Isn't prohibition in the long run leading to black markets and increased gang activity? Isn't this why the whole war on drugs thing not really working? Wouldn't increased gang violence lead to more abuse of women? Although the anti addiction drug can significantly change the equation on the economics of prohibition.
It depends on how that prohibition is enacted, implemented and then what measures your looking at.
The federal American prohibition experience is not the only way to do it. Even then, the effect was pretty substantive. Over the years of prohibition, alcohol-related disease fell significantly. I suspect domestic violence decreased as well. The unintended consequences was the creation of a black market and criminal enterprises profiting and growing handsomely because prohibitions don’t address demand directly.
On the other hand, if a desire to limit alcohol is broadly community supported from the ground up, it can be a MASSIVE help to communities struggling with a lot of other social and economic issues. For example, alcohol abuse is endemic and a significant problem in a lot of Aboriginal Australian communities, especially the remote ones in the outback. The men especially drink, get violent, abuse their women and children. The children run and are out roaming around at ungodly hours when they should be safe at home asleep. The police get called, they arrest, the men get chucked in prison and when they get out, they go home and do the same thing because there are no jobs, they missed the education because they were once those kids roaming out at night hiding from their fathers. The women drink to cope with the stress and abuse their kids and each other, or fight back. Again see, no economic opportunity and poor education attainment. Many of these communities had alcohol bans imposed by the Australian Federal government for 10 years, at the request of the elders of these communities. The 10 year bans ended about 2 years ago and repeated begging by those same elders to renew them was ignored by the territory government. They lapsed, and practically overnight, all hell broke loose. One of my in-laws was a cop at the main town in central Australia and was absolutely floored at her town and the surrounding communities just turned into war zones when the booze came flooding back. The police were overrun with the domestic violence calls for help, people were killed or disabled. The territory government ignored calls from the community, social workers, nurses, doctors, the police, even their own politicians to reinstate the bans citing ‘self-determination’.
It took a very public intervention by a federal senator from the territory and then the prime minister to get the community what it asked for, bans on alcohol within the bounds of those communities. Again, the effect of those bans starting was dramatic. Domestic violence call outs reduced by 40% and school attendance for kids improved. The street crime began to drop off and so did street fights.
Does it stop everyone drinking? No. Is it a cure all? No, but any processes that frustrate antisocial drinking make a major difference.
I remember reading somewhere that Poland has a higher proportion of female stem graduates than the rest of Europe. If this is true do you think this is a product of indigenous polish culture or post soviet thing? Why is there more gender equality in female education if Poland is more conservative than other European countries?
I cannot speak for Poland specifically, but my understanding is that the there is a general inverse correlation between how sex-egalitarian a society is, and what percentage of their women go into STEM fields. I.e. the more egalitarian the society, the less women choose STEM.
The explanation I've heard (and agree with) is that innate differences in between the sexes in terms of preferences become more evident in societies where people have more freedom of choice.
I think a cofounding factor is that women are more likely to choose STEM fields if they feel economic insecurity. Not only are egalitarian societies wealthier, but they tend to redistribute wealth from men to women, thus increasing womens' sense of economic security.
Of course, (ex)communist countries did have a history of trying to forcibly gender balance things, so that could have certainly played a role.
Does the paradox show up if you only consider medicine?
From my experience as a South Asian, people normally go into non STEM education when you don't have the aptitude or the work ethic to go into STEM. It might be that women wouldn't be allowed to pursue higher education in non gender equal countries unless they present a very aptitude for academics.
Isn't prohibition in the long run leading to black markets and increased gang activity? Isn't this why the whole war on drugs thing not really working? Wouldn't increased gang violence lead to more abuse of women? Although the anti addiction drug can significantly change the equation on the economics of prohibition.
It depends on how that prohibition is enacted, implemented and then what measures your looking at.
The federal American prohibition experience is not the only way to do it. Even then, the effect was pretty substantive. Over the years of prohibition, alcohol-related disease fell significantly. I suspect domestic violence decreased as well. The unintended consequences was the creation of a black market and criminal enterprises profiting and growing handsomely because prohibitions don’t address demand directly.
On the other hand, if a desire to limit alcohol is broadly community supported from the ground up, it can be a MASSIVE help to communities struggling with a lot of other social and economic issues. For example, alcohol abuse is endemic and a significant problem in a lot of Aboriginal Australian communities, especially the remote ones in the outback. The men especially drink, get violent, abuse their women and children. The children run and are out roaming around at ungodly hours when they should be safe at home asleep. The police get called, they arrest, the men get chucked in prison and when they get out, they go home and do the same thing because there are no jobs, they missed the education because they were once those kids roaming out at night hiding from their fathers. The women drink to cope with the stress and abuse their kids and each other, or fight back. Again see, no economic opportunity and poor education attainment. Many of these communities had alcohol bans imposed by the Australian Federal government for 10 years, at the request of the elders of these communities. The 10 year bans ended about 2 years ago and repeated begging by those same elders to renew them was ignored by the territory government. They lapsed, and practically overnight, all hell broke loose. One of my in-laws was a cop at the main town in central Australia and was absolutely floored at her town and the surrounding communities just turned into war zones when the booze came flooding back. The police were overrun with the domestic violence calls for help, people were killed or disabled. The territory government ignored calls from the community, social workers, nurses, doctors, the police, even their own politicians to reinstate the bans citing ‘self-determination’.
It took a very public intervention by a federal senator from the territory and then the prime minister to get the community what it asked for, bans on alcohol within the bounds of those communities. Again, the effect of those bans starting was dramatic. Domestic violence call outs reduced by 40% and school attendance for kids improved. The street crime began to drop off and so did street fights.
Does it stop everyone drinking? No. Is it a cure all? No, but any processes that frustrate antisocial drinking make a major difference.
I remember reading somewhere that Poland has a higher proportion of female stem graduates than the rest of Europe. If this is true do you think this is a product of indigenous polish culture or post soviet thing? Why is there more gender equality in female education if Poland is more conservative than other European countries?
I cannot speak for Poland specifically, but my understanding is that the there is a general inverse correlation between how sex-egalitarian a society is, and what percentage of their women go into STEM fields. I.e. the more egalitarian the society, the less women choose STEM.
The explanation I've heard (and agree with) is that innate differences in between the sexes in terms of preferences become more evident in societies where people have more freedom of choice.
I think a cofounding factor is that women are more likely to choose STEM fields if they feel economic insecurity. Not only are egalitarian societies wealthier, but they tend to redistribute wealth from men to women, thus increasing womens' sense of economic security.
Of course, (ex)communist countries did have a history of trying to forcibly gender balance things, so that could have certainly played a role.
Does the paradox show up if you only consider medicine?
From my experience as a South Asian, people normally go into non STEM education when you don't have the aptitude or the work ethic to go into STEM. It might be that women wouldn't be allowed to pursue higher education in non gender equal countries unless they present a very aptitude for academics.
I'm fairly certain this paradox includes engineering and other STEM disciplines.
As for women bring permitted to pursue higher education (or work outside the home) I can't say for sure how it plays into all of this.