Women in Latin America and the Caribbean - Cepal

60
the State to tap into reserves of altruism within the family in order to achieve its social goals. 25 None of
these countries has information on how much the State saves because of the “generosity” of women,
whose unpaid work does not show up in government expenditure figures.
In the case of the Oportunidades programme in Mexico, the responsibility-sharing requirement of
certain programme activities devolves upon women, often requiring them to travel to attend health centres
and education and nutrition workshops or to receive payments, on top of the reproductive obligations for
which they tend to have sole responsibility. Despite the positive effects the programme has had, it does
entail an extra burden of work and time for many women, and other productive and reproductive
obligations suffer as a result (González de la Rocha, 2006). Thus, while on the one hand the
Oportunidades programme incorporates features intended in principle to empower women beneficiaries
(grants are 10% higher for girls and payments are made only to mothers), it is also assumed as a matter of
course that women are the sole providers of care and reproductive services within the home (Arriagada
and Mathivet, 2007).
These programmes can be seen as a point of intersection between cash transfer programmes based
on the cultural outlook that assigns the caring role to women and other programmes driven by changes in
women’s attitudes and government appraisals that explicitly aim to recognize the social and economic
value of the care provided by them in the family and the community.
Although women are over-represented in paid caregiving work, their readiness to carry out care
functions within the family remains unchanged. The present document highlights this dimension of care
and specifically analyses the role that women play in the social reproduction of the existing model
because of their unpaid work and the impact this has on their role in the labour market.
The predicament of women is also manifested in dissatisfaction as they are overwhelmed by the
burden of family responsibilities and the almost complete lack of male involvement. Moreover, public
policies have proved ineffective in promoting greater equality in this area, largely because they overlook
its cultural dimension and the need to adopt legislative or whatever other types of measures —monetary
or fiscal incentives— are needed to bring about change in male and female behaviour. The “love
economy” (Henderson, 2005) is nothing other than the production in the home of goods and services that
are not included in the national accounts, are hardly reflected in statistics, and are not taken into account
by long-term social protection policies.
Gender analysis can provide a critical insight into the social determinants of female and male
roles in the family and the institutions that uphold these, and can be a force for change in adapting them to
the interests of a more equal society. It is not a question of discovering universal principles applicable to
all circumstances and to both genders, or of reaching a timeless appreciation of female nature on which
everything can be based. What is needed, rather, is a profound grasp of the morality of the present and of
changes foreshadowed or sensed that tend towards more desirable approaches and perspectives (Hierro,
1998).
The public and private spheres are interdependent. Thus, when society does not take
responsibility for its most disadvantaged members, the assistance given to all vulnerable groups becomes
a matter for private morality. When the State or the employment legislation applicable to businesses does
not provide for the welfare of children, the elderly, the sick and the disabled as a public good, the burden
25
The programmes are: the Plan for Unemployed Men and Women Heads of Household in Argentina, Family
Grant in Brazil, the Human Development Bond in Ecuador, Oportunidades in Mexico and Tekoporã in Paraguay.