January 11, 2008
Hillary Clinton and the rise of college-educated women
There are lots of theories about why Hillary Clinton unexpectedly won the New Hampshire primary. I don’t know which is right, since I am not a political expert (and even if I were, I wouldn’t). But there is clearly significance to the fact that many women voters turned out to support her.
Maybe it was because they resented John Edwards and Barack Obama attacking her in the televised debate. Mrs Clinton seems to think so since she has since pounded away at the point that the male "buddies" teamed up against her.
Anyway, there is an fascinating demographic point here that has as much relevance for business as for politics. It is the rise in influence - and sheer numbers - of American college-educated women.
One of my favourite writers, Jonathan Rauch, has just written a great column on this in the National Journal. He points out that, not only has the number of women graduating annually from US colleges exceeded the number of men since the 1990s, but the ratio is rising. By 2017, the ratio of women graduates to male graduates is expected to hit 1.5.
As Jonathan argues, the "coming matriarchy" is a serious matter for employers.
Women’s superior education will increase their earning power relative to men’s, and on average they will be marrying down, educationally speaking. A third of today’s college-bound 12-year-old girls can expect to "settle" for a mate without a university diploma. But women will not stop wanting to be hands-on moms.
For families, this will pose a dilemma. Women will have a comparative advantage at both parenting and breadwinning. Many women will want to take time off for child-rearing, but the cost of keeping a college-educated mom at home while a high-school-educated dad works will be high, often prohibitive.
Look, then, for rising pressure on government to provide new parental subsidies and child care programs, and on employers to provide more flextime and home-office options — among various efforts to help women do it all.
Employers should beware being in the same position as the media and pollsters in the New Hampshire election - believing that men are the ones to watch when a demographic revolution is occurring without them noticing.
I was deeply heartened by the response of American women to the drubbing Hillary Clinton was getting on her voice, clothes, choking up and all the other things that mark her out as “woman” as opposed to “candidate for presidency”. The level of education and the fine-grained nature of their analysis of media coverage showed how sturdy American feminism is, despite its recent reverses.
Posted by: rbw1 | January 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm | Report this comment” By 2017, the ratio of women graduates to male graduates is expected to hit 1.5.”
So what?
To extrapolate a trnde ad infinitum is pointless.
Posted by: Guido Sullam | January 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this commentwhat’s so magic about the year 2017, or the ratio 1.5 between men and women?
Beside this, women continue to concentrate their studies on “soft subjects” like litterature, international relationship, gender and racial issues.
Thi will not help their future careers.
About “marrying down”, what’s the problem?
Men always did it.