Comparative Advantage And Gender Roles

The term comparative advantage was first suggested by economist David Ricardo. According to him, a country should always concentrate on producing what it's best at producing, at the same time it should import the other commodities from countries which have comparative advantage at manufacturing those goods.

Ricardo argued that, even if a country could produce everything more efficiently than other countries, it would reap profit from specializing in what it's best at manufacturing and trading it in exchange of other commodities. Hence, comparative advantage shouldn't be viewed as something absolute. To further illustrate my point, consider the US and Vietnam and their abilities to produce two types of good : airplanes and televisions. US could definitely produce both types of good with better quality than Vietnam, but Vietnam's ability to produce television is better than that of producing airplanes, as a result, the US shall let Vietnam produce televisions and US should concentrate on producing airplanes, in that way, both country could profit from trading televisions and airplanes with each other.

Even though comparative advantage is an economic terminology, we could see that it also applies to gender roles in human society. Women today undoubtedly enjoy a lot more freedom than their counterparts who lived just a few decades ago. Basically, apart from a handful of countries, most of the legal systems in the world grant equal rights to both genders.

But, despite the fact that women nowadays are endowed (at least legally) with the same amount of choices in all aspects of their lives as men, why many women still choose to assume their traditional role as housewives, the "rice making maid" (as in cantonese) for their husbands ? Why many women still prefer making-up than building careers ?

One common point of view is that the male dominant society has way too many invisible constraints and unforeseeable pitfalls that they left women with few choices. Another popular view is that men as the breadwinners of their families has become the norm of our societies, so why should a woman subject herself to much hardship if she could "delegate" the job to her husband?While both point of views have their own credits, it would be presumptuos if one thinks that a woman choose not to work simply because she thinks working is too hard. Many women choose to be a housewife because their families need a keeper, a guardian; and their children need a caring mother who take care of them wholeheartedly.

If we consider it from the Ricardian perspective of comparative advantage, since men generally do a better job in securing financial resources than rearing kids and home keeping, so unless their wives could do an even better job at earning money, it would be wise to concentrate on their career, while letting their wives to look after their children and homes. In that way, it benefits the whole family the most. Hence, choosing to become a housewife does indeed prove to be a wise choice for a lot of women.

Similarly, many women give priority in making-up because that's the best they can do (in attracting the opposite sex): you don't have to be a genius to realize that a beautiful girl has a better chance to attract more affluent and wealthy potential spouses. On the other hand, since women have chosen to concentrate on their presentability, then men will have to opt for building up financial strengths. The result, both parties will reap the most benefits.

Whether this is a result of natural selection or a deeply-rooted custom is not important. The fact is, the comparative advantage of gender roles has existed in that way instead of the other way around, and most of us are just trying to follow the rules, and passing them to our future generations.