Feminization of poverty
Generally, poverty is defined as not having enough income to pay for basic needs, such as food, clothing and shelter. The term feminization of poverty refers to the sex differences in poverty rates and the fact that they have grown in the last half-century (E. Wratten, 1995). Feminization describes both the imbalanced state of mens and womens poverty rates, and the processes in which womens risk of poverty has increasingly exceeded that of mens.
We must examine why feminization of poverty has come into play, and why women are more likely than men to be poor. We must acknowledge that the feminization of poverty has an impact on the equality of opportunity for education, but the inequalities present in education also directly impact the feminization of poverty. We must understand that cause and result are quite interconnected. Gender inequality is definitely a contributing factor to this problem.
According to a 1992 UN report, the number of rural women living in poverty in the developing countries has increased by almost 50 over the past 20 years to an awesome 565 million -- 374 million of them in Asia, and 129 million in Sub-Saharan
Africa (United Nations, 1996, p. 37) . Consideration of poverty often neglects differentials between men and women in terms of their access to income, resources and services. Such differentials may occur within households between men and women, or between individuals (i.e. between single men and single women), or between households with women-headed households at a disadvantage to male-headed households. There are also gender-based differentials in vulnerability to illness and violence (Wratten, 1995). It is important to note that this term refers to changes, and should not be confused with the existence of higher levels of poverty among women or female-headed households.
Feminization refers to a process in which higher poverty is brought forth. It is also a relative concept based on a women-men comparison, where importance is based on the differences between women and men at each moment. It has been argued that anti-poverty strategies have tended to focus on the concentration of women amongst the poorest groups in society. This is attributed partly to the lack of a gender analysis into the causes of poverty as well as the effectiveness of poverty eliminationeradication strategies. The persistence of poverty is closely associated with the feminization of poverty. The poorer the family the more likely it is to be headed by a woman (Snyder Tadesse, 1995).
With regard to impact on equality of opportunity in education, we must take a closer look at the educational systems. In her article, Jane Gaskell points out that positions at the top of the educational hierarchy are overwhelmingly held by men. Principles, superintendents and top ministry officials are almost always men, as are most educational researchers and commentators (Rees, 1990). She points out that gender is implicated in the organization of work in our society, and it is implicated in how education is organized. Education and access to it can certainly be a contributing factor to the feminization of poverty, as well as inequality in society in general. It is clear that men predominate in managerial jobs, as doctors, electricians, lawyers, as well as in sales sectors. In Canada, women working full time earn about sixty percent of what men earn. Women dominate secretarial jobs as well as particular segments of the sales and service sector, and these jobs are usually the first target when downsizing.
Feminist theorists have raised questions regarding how traditional beliefs about males and females have been used as inappropriate and inequitable ways of sorting and sifting. Schools continue to be institutional sites for producing gendered identities. Feminist theorist, Smith, argues that some forms of knowledge have come to be seen as more legitimate than others. She states that when we look at where women are in the educational system, our focus should go beyond issues of social justice, and that equality of opportunity is only one aspect of the problem. Attention should be drawn to the significance of the inequalities regarding how women are located in the process of setting standards, producing social knowledge, acting as gatekeepers over what is admitted into the system of distribution, innovating in thought, knowledge or values, and in other ways participating as authorities in the ideological work done in the educational process (Smith, 1987, pp.26-27). Womens invisibility in many parts of the educational curriculum reproduces the gender differences that education is indeed seeking to eradicate.
As Gaskell states, in the past twenty years, the womens movement has challenged many assumptions regarding educational issues should be conceived. She states that educational scholarship and research has reflected its influence, as well as having influenced public policy.
A study on sex role imagery in the textbooks sponsored by The Royal Commission concluded that womens creative and intellectual potential was ignored and underplayed in the education of children from their earliest years. The sex roles portrayed in the textbooks provided few challenging models for young girls. This verdict was confirmed by many studies subsequently done by ministries, teachers federations and academics (Gaskell, 1993, pp. 151).
However, some feminists have argued that denying difference and getting rid of stereotypes has led to a climate in which everyone was expected to achieve in a masculine image. Co-education meant male education for everyone. There had been no shift in the power of or value attributed to women just a recognition that they should be treated like men (Gaskell, pp. 152).
Jane Roland Martin (1985) makes a broad philosophical argument about how education must be reconceived to include womens work. It is important to note that organizations of educational institutions and the ways knowledge is transmitted to students have a male bias because institutions have failed to incorporate the ways women prefer to organize and learn (Briskin, 1990). Gaskell points out that the emphasis on revaluing womens experience and work lead to a different analysis of connections between education and work. Evidently, equal pay legislation recognizes that the work women have done is underpaid in relation to the skills, education, and responsibility it entails. She argues that school should be inclusive, embrace differences among students, and represent this difference in curriculum so it can be talked about. She states that it must represent womens understanding of the world, but make sure no single version of the female or the male is taken as representative and normal (Gaskell, pp. 157). She argues that gendered patterns of interaction are a main point in the students experience of school. It should be noted that in addition to inequality in education, womens lower salary and compensation for paid work is also a contributing factor to the feminization of poverty.
In his article, George Perry states that many thousands of single rural women were hired as teachers in Nova Scotia between 1870 and 1960. He points out that their qualifications and salaries were among the lowest in Canada. Apparently, women were recruited as teachers because they were cheap to hire, and were believed to be suited to the care and teaching of young children. These women were hired due to teacher shortages but it soon proved to be temporary relief. In the decades surveyed in Perrys article, thousands of women with slight amounts of high school education, and with few employment alternatives, were made into teachers. However, it became clear that the cost of these concessions was high, and served to confirm the low pay and status of teachers (Perry, pp.358). Perry points out that during the economic downturns, salaries remained low, and were even reduced in some cases. When times were more prosperous and employment opportunities arose, officials lowered standards in order to maintain a flow of new teachers.
It is important to note that at the turn of the century it was quite common for teachers to barely even have a high school diploma. However, by the early part of the 20th century, secondary education and a period of specialized training were required. Knowing that the feminization of poverty has an impact on the equality of opportunity for education, we must take a closer look at the inequalities that continue to be present in the educational system, as well as differences of gender in education. Men have continued to outnumber women in full time graduate studies.
Clearly, gender emerges as a significant factor when areas or programs of study are taken into account. Despite womens increased educational participation, there continues to be an existence of gender segmentation.
Women constitute at least three-quarters of the students enrolled in fields such as education, secretarial science, social work programs, and nursing, all of which to lead to jobs with higher chances of layoffs and cut backs. The literature on educational processes shows evidence of segmentation within educational programs. Gaskell argues that differentiation according to gender occurs both through streaming and in the different signals and messages transmitted within the educational experience. These signals can often contribute to the production of distinct educational paths or careers for male and female students. Female students also perceive signals from teachers, in the form of comments or attitudes, to channel them into gender-segregated occupational tracks (Crysdale et al., 1999, pp. 33).
As we know, for both women and men, average earnings increase for each level of education attained, more so with higher levels of education. However, we must acknowledge that relatively few women possess doctoral degrees compared to men, and this can be in part blamed on the gender-biased channeling in earlier years of education.
Wotherspoon states that education will continue to be a significant basis through which women can gain entry into non-traditional jobs that will contribute to greater gender parity in regards to labor force participation and wages. He also points out however that there are still limitations to potential advances in areas produced by internal labor market dynamics and persistent gender discrimination, as well as more general economic restructuring that create pressure to downsize the labor force, deskill workers, and minimize labor costs, all of which can be contributing factors to the feminization of poverty. As Wotherspoon points out, the changing occupational structure has definitely contributed to the prospects of work being highly uncertain for substantial proportions of the population.
It is clear that people with higher levels of education will be more successful in job markets. Education is directly linked to finding a job, and securing a better income. Wotherspoon argues that as labor markets become more volatile and competitive, there is additional pressure to achieve greater levels of education and training.
Clearly, there are many issues surrounding the feminization of poverty. Education in general is quite important in relation to this alarming issue. Inequalities in education can contribute to the feminization of poverty, while the feminization of poverty can have a direct impact on equality of opportunity for education.
Knowing that inequality in education can lead to poverty levels for women, it is our duty to do something about it. In the best-case scenario, feminization of poverty can give a nudge in the right direction for issues concerning equality of education. Clearly, the feminization of poverty has made the opportunity for education unequal as compared to men.
It is also clear that the inequalities in education directly affect the feminization of poverty. Here, the cause and result are quite interconnected. Gender inequality is definitely also a contributing factor to feminization of poverty.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment