McLanahan SS, Sorensen A, Watson D (1989) Gender Differences in Poverty, 1950-1980. Signs 15:102-122 Women in Africa face significant barriers to achieving economic equality with their male counterparts due to a general lack of property rights, access to credit, education and technical skills, health, protection from gender-based violence, and political power. [93] Although women work 50% longer than men,[93] they receive two-thirds of the salary of their male colleagues and hold only 40% of officially paid jobs. [94] The longer working hours can be attributed to women`s cultural expectations of unpaid forms of work such as collecting firewood, drawing water, childcare, caring for the elderly, and housework. [94] [95] Women have more difficulty finding work because of their lack of education. According to Montenegro and Patrinos, an additional year of primary, secondary and higher education can increase future salaries by 17.5%, 12.7% and 21.3%, respectively. [96] Unfortunately, due to factors such as child marriage, early pregnancy, and cultural norms, only 21% of girls complete higher education. [97] Without formal property rights, women in Africa own only 15 percent of land, making them more vulnerable to economic dependence on male family members or partners and reducing their ability to use property to access financial systems such as banks and credit. [98] Because of their low economic power, women are generally more vulnerable to gender-based violence and the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. [99] Citro C, Michael R (eds.) (1995) Measuring poverty: a new approach. National Academy Press, Washington, DC Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through subscriptions and institutional purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you can access the content in one of the following ways: Being a parent in conditions of poverty can cause emotional instability for a child and their relationship with a single mother. [25] Measures of poverty “for female-headed households” and “for women” are not indicators of the same phenomena.
Both capture a gender dimension of poverty, but in different ways. They differ in unit of analysis and in the population contained in each group, and obviously have different meanings. There are reasons to consider both. The aim of headmaster-based indicators is to represent what happens to certain vulnerable groups and their families, so that their unit of analysis is the household and the population considered includes both men and women (and children) living in these households, but excludes women and men living in other household formations. Indicators of poverty among women, in turn, lead to a complete separation of men and women as individuals, with children being considered a gender group in their aggregations or not. The interpretation of the results on the basis of individual measures of poverty is influenced by the fact that poverty is usually measured at the household level and therefore male poverty is inextricably linked to female poverty and vice versa. Factors that put women at high risk of poverty include changes in family structure, gender pay gaps [dubious – discuss], prevalence of women in low-paid occupations [[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]], lack of support for work and family, and challenges in accessing public services[clarification needed]. [12] [13] The feminization of poverty is a problem that may be more serious in parts of South Asia and may also vary by social class. [14] Although low income is the root cause, there are many interrelated facets of this problem.
Single mothers tend to be the most at risk of extreme poverty [source?] because their income is insufficient to raise children. The image of a “traditional” woman and a traditional role still influences many cultures in the world today and is not yet fully aware that women are an essential part of the economy. In addition, income poverty reduces their children`s chances of getting a good education and nutrition. Low income is a consequence of the social biases women face when trying to find formal employment, which exacerbates the cycle of poverty. Beyond income, poverty manifests itself in other dimensions such as temporal poverty and benefit deprivation. [15] Poverty is multidimensional and, as a result, economic, demographic and socio-cultural factors overlap and contribute to the emergence of poverty. [16] It is a phenomenon with multiple causes and manifestations. [16] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2014) United States TANF case load and TANF-poverty ratio fact sheet. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C. www.cbpp.org/files/11-4-14tanf_factsheets/US.pdf. Retrieved 20 April 2018.
Pressman S (2003) Feminist Explanations for the Feminization of Poverty. J Econ Issues 37(2):353–361 Sorensen E, Clark S (1994) A child-support assurance program: how much will it reduce child poverty, and at what cost? Am Econ Rev 84(2):114-119 Lack of income is one of the main reasons for women`s risk of poverty. Income inequality prevents women from obtaining resources and transforming their monetary resources into socio-economic status. A higher income not only allows better access to professional skills. The acquisition of professional skills also increases income. Because women earn less income than men and struggle to access public services. [68] They are deprived of basic education and health care, which eventually becomes a cycle that weakens women`s ability to earn higher incomes. [69] McLanahan SS, Kelly EL (2006) The feminization of poverty: past and future.
In: Chafetz JS (ed.) Handbook of the sociology of gender. Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 127-145 Society members have access to a journal in one of the following ways: Christopher K, England P, McLanahan S, Ross K, Smeeding TM (2001) Gender inequality in poverty in affluent nations: The role of single motherhood and the state. Child welfare, child poverty and child policy in modern countries. What do we know 199-219. Since it implies change, the feminization of poverty should not be confused with the existence of higher levels of poverty among women or female-headed households. Feminization is a process; Higher poverty is a condition. It is also a relative concept based on a comparison between women and men (or female-headed households and men/couples) where it refers to the differences (or ratios, depending on how it is measured) between women and men at a given point in time. Since the concept is relative, feminization does not necessarily mean an absolute worsening of poverty among women or female-headed households: if poverty is greatly reduced among men in a society and only slightly reduced among women, there would still be a feminization of poverty. The idea of a “feminization of poverty” dates back to the 1970s, but was popularized from the 1990s by some United Nations documents.
United Nations. (1996). General Assembly resolution on the report of the Second Committee (A/50/617/Add.6) – Women in development. 9 February 1996, fiftieth session, agenda item 95 (f), General Assembly A/RES/50/104. New York: United Nations. (2000). General Assembly resolution on the report of the Special Committee to the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly as a whole (A/S-23/10/Rev.1) – Further actions and initiatives to implement the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. A/RES/S-23/3, 16 November 2000, twenty-third special session, agenda item 10, 00-65205. New York: United Nations.