Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

The Feminine Face of Poverty

By Riane Eisler, AlterNet. Posted April 19, 2007.


Seventy percent of those living in absolute poverty in our world -- that is starving or on the edge of starvation -- are female. Not only that, in our wealthy United States, women and children are the mass of the poor and the poorest of the poor.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If you're a woman, or a man who cares about his mother, sister, or daughter, there's something you need to know. Seventy percent of those living in absolute poverty in our world -- that is starving or on the edge of starvation -- are female. Not only that, in our wealthy United States, women and children are the mass of the poor and the poorest of the poor.

Women are entitled to know that statistically women worldwide are far more likely to be poor than men. Even if you're a guy, this "women's issue" is about your mother and your grandmother. It's about your sisters and it's about the future of your daughters.

Consider that in the United States women over the age of 65 are twice as poor as men in the same age group. And there's a reason poverty so disproportionately hits women. Most of these poor women were, or still are, caregivers. And we've got an economic system that gives no visibility or value to this essential work when it's done in the home.

In fact, according to economists, the people who do the caring work in households, whether female or male, are "economically inactive." Of course, anyone who has a mother knows that most caregivers work from dawn to dusk. And we also know that without their work of caring for children, for the sick, and for the elderly, there would be no workforce, no economy, nothing.

Yet current economic indicators and policies fail to include this work. Measures of productivity such as GDP (gross domestic product) not only include activities that harm and even take life -- such as making cigarettes plus the resulting medical and funeral bills -- but fail to include the life-sustaining activities that contribute the most to human well being. The life-sustaining work of caring for people and maintaining a clean and healthy home environment still performed primarily by women in households is not included as "productive work."

The good news is that we can change this bizarre way of looking at what is, and is not, productive work. In fact change is already in the works.

Already in 1995 the UN Human Development Report estimated that the economic value of the unpaid work of women worldwide is a whopping 11 trillion dollars per year. A 2004 Swiss government survey placed the value of the unpaid work in households at 70 percent of the reported Swiss GDP. And according to salary.com, a U.S. organization, the caring work of a mother is worth over $100,000 per year.

Recognizing the value of caring and caregiving is the first step. The next, essential step, is changing business practices and government policies to recognize and reward this work in ways that put food on the table and a roof over people's heads. We need family-friendly business policies such as good paid parental leave and government policies such as caregiver tax credits and, for poor mothers, caregiver stipends and other forms of parenting assistance.

The Canadians are already doing this: their Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program offers assistance to mothers. And it's a tremendous economic investment in the bargain. Assessments of the program show that children are gaining in health and skill levels due to this assistance -- in other words, that in economic terms, the program is an excellent investment in high quality human capital.

Sweden has a paid parental leave policy that makes it possible for both mothers and fathers to be home with their new babies for many months. By contrast, the only U.S. state that has even a very modest paid parental leave policy is California. But it's a start -- and Mom's Rising has launched a campaign to bring similar bills to other states, starting in the state of Washington.

The caregiver tax credit proposed by Theresa Funiciello is also beginning to gain attention. And so is the Caring Family Values Policy Agenda proposed by the Center for Partnership Studies.

Now it's up to us to join these efforts. It's up to us to ensure that the truth about poverty is told by politicians and the media.

It's up to us to vote for legislators who really value the work of mothers and other caregivers, who will, not just in rhetoric, but through the bills they introduce and vote for, support this work. It's up to us to convince businesses to have more family-friendly policies by buying only from those that do. It's up to us, in our own work and lives, to give real value to the most important work: the work traditionally performed by mothers of caring and caregiving -- the work that keeps our economy and all of us going. That's how we can change the shameful fact that the mass of the poor worldwide are women and children.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: women, sexism, economy, poverty

Riane Eisler is the author of The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics and The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future, and President of the Center for Partnership Studies.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Comments
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 19, 2007 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. This is reality feminism, as opposed to whiny, limo-liberal feminism.

Many women deserve credit for the caregiving a lot of us would rather not deal with.

If this brand of feminism were presented more often, it might have a better reputation. Tell a guy that the girls who make $100s per night at the go-go bar are being "exploited", or that women should be called "people of gender". and he might roll his eyes. Tell him he has to change diapers, do laundry, or feed Grandma her oatmeal during Monday Night Football, and you might get his attention.


2. Even if you make a good case for so-called "family-friendly" things like paid leave, I think you still have to address fairness and incentives.

How do you protect the rights of people without kids? Are we encouraging excessive reproduction? Are we providing help for women who really need help, or are we subsidizing the upper-middle-class woman's soccer mom fantasy, because she wants a vacation from her high-paying job?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» To address the latter half of your post Posted by: dagnymeetsassisi
Translation of kepstein7777's comment:
Posted by: Catherine Martell on Apr 19, 2007 3:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is "reality" feminism - because it doesn't attack me or my privileges, doesn't inconvenience me, and keeps women in their rightful roles as mothers and carers.

Actually, although I support recognising domestic work, I think the really important thing is to recognise it without gender boundaries. Sweden's position on equality of parental leave seems to me to be the right way to go. Giving a whole load of breaks to women qua mothers, and not to men qua fathers, is seriously problematic. It perpetuates the stereotype that a woman's place is in the home, and undervalues the father's relationship with his children. It also means that women of childbearing age, when they apply for jobs, will be competing on an unequal basis with men - because the interviewer will have to assume that there is a possibility that the woman will cost the company a ton of cash by going off to have kids at their expense.

Childcare is one of the biggest impediments to equality, but the way to change that is to move towards a society where the burden and the reward of childcare is equally distributed on both parents. That means paid maternity and paternity leave, excellent nursery provision for all children, and a culture of valuing the father's relationship with his kids just as much as the mother's.

The article is careful to specify that caregiving is "the work traditionally performed by mothers", but seems to propose measures that will simply perpetuate that situation, rather than giving men and women alike the freedom to choose careers and/or childcare as they see fit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Boobs Posted by: Catherine Martell
» RE: Boobs Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam
» RE: Boobs Posted by: Catherine Martell
» RE: Boobs Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Boobs Posted by: Catherine Martell
» RE: Boobs Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Boobs Posted by: Catherine Martell
keep it local
Posted by: edith on Apr 19, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
women who raise families and haven't worked long or consecutively enough to qualify for health insurance, retirement, or even life insurance should not be left stranded. They are persons of value, and the poverty rate cited here is shocking and unacceptable. To work as hard and to provide essential care in society and then to be homeless or unable to provide essentials for herself or her children is what "inequity" is all about.

I would suggest that local state legislatures more than congress however be the primary targets of lobbying to fill in medicaid gaps, day care, education tuition and employer benefits for parttime, socalled, work.

The power of populism in bought off washington dc is negligible. Look at the nonsense regarding minimum wage where the states have exceeded the feds. Likewise in some environment areas and in education, where states often exceed federal No Child Left Alive rules yet can run schools with less red tape than dealing with the form-addicted feds require.

Local pols know where the money is and what local institutions can do what. We need to become less a USA and more of a confederation with experiments in meeting 21st century challenges conducted in 50 different labs. There could be "joint ventures" between states two, e.g., Mass. and RI, NY and NJ.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: keep it local Posted by: tlCampbell
Low Wages
Posted by: Landbaron on Apr 19, 2007 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Casualties of the great American Rat-race! Someone's gotta be on the bottom of the pyramid of life. Ya wanna get paid fairly for raising kids marry a successful man. This is civilization, no living off the land, we live off each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Low Wages Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Low Wages Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: Low Wages Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Low Wages Posted by: Landbaron
yet another example of stealing our future
Posted by: Trazom on Apr 19, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How does the traditional saying go, "It takes a village to raise a child"? We are so far from that it's not even funny. We have an epidemic in this country of single moms trying to raise kids while working two jobs with minimal or no child assistance, and guess what? These kids are going to grow up and enter the workforce and the rest of society one day, taking positions all the way from burger flipper to insurance salesman to politician. What do you think society will be like at that point, a society in which a rather large percentage of people grew up without a father (or at least two parents)? I am afraid to consider the possibilities.

Alternet is, more or less, defining a new genre when it comes to picking discussion topics, and that would be the sacrifice of our future in order to meet our needs for today. I see it over and over in several different topics every week:

1) US trade deficit
2) fiat currency and the Federal Reserve
3) the middle class and their descent down the ladder of success
4) global warming
5) environmental pollution
6) eriosion of worker's rights and the destruction of unionization
8) offshoring of jobs, corporate greed
9) fossil fuel dependence and the end of cheap energy
10) lack of affordable child care
11) health care crisis

The list is much longer, but I think you get the point. Is there a silver lining in any of this? Please somebody tell me there is, because I don't see one.

In every one of these discussions the main result is we make the future worse off than the present, and mostly for the average folk encompassing at least 90% of the population.

We have become a nation interested only in sustaining our present profit-driven system while totally crushing those beneath us on the financial scale, with total disregard for the future. What a backward and short-sighted country we are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It depends on how you define 'poverty'
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 19, 2007 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the U.S. at least, males account for 70% of all assault victims, 80% of homicide victims, 85% of the homeless, 90% of persons with AIDS, 93% of persons killed on the job, 95% of prisoners, and over 99% of all combat veterans (early 90's figures, because they were handy). And these are only a few of the indicators that can be measured. Some would argue the unmeasurable is much more important.

I think the author is, like so many 'modern' western women, totally blind to the many varieties of caregiving males do perform -- perhaps because they work so well that she takes them for granted -- and thus by giving men no credit for all these things she comes up with yet another phony 'victim stat' used to guilt-trip and plead for yet more female entitlements, which of course have to be provided by men performing their traditional function.

The fact is human females get more from their males than any other animal on the planet. The success is so stunning it's arguable it's gone way too far as it is. If women want to squeeze even more out of men, the strategy of continually ramping up the nag-a-thon in an attempt to get the princes on the white horses to rescue them might only do a limited amount of good, and it may even be terribly counterproductive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» poverty of the spirit? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Profit -driven system.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 19, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is it exactly. What we have now is a Military -Industrial -Profit and Power based system.
Profit-based systems-where Profit is the bottom line...LEADS to environmental destruction. We have been taught to fear the evil word "communist".
So any serious discussion of alternatives to Capitalism-has been censored, AS WAS THE INTENTION.
But this is exactly what we need to start talking about.
Read the history of THE COMMONS in Europe. Or how American Indians viewed land ownership.

We need an Environmental-People First- system. We need some form of world government where the U.S. does not have the only power to decide world policy. I think we should start this by giving this power to the United Nations.

These men are drunk on power, violence and profit. We need some women-based systems for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Profit -driven system. Posted by: Landbaron
Finally, a RELEVANT AlterNet article!
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 19, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having raised three daughters, all of whom work, with a wife who re-entered the workplace when she was 40, I can feel comfortable telling men who don’t believe women are unpaid and undervalued, “You’re a bunch of ASSHOLES!”

Take the comment above by MartianBachelor, for example. He gives new meaning to the term, “chauvinistic pig.”

To justify his testosterone-fueled bias, MartianBachelor threw out a handful of questionable statistics such as males account for 70% of all assault victims and 80% of homicide victims. Could it be that more guys than gals hang around bars at night, the perfect place to get mugged and murdered?

But more telling than that was MartianBachelor’s statement that “95% of prisoners” were men. Now there’s something to be proud of!

Then he says Riane Eisler is “totally blind to the many varieties of care-giving males do perform.” That kind of unfounded generalization shows how big a chauvinistic pig MartianBachelor is and other all “men” who think like him.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes... Posted by: skipp
Are women and children synonymous
Posted by: chomsky on Apr 19, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are women and children synonymous? In many ways they seem to be treated the same. We should either take the vote away from women or give it to children or maybe not treat them the same.

And where did they get this 70% number come from. Like most statistics, either given from the left or the right it is usually bullshit or half truths which is as good as lie.

You see in most countries men and women tend to live together unlike the US because it is the only way to survive. They do not have the corrupt social structures we have here in the crook infested developed world.

As to women in the household not been seen as productive work: this is only the case in a controlled and delusional countries like the US, UK etc. The third world children grow up fast (no choice) and tend to be the providers for their parents. Children are seen as assets and a joy not a pain in the neck or pockets. The only way for them to survive is to have gender differences and jobs allotted accordingly. I know it sounds sexists but I guess Mother Nature doesn’t give a damn about being a bigot.

What the author is basically saying is we need a bigger government and more government control over business. I disagree, most of the problems we have is because of government control over business and continuing support of corporations. We need to dismantle government and large corporations and have smaller structures that are tied to the community.

Small business can no longer compete because they have to put up with tons of red tape and other crap that the government throws at them. They will never be able to survive, while corporations continue to grow and gobble up the air we breathe. Hell, maybe sooner or later they will start charging us for that air.

Please no insults. I am neither right nor left, I am my own man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mikeoregon
Posted by: mikeoregon on Apr 19, 2007 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the name of feminism, I hope Alternet paid a royalty to the estate of Dorothea Lange for the use of her photograph of Florence Owen Thompson. Maybe even a royalty to the heirs of Florence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forced Poverty
Posted by: bambic on Apr 19, 2007 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talk about poverty: try living on Social Security Disability, SSI(Supplemental Security Income) and food stamps.
Try living one MONTH on what others make in a week: less that $700, believe it or not. If you receive an increase in your federal check, they will take it out of your state check. The government will not allow you to even get an increase of $5 a month. Don't even think about trying to "get ahead", let alone catch up. I'm lucky to have all three utilities on at the same time.

You go to college, get a job, hurt your back before you're 30 and forced into retirement because of chronic pain.
My luxuries are food for my cats and dog and this computer, a gift, that still operates on Windows 95.
So, whatever you do, don't hurt your back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Forced Poverty Posted by: skipp
Other issues aside...
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Apr 19, 2007 10:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have problems with statements like this: "the caring work of a mother is worth over $100,000 per year"

What should really be said is that "it might cost a $100,000 a year to hire people to do what the mother does for her children"

The former implies that the mother is supplying over $100,000 worth of value to society per year, but is she really? Or is the value mainly if not entirely hers, since they are HER children?

Oh yes, so finally we get to the nitty-gritty of it in the article. The government as a husband. Yes, even more transfer of wealth out of the pockets of whoever is out there, (which basically means all men) into the pockets of whoever simply decides to have children, many of which who apparently don't evaluate whether they can afford to give them a decent life or not before going ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Other issues aside... Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Other issues aside... Posted by: Logic's Edge
Re: Boobs
Posted by: Catherine Martell on Apr 20, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoops - sorry, you're quite right, I managed to miss the bit where you said "healthy". Apologies!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement