The ‘Feminization of Poverty’ is a phenomenon, change global priorities

‘Beneath the rhetoric of ‘post-feminism’ and ‘equality between the sexes’ lies another, more sinister, phenomenon.’ The “feminization of poverty” is a phenomenon that is unfortunately on the increase. Basically, women are increasingly the ones who suffer the most poverty.

Professor of anthropology, Richard Robbins  also notes that;

At the same time that women produce 75 to 90 percent of food crops in the world, they are responsible for the running of households. According to the United Nations, in no country in the world do men come anywhere close to women in the amount of time spent in housework. Furthermore, despite the efforts of feminist movements, women in the core [wealthiest, Western countries] still suffer disproportionately, leading to what sociologist refer to as the “feminization of poverty,” where two out of every three poor adults are women.

The Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health is a program of the United Nations (UN) directed at improving women’s and children’s health in the developing world.

The program was announced by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in September 2010. At the time of the announcement, the program was valued at $US40 billion over a five year period, funded by state and private donors, with the UN hoping for more pledges to follow. The object of the program is to save the lives of 16 million people during the period of the program. The implementation of the program will be led by the World Health Organisation, reporting to the UN.

The aid-based program was accompanied by pledges from some developing nations (including Tanzania and Rwanda) to increase their own domestic spending on health care. According to the UN, around $8.6 million of the program’s funding came from what it described as “low-income countries”.

International aid group Oxfam expressed doubts about the program, including the extent to which its funding was genuinely new.

The informal slogan of the Decade of Women became “Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income and own 1 percent of the means of production.” — Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p. 354

This then also affects children, which makes the dire situation even worse.

This then also affects children, which makes the dire situation even worse.  For example, even in the richest country in the world, the USA, the poorest are women caring for children.

The lending strategies to developing countries by institutions such as the IMF and World Bank have affected many women in those countries.

Poverty, trade and economic issues are very much related to women’s rights issues due to the impacts they can have. Tackling these issues as well also helps to tackle women’s rights issues. And, tackling gender issues helps tackle poverty-related issues. See also the Asia Pacific online network of women web site for more about issues relating to globalization and its impacts on women.

Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and nations. Why is this? Is it enough to blame poor people for their own predicament? Have they been lazy, made poor decisions, and been solely responsible for their plight? What about their governments? Have they pursued policies that actually harm successful development? Such causes of poverty and inequality are no doubt real. But deeper and more global causes of poverty are often less discussed.

•Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
•The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
•Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
•Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
•1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.

More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.

The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.

According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

Based on enrollment data, about 72 million children of primary school age in the developing world were not in school in 2005; 57 per cent of them were girls. And these are regarded as optimistic numbers.

Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.

Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide.

Water problems affect half of humanity:

•Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
•Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
•More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
•Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.
•1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)
•Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
•The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.
•Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.
•Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.
•To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003.

Number of children in the world 2.2 billion
Number in poverty 1 billion (every second child) Shelter, safe water and health.

For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:
•640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
•400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
•270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)
Children out of education worldwide 121 million

Survival for children Worldwide

•10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
•1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation
Health of children
Worldwide,
•2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized
•15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom)

Rural areas account for three in every four people living on less than US$1 a day and a similar share of the world population suffering from malnutrition. However, urbanization is not synonymous with human progress. Urban slum growth is outpacing urban growth by a wide margin.

Approximately half the world’s population now live in cities and towns. In 2005, one out of three urban dwellers (approximately 1 billion people) was living in slum conditions.

In developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass—fuelwood, charcoal and animal dung—to meet their energy needs for cooking. In sub-Saharan Africa, over 80 percent of the population depends on traditional biomass for cooking, as do over half of the populations of India and China.

Indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid fuels [by poorer segments of society] is a major killer. It claims the lives of 1.5 million people each year, more than half of them below the age of five: that is 4000 deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds total deaths from malaria and rivals the number of deaths from tuberculosis.

In 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%:

The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption:

1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity:

Breaking that down further:
Number of people living without electricity

Region
Millions without electricity

South Asia 706
Sub-Saharan Africa 547
East Asia 224
Other 101

The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.

World gross domestic product (world population approximately 6.5 billion) in 2006 was $48.2 trillion in 2006.
•The world’s wealthiest countries (approximately 1 billion people) accounted for $36.6 trillion dollars (76%).
•The world’s billionaires — just 497 people (approximately 0.000008% of the world’s population) — were worth $3.5 trillion (over 7% of world GDP).
•Low income countries (2.4 billion people) accounted for just $1.6 trillion of GDP (3.3%)
•Middle income countries (3 billion people) made up the rest of GDP at just over $10 trillion (20.7%).

The world’s low income countries (2.4 billion people) account for just 2.4% of world exports.

The total wealth of the top 8.3 million people around the world “rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world’s financial assets.”

In other words, about 0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s financial assets in 2004.

For every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt repayment.

51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations.

The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.

The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money.

In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.

An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
•3 to 1 in 1820
•11 to 1 in 1913
•35 to 1 in 1950
•44 to 1 in 1973
•72 to 1 in 1992

“Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.”

For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of globalization, from 1980 – 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960 – 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980).

Among the findings:

•Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries.
•Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years).
•Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades.
•Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalization.

A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.

Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998

Global Priority

$U.S. Billions

Cosmetics in the United States 8
Ice cream in Europe 11
Perfumes in Europe and the United States 12
Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17
Business entertainment in Japan 35
Cigarettes in Europe 50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105
Narcotics drugs in the world 400
Military spending in the world 780

And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:

Global Priority
$U.S. Billions

Basic education for all 6
Water and sanitation for all 9
Reproductive health for all women 12
Basic health and nutrition 13

According to the Heritage Foundation

MARRIAGE AS A SOLUTION – DO WE BRING HOME THE TRADITIONAL VALUES OF FAMILY AS A SOLUTION?

Family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good. For example, the married family plays an important part in promoting economic opportunity. Children raised by never-married mothers are seven times more likely to be poor when compared to children raised in intact married families. Religious institutions and individuals form the backbone of civil society, providing for the welfare of individuals more effectively than government-funded programs can. Yet policy at the federal, state, and local levels, coupled with social developments, has helped to undermine their important contributions.

It is essential to build support for policy changes that strengthen marriage and family and advance a robust understanding of religious liberty and the role of religion in society. Family and religion are indispensable, both in our American order and in our conservative philosophy. In order to promote a healthy public discourse that appreciates the historic and continuing significance of religion and moral virtue in American civic life, policymakers must strengthen and expand the current pro-family constituency and unite religious and economic conservatives more effectively.

Facts & Figures

Today, the U.S. spends 13 times the amount it spent on welfare in the 1960s—about four times the amount needed to pull every poor family out of poverty—yet the federal poverty rate remains nearly unchanged.

In 1964 only 7 percent of births in America were outside of marriage. Today, more than 40 percent are.

Adolescents who do not live in intact families are more likely to engage in substance abuse, exhibit behavioral problems, have poor academic performance, and engage in risky behavior, including becoming sexually active at an early age.

Children who do not live with both parents are more likely to experience psychological and emotional problems, ranging from low levels of social competence and self-esteem to anxiety and depression.

Over the past six decades, the percentage of adults who are married has steadily declined among all Americans. The decline has occurred more rapidly among African–American adults, among whom less than 40 percent are married.

Fathers’ involvement is an important factor in children’s well-being, from health and behavioral outcomes to school performance. Research shows that religious participation appears to bolster fathers’ involvement.

1. Defend marriage as a pre-political institution that provides the best environment for raising children. Today, more than one in four children is born outside of marriage. These children are five times more likely to experience poverty than are children born and raised by a married mother and a father in the home. Moreover, children raised outside of a biological family arrangement are at greater risk of lower educational attainment, elevated rates of delinquency, more unwed pregnancy and childbearing, and other consequences.Yet the Obama Administration decided not to provide a legal defense of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) and then called for its repeal. An attorney appointed by the House of Representatives is now responsible for making the case for DOMA. Each of the four governmental interests identified as undergirding DOMA—defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; protecting state sovereignty and democratic self-governance; and preserving scarce government resources—is related to the public stake in marriage as an institution designed to bring men and women together and orient them toward their responsibilities in the begetting, bearing, and raising of the next generation.

2. Understand and promote the many benefits of marriage to social welfare. Any form of financial penalty in tax policy that deters marriage should be eliminated. Policymakers and program managers should encourage pro-marriage messaging in existing government programs and other already available resources. Because a significant percentage of divorcing couples would respond to reconciliation efforts and restore their marriages, states should develop policies and programs that maximize the reconciliation option. Policymakers should also recognize the power of the bully pulpit and civic leadership to shape consensus and define progress.The promotion of marriage in low-income communities could have far-reaching economic benefits. Of the nearly $400 billion in annual welfare funding spent on low-income families, three-quarters goes to those led by single parents. The restoration of marriage in low-income communities requires three main steps: (1) inform young men and women of the importance of marriage in reducing poverty and improving children’s well-being, (2) provide interested low-income couples with practical information on strengthening relationships, and (3) reduce the marriage penalties in welfare programs.

3. Promote a robust understanding of religious freedom for individuals and institutions. Religious practice promotes the well-being of individuals, families, and the community. Regular attendance at religious services is linked to healthy, stable family life, strong marriages, and positive outcomes for children. It also leads to a reduction in the incidence of domestic abuse, crime, substance abuse, and addiction and an increase in physical and mental health, longevity, and education attainment.Yet, despite the societal benefits of religion, the expression of faith in the public square has faced many challenges. The law ought to make as much room as possible for the practice of religious faith. In addition, to win hearts and minds, advance freedom, and promote stability, U.S. foreign policy and public diplomacy should systematically engage the role of religion and religious audiences.

4. Uphold conscience rights for parents, patients, and practitioners. The rights of Americans to believe and act according to deeply held beliefs are increasingly coming under assault. For example, many provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act weaken family choice of coverage, undermine parental participation in minor children’s health care decisions, penalize the decision to marry, and undercut family values in health care. Additionally, its loose conscience protections, combined with inadequate guidance on conscience rights, may leave pro-life medical professionals with only limited protection to practice according to their religious principles.The ability to work, live, and provide services compatible with one’s beliefs is essential for maintaining a just and free society. As religious pluralism expands and moral consensus wanes, government protection of religious liberty and conscience rights will be vital to upholding civil society. Policymakers should enact permanent and comprehensive conscience protections and replace the current patchwork of federal statutes and annual abortion riders on spending bills with a permanent, government-wide policy.

5. Promote sustainable welfare reform and an effective antipoverty framework. Congress should require the President’s annual budget to detail current and future aggregate federal means-tested welfare spending. The budget should also provide estimates of state contributions to federal welfare programs. Aggregate welfare funding should be capped at pre-recession (FY 2007) levels plus inflation to force Congress to determine whether or not these programs further the goal of alleviating poverty. Building on the successful 1996 model, welfare reform should continue to encourage work. For example, food stamps should be restructured to require recipients to work or prepare for work to be eligible to receive benefits.When considering government response to poverty, policymakers should acknowledge the relational nature of poverty as well as the vital contributions made by local and religious institutions that provide personalized approaches to overcoming social breakdown. Government serves best when it protects and safeguards, rather than crowds out, the poverty-fighting institutions of civil society.

The final question of responsibility is:

“HOW do we inspire the Men of our World to Take Action?”

SUPPORT Celebration House – Enable Women out of Poverty