The Literature Emerging From The African, Latin American, Caribbean And Asian Countries

Social reproduction refers to the continuous intergenerational physically and emotionally exhausting household labour that is needed to maintain life (Trotz, lecture, Jan 13, 2016). This kind of labour though is considered to be a woman’s duty. Since an economic activity happens where there is a market, social reproduction is not considered as one as it doesn’t have a visible market. Even though, it doesn’t have market value, domestic work greatly contribute to the economy (Waring, 2013). Since this work is done in homes and by women who are usually marginalized, it remains invisible and thus not considered for pay. This kind of work depends on the traditional division of labour in which women are seen as housewives while men, breadwinners. Thus, the gendering of social reproduction is a result of “doing gender,” where women’s abilities to be mothers are naturalized (Coltrane, 1989); in other words, women are made to fit into the simplistic “domestic = family = heterosexual woman = care and love” equation (Manalansan & Martin, 2008, p.2), while any man who does the caring work in a family is feminized and considered a lesser man (Coltrane, 1989).Thus, a woman’s femininity depends on her motherhood while a man’s masculinity depends on “not doing mother’s work” (Coltrane, 1989, p.473).

Marianne Weber argued that marriage was the linchpin of patriarchal domination as women were being dominated by their husbands. According to Weber, once a woman married they were seen as property of their husband. Women being addressed or seen as “property” was supported by “legal codes…religion and the economy” (Inst. Comments), which I believe that it made it difficult to see any positive changes. Women were dependent on their husbands for economic support, which gave them more power over their partner’s and their overall household. Weber argued that “the wife is economic dependent of her husband… Even in cases where she works, full – or part-time, her income typically is only a fraction of his” (L&N 206).Even though women who work do not make as much money as their husbands, I agree with Weber, that those women who have an external money supply do become more independent, although they are not getting paid as much as their partner. Women’s employment opportunities outside the home have helped

As this essay has shown so far, there is inequality in who does what in the home but there is also inequality in decision-making; in deciding who gets what and how the family resources are shared out between them. Barrett and McIntosh note that mean usually make the most important decisions, the financial support from men is often unpredictable and they usually gain more from women’s domestic labour than they give back in return. Feminist sociologists Pahl and Vogler suggest that because of men’s higher earnings women have more financial dependence on their husbands and this is why men take more control over major decisions. Edgell agrees with this view and states that women only exert some control on less important decisions such as home décor. Finch argues that wives’ lives are generally structured around the husbands’, such as if the husband had to move for work, the wives would pick up and go with them, whereas it is unlikely that the husband would follow their wife for work.

Although females had push into the right direction, they still did face some adversity. “Many fully employed women defined themseleves as ‘homemakers’, outside the sphere of wage work” (Abelson, 117). This shows that even with all these changes for the better women did not shy away from their traditional roots.

3. Part of the reason the World Bank’s standard Structural Adjustment Policies has been counterproductive partially because of unfortunate timing. Reduce government spending caused a recessionary effect, decreasing demand and increasing unemployment hurt nations. Strict monetary policy raised interest rates and helped to further suffocate investment demand and access to capital for poor farmers and low-income entrepreneurs. Currency devaluation did make exports cheaper but at a time when export markets for primary goods were oversupplied and prices were falling. Import cost also rose making it more expensive for domestic producers to obtain new technology and replacement parts. In addition, privatization of government enterprises also increased efficiency, which was accompanied by downsizing, which resulted in unemployment for thousands of the middle class. At this time the reductions in

Foremost, the familial image has undertaken significant changes in regards to the ‘breadwinner’ and ‘homemaker’ roles within the family. In the latter of the 20th century, women’s participation in the labour force had been very little to non-existent, primarily because time allocations had been perceived as gender specific, that is, men were seen as the ‘breadwinner’, while women were viewed as the ‘homemaker’ (Seltzer, Bachrach, Bianchi, Bledsoe, Casper, Chase-Lansdale, Diprete, Hotz, Morgan, Sanders, & Thomas, 2005, pp.20). The ‘breadwinner’ role was to secure financial stability, while the

Within Okin’s “Vulnerability by Marriage” article her thesis is similar to Beauvoir’s idea in previous readings that the oppression of women in contemporary liberal societies is primarily continued by the gendered division of labor (GDL) in a family, for the most part the fact that women are assigned responsibility within the home and are not paid. Also, Okin believes that women’s oppression is caused by feminine gender socialization but she also adds that she believes that a major contribution to the oppression of women in liberal societies is due to women’s role inside the home. Even if women do work a full time job, they truly aren’t done working when they get home after work, they tend to do necessary things around the house such as laundry, washing dishes, taking care of children, etc., and women on average work more hours per week than a man even though they may not be paid for it. Even though I think that Okin’s view is true and her arguments are acceptable, I do think that there are some additional arguments she could have made that would have made her case better. In this paper I will address Okin’s arguments as well as present some of my own additional arguments that I feel could have beneficial.

Women are known to be the nurturing part of human nature. It is women who birth and generally care for the young of human kind; however, the roles of women have progressed to be so much more in today’s society. Now women are looked to not only as a homemaker, but a breadwinner as well. In many families, the women provide a major source of income and are responsible for the wellbeing of the family. “More than a quarter century has passed since Arlie Hochschild’s The Second Shift powerfully made the case that women cannot compete fairly with men when they are doing two jobs and men are doing only one.” (Moravcsik). He goes on to say that women’s roles have shifted to being able to balance a job and a family at one time. Despite the many jobs that

This book shows how as women took on the gender male roles they still managed to food ration and shortages. Women found creative yet effective ways to clothe, feed, and care for their families in the absence of the men.

First, there are two roads: men and women. These roads run parallel for a considerable amount of time, until the woman has a child and her responsibilities automatically double. As she splits from the road of man, she sees the responsibility of providing for her family, but also providing for her child as a mother. Suddenly there is a fork in the woman’s road: the financial identities of women. Women who had a substantial amount of money were not plagued by the problems that women of a lower socioeconomic status faced every day. More affluent women had the option of “hiring household help and limiting market work to part time”, essentially granting them an ideal balance of ‘the double day’. The women on the other side of the economic spectrum “did not have the luxury of being part-time or secondary earners”. These women had to take into account that a portion of their salary would be funneled directly into the pocket of whoever takes care of their children while they are working. An examination of the intersections of gender and socioeconomic status

Studies discovered that the fastest growing type of family structure that contributes to the poverty of women is a family headed by a woman (Vincent; 2005). Such families come about by ways of dissolution of marriage, death of partner or husband, or by choice. According to this same study, a national research done in the United States in 1998 showed, 9% of white families, 17% of Hispanic families, and 43% of all black families were headed by women (Short; 2011). The absence of a male figure in the household causes high risks of poverty for women-headed families due to lack of income and resources. “Lone-mothers” or “FHH’s” (Female-headed Households) are seen to face more struggles in terms of resources as opposed to families with male headships. FHH’s are more susceptible to poverty because of their incapacity to provide due to lacking opportunities. For female headships with children was 40.9% of 11.8% of poor families in 2011 (Short; 2011). Poor young women, specifically minority women, are more likely to become FHH’s. These women also face difficulties in the job market and seeking employment because of incompletion to education. Thus, they end up acquiring poorly-paid jobs without benefits failing to provide for the household, especially their

Following the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the government undertook economic policy reforms to rejuvenate the economy from 1983. However, the structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) worsened, rather than improved the economy. Agricultural and manufacturing outputs and exports failed to increase significantly. This was attributed to the inadequate incentives for farmers due to uncompetitive exports of manufactures, high inflation, unemployment, and rising external debts.

In today’s society, the head of the household is not decided via gender but more so by money. In Stephen Marche’s article, “Home Economics: The Link Between Work-Life Balance and Income Equality,” he argues that in heterosexual relationships the central conflict is not men verses women, nor is it “mother verses father” but rather “family verses money.” He states that “decisions about who works and who takes care of the children, and who makes the money and how the money is spent, are not decided by women alone or by some vague and impersonal force called society” (Marche). Marche also implies that even though today’s society may look like a patriarchy, it is but a false facade created by those who campaign for egalitarianism. He believes that the feminist movements, being dominated mainly by middle-class women, does not represent the majority, and that their push for more woman in leadership positions will

Secondly, Women‘s liberation also made a big “bang” in family’s function. Recall to the traditional nuclear family, the position of women is being as a “good wife or a good mother” and limited within household’s area and husband’s authority, so Women’s liberation changed this image into a “potential good worker” because it lifted women’s position into a higher level. Starting at the 1960s, women had more chances to enrol in the paid work world and to join in more social activities. David Popenoe (1991) has investigated that women employment rate is increasing twice as much as it used to be. Therefore, this permutation of women’s social position also affects and changes the function of the nuclear family.

This economic contribution, argues Baxter (2002:406) essentially translates to an increase in bargaining power within the household, which is actualised by decreased involvement in domestic duties. Curtis (1986:180, as cited in Brines, 1994:657) suggests that the power differential occurs because women are expecting an ‘unspecified benefaction’ to be decided, and provided by their partners at a future date. This use of housework as a ‘social exchange’ (Brines, 1994:657) is problematic, in that the amount of accumulated housework performed by a wife outweighs the monetary benefit provided to the household by the husband (Sullivan, 2000:442).