The concern for poverty is always present in every society. Since a few decades ago, it is studied that the rise of poverty rates, particularly in the United States of America, can be traced to the socioeconomic status of female-headed families with children. Results of studies show that the risk of poverty for female-headed households is higher compared to male-headed household. Thus, the matter concerning female-headed homes continues to become a major concern to policymakers (Gabe, 2011). There are various elements associated with this issue: inequality, discrimination, family structure, labor force participation, welfare programs and so on. This will be the focus of this essay. However, it should be noted throughout the discussion that the difference in sexuality between a man and woman should not be seen as an indicator of one’s worth or value. Rather, it should be viewed in terms of having difference in responsibilities.
In her article The Feminization of Poverty, Janice Peterson makes credible claims on the nature of poverty associated with women – particularly female-headed homes. She explicitly shows various factors involved in this ‘dramatic change’ in the composition of the poverty population in the United States as seen since 1960s. Although the article was written in the late 1980s, the facts and claims are still accurately true. The entire theme of the article points to the ‘sorry plight’ of women. This is also seen in a 2008 movie film entitled Frozen River, written and directed by Courtney Hunt. The entire film focuses on two working-class women who were involved in smuggling illegal immigrants from Canada to the United States just to have enough money to meet their financial needs. Ray Eddy, the main character, is a mother to two sons: the oldest is 15-years old and the younger one is 5. Ray Eddy works as a discount store clerk, a low-paying job. Sadly, her husband – whom she described to be a gambler – took the money she prepared for the purchase of a double-wide mobile home for the family. It appears at the beginning of the story that she had to pay $4372 for this at a certain deadline. In her attempt to look for her husband, Ray encountered Lila, a Mohawk bingo-parlor employee, who happened to be driving Ray’s husband’s car. Lila is a mother to an almost-one-year old son, and she longs to take her son back from her mother-in-law. Being in the state of financial struggle, the two women engaged in smuggling illegal immigrants – allowing them to earn $1200 each per crossing of the border of US and Canada. At the near end of the story, Ray was finally able to pay for the mobile house. However, at their last attempt of smuggling, there was a compromise in their operation. The two caught the attention of the state police, who tried to pursue them before crossing the border, but the four women (including the 2 illegal immigrants from the car’s trunk) were able to cross and went to the Indian reservation for refuge. The state police, however, demanded a scapegoat from Lila’s tribe, and because of her smuggling record, the head of the tribe decides to excommunicate her. Ray requests Lila that she goes free for the sake of her children – T.J. and Ricky. Lila, having the sad thought of not seeing her 1-year old baby anymore, found herself hopeless and ready to surrender to the police. However, as she was running through the woods, Ray changed her mind and returned to Lila. The money was given to Lila, and Ray instructed her to take care of the children and oversee the purchase of the new trailer home. Ray, along with the two immigrants, was surrendered to the police, and T.J. knew about it. The story ends with the scene of Lila having her baby with her, along with Ray’s children, and a truck passing by the road carrying the new trailer home.
Although it is not the main theme of the story, financial hardship became the struggle of both women. As implied in the article of Peterson, this is an expectedly common situation for female-headed households. In order to get more understanding of this issue through the film and the articles, certain considerations should be discussed.
First, the movie shows the hardship of women in the labor market. Ray works as a discount store clerk for almost two years already. The boss promised that she will be a full-time worker within 6 months, but the promised position is not fulfilled. In early 1980s, studies show that the greater rate of poverty among women can also be traced in limited opportunities in labor markets (Peterson, 1987). United Nations Statistics Division (2010) states:
Women are significantly underrepresented among legislators, senior officials and managers, craft and related trade workers, and plant and machine operators and assemblers; they are heavily overrepresented among clerks, professionals, and service and sales workers. (p. ix).
These occupations engaged into by women are mostly low-paying jobs. This tragic condition of women in the labor market prevents them from earning enough provisions for their lone-headed families.
However, it is worthy to note that women should also accept their difference as law of nature manifests. Certain high-paying jobs are simply not fit for women. The natural built of a woman’s body attests to the fact that a woman simply cannot do exactly all that a man does. For instance, a woman’s exposure to battlefields of war is absolutely not appropriate. Likewise, physically hard work, such as in a power plant, construction fields, or manufacturing factories, is not supposed to be done by women. Studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) affirms that as many women today move in to jobs traditionally performed by men, physiological differences between men and women likely results in occupational hazards (Cheng & Kawachi, 2000). This difference simply affirms that men and women are supposed to have different responsibilities. Women cannot do just everything a man does, and likewise, men cannot do just everything a woman does.
However, as aforementioned, such [natural] difference between men and women does not imply difference in one’s self value or worth. The [natural] incapability of a woman to perform hard work fit only for a man does not mean she is of lesser value to him in any respect. In the labor market, women should be given less stressful yet competitively-paying jobs. Opportunities for career growth in professional (not physical) jobs should be given them, instead of simply allowing them to have part-time clerical jobs. Moreover, such difference is manifested in men’s higher ranking in the labor market. However, such reality is not a call for men to have ownership and tyranny over women, as is the common trend in any industry. Instead, women should be seen as an essential complementary element in every man’s work. Thus, instead of inflicting abuse and harassment within the workplace, women should be viewed with high value and care – even if they are placed in lower position of responsibility at work.
Second, the movie brings up the question, which is overlooked even by scholarly studies: “Where are the men?” In the movie, Ray and Lila are single mothers. For Lila, her ‘helplessness’ bringing up her family is justifiable since her husband is already dead. In contrast, Ray and their family are supposed to be supported and provided by her husband, Troy. Tragically, the film shows the irresponsibility of Troy. In Peterson’s article, she asserted that studies concerned with the association of women with poverty focus on various areas, of which one is the changes in family structures – including increasing rates of divorce and non-marital births, and other child support or household responsibility issues (Peterson, 1987). Studies fail to analyze deeper into the issue of social values in the American society. These female-headed households, which they claim to be a great contributor to poverty rates, simply could never exist without men. By law of nature, women cannot bore children (who will later be left under the sole responsibility of women) without men. Unless the father of the children dies, this model is an adverse condition of today’s household. First, this implies that sole-parent women, who had non-marital births, simply had to view this as a consequence of their sexual relations outside the context of marriage. Such is common for today’s youth. Second, this entire issue should fall into the responsibility of men. In the cases of non-marital births, men should be accountable, instead of leaving the burden to women. Moreover, this issue of female-headed homes is an adverse result of divorce. It is tragic to see that America has focused so much on liberalization of society and of people’s lifestyle, at the expense of losing respectable social and moral values it once embraced. Furthermore, the hardship of women points to household responsibility issues. Women bear great amount of responsibility for domestic work and child care (Strong, DeVault, & Cohen, 2010). Having double burden of paid work and family responsibilities, employed women’s total working hours are longer than men’s (United Nations Statistics Division, 2010). Unless the man has physical disabilities, it should be realized that being more equipped to physical work, men should be primary providers for their family. Men should have the burden of placing food on the family’s table. However, in case the woman really had to support the man’s income, the man should also help the woman with household responsibilities. In this way, survival will not be solely carried by women, and this will definitely result in favourable social and economic outcomes.
Lastly, the movie implies that, having such burden of single-parenthood, the woman tends to engaged even in inappropriate ways just for the sake of survival. Ray knew that smuggling is illegal. However, driven by anxiety and frustration, she proceeded. The government should make great endeavors to support female-headed families – especially those left behind by diseased fathers or with sick fathers – through social welfare programs. However, to those with cases where the woman’s partner should be held responsible, policymakers should make efforts to bring back the social value of men’s responsibility in caring for the women and their children.
References
Cheng, Y., & Kawachi, I. (2000). Work’s worse for women. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 320, 1432-1436.
Gabe, T. (2011). Welfare, work, and poverty status of female-headed families with children: 1987-2009. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Peterson, J. (1987). The feminization of poverty. Journal of Economic Issues, 21(1), 329-337.
Strong, B., DeVault, C., & Cohen, T. (2010). The marriage and family experience: Intimate relationships in a changing society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
United Nations Statistics Division. (2010). The world’s women 2010: Trends and statistics. New York, NY: United Nations.
