Feminization of poverty
Feminization of poverty refers to a trend of increasing inequality in living standards between men and women due to the widening gender gap in poverty. This phenomenon largely links to how women and children are disproportionately represented within the lower socioeconomic status community in comparison to men within the same socioeconomic status.[1] Causes of the feminization of poverty include the structure of family and household, employment, sexual violence, education, climate change, "femonomics" and health. The traditional stereotypes of women remain embedded in many cultures restricting income opportunities and community involvement for many women. Matched with a low foundation income, this can manifest to a cycle of poverty and thus an inter-generational issue.
Entrepreneurship is usually perceived as the cure-all solution for deprivation depletion. Advocates assert that it guides to job design, higher earnings, and lower deprivation prices in the towns within it happens. Others disagree that numerous entrepreneurs are generating low-capacity companies helping regional markets.[2]
This term was originated in the US, towards the end of the twentieth century[3] and maintains prominence as a contested international phenomenon.[4] Some researchers describe these issues as prominent in some countries of Asia, Africa and areas of Europe. Women in these countries are typically deprived of income, employment opportunities and physical and emotional help putting them at the highest risk of poverty. This phenomenon also differs between religious groups, dependent on the focus put on gender roles and how closely their respective religious texts are followed.
Feminisation of poverty is primarily measured using three international indexes. These indexes are the Gender Development Index, the Gender Empowerment Measure and the Human Poverty Index. These indexes focus on issues other than monetary or financial issues. These indexes focus on gender inequalities, standard of living and highlight the difference between human poverty and income poverty.
History[edit]
The concept of the 'feminization of poverty' dates back to the 1970s and became popular in the 1990s through some United Nations documents.[5][6] It became a prominent in popular society after a study focusing on gender patterns in the evolution of poverty rates in the United States was released.
The feminization of poverty is a relative concept based on a women-men comparison. For instance, feminisation of poverty is if poverty in a society is distinctly reduced among men and is only slightly reduced among women.[7]
Definitions[edit]
The feminization of poverty is a contested idea with a multitude of meanings and layers. Marcielo M. and Joana C. define feminization of poverty in two parts: feminization, and poverty. Feminization designates gendered change; something becoming more feminine, by extension more familiar or severe among women or female-headed households. Poverty is a deficit of resources or abilities.[8] Marcielo M. and Joana C. (2008) likewise depicts the escalating role that gender discrimination has in determining poverty. For instance, an increase of wage discrimination between males and females which can also exacerbates poverty among women and men of all types of families.[9] Medieros considers this possibility as a feminization of poverty because it denotes the relation between the biases against women and a rise in poverty. In numerous cases, Medieros claims that such alleged changes in the causes of poverty will result in one of the types of the feminization of poverty, that is, the relative changes in the poverty levels of women and female-headed households.[7]
The concept also served to illustrate the many social and economic factors contributing to women's poverty, including the significant gender pay gap between women and men.[10]
The term originates in the US and its prominence as an international phenomenon is contested.[4] The proportion of female-headed households whose incomes fall below the "poverty line" has been broadly adopted as a measure of women's poverty.[11] [Feminist sources]In many countries, household consumption and expenditure surveys show a high incidence of female-headed households among the "poor," defined as those whose incomes fall below the poverty line.[11]
There are two assumptions underlying income-based measures of poverty according to Bessell S (2010).[12] First, there is that tendency to equate income with the ability to control income.[12] While women may control earned income, the limits on poor women's financial sovereignty have been well demonstrated. [detail sources] An income-based measure may hide the extent and nature of poverty when women earn an income but have no control over those earnings, claims Bessel.[12] While the question of who controls income is a delicate matter for women, it is also relevant to the position and well-being of men.[12] Societies that place upon individuals a heavy communal, kinship or clan-based obligation may end in both women and men having limited control over individual income.
Second, is the assumption that income creates equal access and generates equal benefits.[12] Access to education illustrates the point. While lack of financial resources may result in low enrollment or high drop-out rates among poor children, social values around the role of women and the importance of formal education for girls are likely to be more meaningful in demonstrating the difference between male and female enrolment rates. Bessel claims.[12]
Forms of poverty[edit]
Decision-making power[edit]
Decision-making power is central to the bargaining position of women within the household. It is how women and men make decisions that affect the entire household unit. However, women and men often have very different priorities when it comes to determining what is most important for the family. Factors that determine which member of the household has the most power in decision-making vary across cultures, but in most countries there is extreme gender inequality in the household.[70] Men of the household usually have the power to determine what choices are made towards women's health, their ability to visit friends and family, and household expenditures. The ability to make choices for their own health affects both women and children's health. How household expenditures are decided affects women and children's education, health, and well-being. Women's freedom of mobility affects their ability to provide for their own needs as well as for the needs of their children.
Gender discrimination within households is often rooted in patriarchal biases against the social status of women.[71][72] Major determinants of the household bargaining power include control of income and assets, age, and access to and level of education. As women's decision-making power increases, the welfare of their children and the family in general benefits. Women who achieve greater education are also more likely to worry about their children's survival, nutrition, and school attendance.[32]
An important aspect of analyzing the feminization of poverty is the understanding of how it is measured. It is inaccurate to assume that income is the only deprivation that affects women's poverty. To examine the issue from a multidimensional perspective, there must first be accurate and indices available for policy makers interested in gender empowerment.[11] Often aggregate indices are criticized for their concentration on monetary issues, especially when data on women's income is sparse and groups women into one large, undifferentiated mass.[19] Three indexes often examined are Gender-related Development Index, Gender Empowerment Measure, and Human Poverty Index. The first two are gendered- indices, in that they specifically gather data on women to evaluate gender inequalities,[11] and are useful in understanding disparities in gender opportunities and choices.[11] HPI, however, focuses on deprivation measures rather than income measures.[11]
GDI adjusts the Human Development Index in three ways:
The aim of this index is to rank countries according to both their absolute level of human development and relative scores on gender equality. Although this index has increased government attention to gender inequality and development, its three measures have often been criticized for neglecting important aspects. Its relevance, however, continues to be integral to the understanding of the feminization of poverty, as countries with lower scores may then be then stimulated to focus on policies to assess and reduce gender disparities.[92]
GEM measures female political and income opportunities through:
HPI is a multidimensional, non-income-based approach. It takes into consideration four dimensions:
This index is useful in understanding and illuminating the differences between human poverty (which focuses on the denial of basic rights, such as dignity and freedom) and income poverty. For example, despite the U.S.'s high income stability, it is also ranked among the highest developed nations in human poverty.[11] In her article, "Towards a Gendered Human Poverty Measure", Elizabeth Durbin critiques HPI and expands on the possibility of a gender-sensitive index. She argues that HPI incorporates three dimensions of poverty: life span measured by the proportion of the population expected to die before age 40, lack of knowledge measured by the proportion who are illiterate, and a decent standard of living measured by a composite index of access to health services, access to safe water, and malnutrition among children less than 5, that could specifically account for gender disparities. Despite its uses, however, it is important to note that HPI cannot be a true measure of poverty because it fails to examine certain deprivations, such as lack of property ownership and credit, that are essential to a stronger bargaining position in the household for women.[93]
Policies[edit]
Conditional cash transfer[edit]
Conditional cash transfer is a possible policy for addressing current and intergenerational poverty where poor women play a central role. Women in the role as mothers are given the additional work burdens imposed. Conditional cash transfers are not ideal for addressing single-mother poverty.
Microcredit[edit]
Microcredit can be a potential policy for assisting poor women in developing countries. Microcredit is a tool design to hopefully alleviate poverty given that women living in developing countries have very few resources and connections for survival due to not having a solid financial foundation.
Welfare reform in the U.S.[edit]
In light of welfare reforms as of 2001, federal legislation required recipients of welfare (mainly aided to families) to participate in an educational or vocational school and work part-time in order to receive the benefits. Recipients attending a college now have 3 years to complete those degree in order to get people to work as quickly as possible.[41] To try towards a system of reward, Mojisola Tiamiyu and Shelley Mitchell, suggest implementing child care services to promote employment. Women with children work in either low-paying or part-time jobs that are insufficient to raise a family.[41] Single parenting in the United States has increased to 1 in 4 families being headed by a single parent.[41] It is estimated that children living in single parent homes are as much as 4 times more likely to become impoverished (Juvenilization of poverty).[123]