Women's Empowerment and the Feminization of Poverty among

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The link between the assumed poverty of female-headed households and the feminization ofpoverty theory is of an importance that cannot be undermined, as 13% of households 2 in theMENA region alone are estimated to be headed by women (Chant, 2007: 20). The assertion ofDavids and van Driel that the theory focuses on female-headed households as an expression of thatsame ‘feminization of poverty’ has created what Chant coins a “culture of single motherhood,”often designated as the ‘New Poverty Paradigm’ (Ibid.: 21). The trouble with this classification ofheterogenous groups such as female-headed households is that it masks the impermanence ofhouseholds.For example, in many developing contexts women marry much older men or begin theirfamilies as pregnant adolescents who may “face abandonment, extended separation or divorce as alikely occurrence at some point in their lives” (Dwyer and Bruce, 1988: 18). In some communities,the recorded classification of female-headed households is as high as 50%, which would support thetheoretical assumption; however, such cross-sectional information lacks a record of how manywomen pass through a life-phase as a head of household, meaning as a primary or sole economicprovider for children (Ibid.). As I contend throughout this study, it is impossible for studies ofheterogeneous female-headed households to simultaneously use poverty generalizations and presentthe reality of diversity:Differentiation occurs through routes into the status (whether by choice orinvoluntarily, and/or through non-marriage, separation, divorce,widowhood, migration), by rural or urban residence, by race, bycomposition, by stage in the life course (including age and relativedependency of offspring), and by access to resources from beyond thehousehold unit (from absent fathers, kinship networks, state assistance). Thesignificance of these variables – which can intersect in myriad ways – is, inturn, mediated by the particular social, cultural, demographic, political andeconomic contexts in which female heads are situated (Chant, 2007: 108).Since female-headed households consist of a high proportion of lone mother units with theperceived major disadvantage of raising children alone, development literature widely assumes thisgroup to be the ‘poorest of the poor’ (Ibid.: 100). While both the short and long-term implications ofthe economic disadvantage as the sole income-earner and carer should not be minimized, some lonemothers negotiate above-average survival through ‘trade-offs’ or social networks.Trade-offs are certainly a very subjective measurement of poverty as Chant brings to bear indeveloping contexts where household heads are highly likely to be objectively poorer by income:2‘Household’ as the internationally accepted definition based on space and function: a group of people living under thesame roof and who share domestic activities and finances (McIlwaine, 2012a: 1).9
“Although women are often victims of unequal power relations and limited agency, emphasis onsubjectivity has brought about recognition that this can also drive women to make choices forthemselves and their dependants, which reduces access to some types of resource, but enhancestheir prospects of others” (Chant, 2007: 44). Some lone mothers, for example, choose to remain inthat status by not choosing to re-marry after divorce or widowhood as the increase in autonomy,control and personal security can make some lone mothers feel and be less vulnerable (Ibid.).Another challenge to the theory’s assumption of household inequality among female-headedhouseholds is social networks. Many supporting theorists assume they are smaller as a result ofdead ties with ex-partners’ relatives or deliberate self-exclusion by lone mothers “as a means ofdeflecting the ‘shame’ attached to out-of-wedlock birth and/or marriage failure, not to mention, insome instances, stigmatized types of employment such as sex work” (Chant, 2007: 103). There aresocial and cultural dimensions to poverty – especially for such a heterogenous group – like themanifestation of stigma as “financial difficulties, humiliation and stress” (Ypeij, 2010: 141). I arguethat although women face social realities of stigmatization that is particularly attached to anunmarried or divorced woman, both in developed and developing contexts, researchers’ tendency togeneralize poverty levels and female-headed households is stigma in itself (Dwyer and Bruce, 1988:138). Thus, it is necessary to account for lone mothers who find survival resources in their socialnetworks. Depending on family formation, especially mother-daughter dynamics, these networkscan function supportively in both financial and life crises. The assumption that female-headedhouseholds are poorer in economic terms does not even address emotional or social advantages(Davids and Driel, 2010: 107).Particularly without trade-offs or social networks, the linkage of female-headed householdsto the feminization of poverty theory assumes a generational dimension to the process of householdinequality in the ‘inter-generational transmission of disadvantage.’ Under this falls a list ofgeneralized assumptions, including the sending of young children to work rather than school tosupport the household; however, child labor levels are not noticeably higher among female-headedhouseholds (Chant, 2007: 107). Yet, specific contextual research has shown that children in femaleheadedhouseholds have higher levels of education attainment and nutrition than their counterpartsin male-headed households (Ibid.: 22). Even in countries where female-headed households “do falldisproportionately into the category of poor or extremely poor, it is by no means clear that they areresponsible for an inter-generational transmission of disadvantage” (Ibid.: 107).The other assumption of this concept is mothers consciously or unconsciously using theirdecisive relationships with their children in an unhealthy way to “reproduce the same cycle of10
Page 4 and 5: I. INTRODUCTIONAttitudes about gend
Page 6: II. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING LITERATURE
Page 9 and 10: In recognition of the importance of
Page 11: women’s empowerment, the feminiza
Page 15 and 16: III. METHODOLOGYThis chapter begins
Page 17 and 18: Phase IOf the four phases of my pri
Page 19 and 20: acutely aware of the limitations of
Page 21 and 22: Despite the very recent historical
Page 23 and 24: (Ibid.: 716). In sum, de jure Mouda
Page 25 and 26: change which requires a period of a
Page 27 and 28: Cultural situationAnalyzing Morocca
Page 29 and 30: defiance of tradition, and society
Page 31 and 32: there is faith in the city’s life
Page 33 and 34: originally from Agadir, Ouled Berhi
Page 35 and 36: Dwyer’s observation that “a str
Page 37 and 38: Social networksSocial networks can
Page 39 and 40: dimension. When asked to identify h
Page 41 and 42: VI. CONCLUSIONThe participatory res
Page 43: BIBLIOGRAPHYAbiad, N. (2008) Sharia
Page 46 and 47: McIlwaine, C. (2012c) “Women’s
Page 48 and 49: InterviewsEch Chenna, Aicha, Presid
Page 50: Appendix B - Focus groupAimTo find

Women's Empowerment and the Feminization of Poverty among

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?