majors and masters in the relevant topics, say political science or sociology, and have them do the writing. I just don't see way out right now where journalists make mistakes on subjects they're not really familiar with.
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Sat, 2007-11-03 10:08
#11
The study isn't about women outpeforming men or vice versa. The result of the study is that second generation Cdn women have higher wages than other women born in Canada while second generation Cdn men have lower wages than other men born in Canada.
From the Stats Can article:
quote:
In fact, generalizations about young second-generation men were difficult to make since they tended to be more heterogeneous in terms of earnings than their female counterparts.Part of the extra heterogeneity arose because visible minority status had no bearing on women's earnings, but it had a large impact on those of men.
The study found that among young men born in Canada to two immigrant parents, visible minorities fared markedly worse. Everything else being equal, their earnings were significantly lower than those of young men with Canadian-born parents.
The earnings of second-generation men who were not visible minorities, on the other hand, were no different from those of men with Canadian-born parents. In fact, the study found some evidence suggesting that the earnings of those with one immigrant parent might be higher.
From the article, I infer that the wage scale goes:
White men (regardless of whether they are 1st 2d, 3d generation Cdnetc.);
visible minority men;
2d generation women (regarless of whether they are a visible minority);
other women
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]
Sat, 2007-11-03 10:19
#12
RevolutionPlease
quote:
From the article, I infer that the wage scale goes:White men (regardless of whether they are 1st 2d, 3d generation Cdnetc.);
visible minority men;
2d generation women (regarless of whether they are a visible minority);
other women[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Summer ][/QB]
Great point Summer and thanks for showing me another side to it. This article can definitely stoke a number of issues.
Sat, 2007-11-03 10:24
#13
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]there simply should not be any significant performance stratification among large and geographically equivalent populations like adult men vs adult women or second generation men vs second generation women. Each of these issues has distinct causes causing distinct pain to our society and will require different researchers and lobbyists to specialize on them.
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ][/b]
I like this thought. Thanks.
[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]
Sun, 2007-11-04 08:52
#14
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]ETA: My solution to the journalism problem is to do away with journalism school. Instead hire people who have majors and masters in the relevant topics, say political science or sociology, and have them do the writing. I just don't see way out right now where journalists make mistakes on subjects they're not really familiar with.[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ][/b]
Actually, I wouldn't discard journalism school altogether. I'd simply ditch the majors program and concentrate on a minor for students with a major in the relevant topic. Graduate studies is also an option.
Sun, 2007-11-04 12:44
#15
Maysie
Big thanks to RevolutionPlease for finding the link. And to Catchfire for calling me on my jargon of one of my favourite words (problematic, problematize, oh yeah!).
I don't have time for a thorough response right now, and I want to read the link before I do, so TTFN, I'll be back.