Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Inequality of class and gender
Connection to poverty, gender and race
The role of woman in the economy essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Inequality of class and gender
This essay will examine how women have been treated by the welfare state and the social security system by successive governments since the introduction of the 1942 Beveridge Report. It will also examine the expected roles of married women from a feminist perspective by looking upon research carried out by N. Timmins who was opposed to Beveridge’s recommendations. The essay will also briefly discuss the research by G.P. Murdock in Social Structures and that of A. Oakley in the gendered roles of men and women in society. Finally, it will observe how the labour market discriminates against women and traps them in poverty throughout their working life and how these inequalities affect women in later life when they retire.
‘Women are at far greater risk of poverty than men: at any given stage in their lives, women are far more likely than men to be poor and their experience of poverty is also likely to be far more acute’ (Wright, 1992 p17). Poverty has been defined as a relative multidimensional and dynamic phenomenon, which in the United Kingdom (UK) has a female face, as historical data for the past hundred years has provided a constant depiction of women’s experience of deprivation (Ruspini, 2011). Regardless of attempts to promote equality between the sexes, gender still remains a key organising principle in society. This is especially the case within the social security system where the labour market is segregated horizontally and vertically and beset by persistent pay gaps and hours of work that varies by gender; a division of labour in the household, with men working long hours outside the home and women working fewer hours but undertaking more unpaid caring work; and the distribution of resources and ownership betwe...
... middle of paper ...
...p (2010) The Impact on Women of the Coalition Spending Review 2010 UK Women’s Budget Group - November 2010 (Online) Women’s Budget Group.
Available at:
http://www.wbg.org.uk/RRB_Reports_4_1653541019.pdf
(Accessed 10th April 2011).
Work and Pensions Committee (2009) Tackling Pensioner Poverty: Fifth Report of Session 2008-09 Volume ll (Online) House of Commons, London.
Available at:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yBvgfIgGFUkC&pg=PA73&dq=uk+women+pensioners+in+poverty&hl=en&ei=TiemTe_iFpTN4AbD4c2WCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=uk%20women%20pensioners%20in%20poverty&f=false
(Accessed 10th April 2011).
Wright, R (1992) A feminization of poverty in Great Britain? (Online) Review of Income and Wealth Series 38, Number1 p17-25.
Available at:
http://www.roiw.org/1992/17.pdf
(Accessed 10th April 2011).
Hollingsworth and Tyyska discuss the employment of women in their article, both wage work and work performed outside of the “paid labour force.” (14). They also look at work discrimination of women based on gender and marital status. They argue that disapproval of married women working for wages during the Depression was expressed not only by those in position of power, such as politicians, but also by the general public and labour unions. They suggest that the number of women in the workforce increased as more young wives stayed working until the birth of their first child and older women entered the workforce in response to depression based deprivation. Hollingsworth and Tyyska also give examples of work that married women did that was an extension of their domestic duties such as babysitting for working mothers or taking in laundry. They also state that some women took in boarders, sold extra produce from gardens, or ran make-shift restaurant operations out of their homes.
As the issue is examined from the view of social justice, it appears that women are still not at the equal level that Mills proposed in this bill in Parliament. While women are entitled to the basic human rights of employment, land and business ownership and voting, there remains an inequality in expectations for an adult female. These expectations are garnered from long-standing traditional views held by a large portion of society that will take many years to eradicate.
Poverty is a significant threat to women’s equality. In Canada, more women live in poverty than men, and women’s experience of poverty can be harsher, and more prolonged. Women are often left to bear more burden of poverty, leading to ‘Feminization of poverty’. Through government policy women inequality has resulted in more women and children being left in poverty with no means of escaping. This paper will identify some key aspects of poverty for Canadian women. First, by identifying what poverty entails for Canadian women, and who is more likely to feel the brunt of it. Secondly the discussion of why women become more susceptible to poverty through government policy and programs. Followed by the effects that poverty on women plays in society. Lastly, how we can reduce these effects through social development and policy.
Iversen, Torben and Frances Rosenbluth. Women, Work, and Power: The Political Economy of Gender Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Kindle E-Book.
In nineteenth century Great Britain, women’s status and rights are almost non existent. She cannot vote, she cannot own property, she cannot get divorced. Everything she has— even her body—belongs to her husband. Women who come from humble beginnings are constrained into the occupations of household servants, farm laborers or factory workers in order to survive. “The only ‘genteel’ professions open to middle-class women [are] governess, school teacher or companion to a wealthy woman with its awkward status between servant and lady” (Thaden 66). The only reasonable way for women to obtain any social position or economic security is to be married into it. Unlike most middle-class boys who receive an education to prepare them for a profession, mo...
As Clive Emsly explained in The Old Bailey Proceedings, in the eighteenth century, men were viewed as the stronger sex. They were expected to be tougher, both physically and emotionally, to have determination and will. Men were to be logical thinkers and erudite, they had to dominate their households and provide for their families. By the nineteenth century, historians argue that even though women began to experience more freedom in the workforce, they were still confined socially. Men were still expected to lead their households and be “breadwinners.” For many years, men dominated almost every aspect of society. However, in the past few decades, a movement known as feminism emerged. The feminist movement fought for women’s rights to an education and equality. Women longed for an opportunity to gain knowledge and freedom to seek adventure. In recent years, more so than ever, the feminist movement has made great advances. It has instigated a shift in gender roles and constructs forever altering how society views women and men.
Most of the current social work clients and workers are women. This gender is also over-represented among women, which implies that women continue to face considerable issues in the modern society despite the changes in the traditional role of men and women in the society. Social welfare policy are usually developed and implemented to confront various issues in the society including the plight of women. However, recent statistics demonstrate that social welfare policy does not always meet women’s needs effectively. This is regardless of the fact that sexism and heterosexism play a crucial role is shaping social welfare policy. Therefore, it is important to develop effective social welfare policy
According to Schwartz-Nobel, America will lose as much as 130 billion in future productive capacity for every year that 14.5 American children continue to live in poverty (Koppelman and Goodhart, 2007). Sadly the seriousness of poverty is still often clouded by myths and misunderstandings by society at large. This essay studies the issue of poverty and classism in today's society.
"A Profile of the Working Poor". Center for Poverty Research, 24 July 2013. Web. 6
The saying “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps,” is a common one here in the United States. There is a stigma here that if one works hard enough, they can be anyone they want to be. A lot of people who believe that stigma, did not actually have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They were born on third base and think they hit a triple. According to an article in the Huffington Post, the richest one percent holds 46 percent of the world’s wealth. This one percent includes people such as the Walton children, the inheritors of the money made from Wal-Mart, which was created by their father (“Richest 1 Percent Hold”). It is pretty obvious that they did not have to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, that these people barely had to work at all to receive a huge sum of money. But, then there is the opposite side of the spectrum. There are people who work incredibly hard every single day of their lives, but will forever be stuck in a life of poverty. Some may look at this huge problem and think of an easy solution. Just have rich people give their money to poor people. A common idea, also known as charity. Though, when given a deeper look, charity can sometimes be the same concept as putting a bandage on a bullet wound.
Poverty can be defined in many different ways. It is described as the state of being extremely poor. It is hunger, lack of shelter, lack of resources, decline in mental and physical health, not having a job, lack of power and representation. It is living one day at a time and fear of looking towards the future. Poverty is a significant threat to women’s equality. More women live in poverty than men, and women’s experience of poverty can be harsher, and more prolonged. Women are often left to bear more burden of poverty which results in the “feminization of poverty”. The goal of this paper is to identify key aspects of alleviating poverty specifically for women, by means of government assistance programs.
There are nearly as many women as there are men working, yet, as it was discovered in 2011, on average, a woman will only earn seventy-seven cents for every dollar that a man earns. Women owned businesses make up for over a quarter of all national businesses and earn more than one point two trillion dollars (“Assessing the Past, Taking Stock of the Future” 6). Since many women are now becoming are the primary sources of income in the household, making less that a man does not only negatively affect families, but also the overall economy suffers as well. These women, among many others, are the ones who end up purchasing the supplies that go toward improving communities and stimulating the economy. There is no reason that the general public should stand for this. Women should be treated equally to men in today’s American society based on their biological compositions, psychological profiles and contributions to history.
One of the Biggest Challenges for Women Today: The Feminization of Poverty The division of labour and education along gender lines, racial inequalities and discrimination, and unpaid domestic labour all contribute to the growing feminization of poverty. Feminists are working to decrease the income gap, to benefit the overall health of women and the population at large. The term feminization of poverty describes the disproportionate number of women who are poor, and its link to the division of labour along gender lines (Calixte, Johnson, & Motapanyane, 2010). The Canadian Labour Congress reported that in 2005, women working full time earned 70.5 cents to the dollar that every male in a comparable job earned ( as cited in Calixte, et al., 2010, p. 17). Across the board, women are more likely to suffer from poverty than men are (Harnan, 2006).
The opportunities available to women in the market are not as diverse as those presented to men. Still, the construct of gender ideology influences how employers undertake economic decisions, and that is why companies still have jobs labelled as “men’s work” and occupations categorized as “women’s work.” Indeed, the pervasiveness of gender differences in labor markets is undeniably true, specifically with respect to salary gap between men and women, occupational gender segregation of men and women, and the challenge that women face in terms of juggling their time and attention between their career and family life. There is no denying that the salary of men is far more than that of women’s. In the Great Britain (and other parts of the globe), there are pieces of evidence which suggest that gendered practices of participation in the labor force still have significant impact on the economic security level that men and women develop over the course of their lives (Warren 606).
Women’s subordination within the labour market is seen by Marxist feminists as suiting the needs of capitalism as women are considered a ‘reserve army of labour’ as they are a more disposable part of the workforce. According to Beechey (1986) women are a cheap ‘reserve army of labour’ that are brought in during economic booms but then thrown out during slumps. Women are often not members of trade unions and are prepared to work for less money as their wage could be a second income. This benefits capitalism as a group of unemployed people looking for work creates competition and exploitation. Employers are given an advantage which allows them to reduce wages and increase the rate of exploitation. Benston (1972) supports this as women are used to benefitting the operation of the capitalist economy by carrying out unprepared work in the home. This proves that patriarchy dominates women which leads to women’s subordination. Hartmann (1981) believes that patriarchy and the economy both play a crucial role in explaining and understanding gender inequality. Historically, men have controlled women especially by control of labour power. This can come through legislation that operates economically to the benefit of men, for example Maternity and Paternity Rights. This proves that patriarchy and economics together explains gender inequality. However, Walby (1986) argues that women staying at home can actually harm capitalism because if women were to compete for jobs with men this would lower wages and increase profits. Women who earn also have superior spending power which would boost the economy and benefit