gender: economics

In From Motherhood to Citizenship, Nitza Berkovich traces a global shift.  Sometime during the 20th century, nation-states became convinced that women could boost national economies and foster development.  Accordingly, states began thinking of their women as potential productive workers instead of reproductive mothers.  It was this economic argument, not necessarily a feminist one, that led to women’s incorporation into the public sphere as citizens (workers, voters, etc).

I was reminded of Berkovitch’s book by a short video sent in by Fran.  The video, produced by a non-profit called Girl Effect*, argues that if you get girls into school and give them cows, the world will be a better place.  As Fran puts it:  “Apparently, girls are only worth supporting if they improve the economy!” Here is an image from the website:

“Girl Effect” is defined as:

The powerful social and economic change brought about when girls have the opportunity to participate in their society.

The logic is not that girls deserve education or the opportunity to sustain their livelihoods (a feminist argument); the logic is that we should invest in girls because it is good for the world (a global improvement or humanist argument or something).  I’m not arguing that the former is better or worse than the latter, only pointing out that it’s interesting that feminist initiatives (helping girls) can be supported with non-feminist logics.

The video:

*  As an aside, I always think it’s interesting when and how people choose to use the word “girl” as opposed to “woman.”  In this case, I suspect the activists think girls are more sympathetic than women.  Kids always pull at the heart purse strings moreso than adults.  I suppose this is because we ascribe to children a sort of innocence.  That, in itself (though socially constructed), doesn’t seem troublesome… but, if we can give the benefit of the doubt, we can also take it away.  I always wonder, for example: When do boys growing up in poverty transition from innocent victims of circumstance to potential criminals?  When do their sisters transition to welfare queens?  When do we decide to retract our generous offering of benevolence and replace it with malevolence?  These are just things I wonder.

Stephen W. sent us a link to a Walmart YouTube channel that recreates the supermom mythology.  The website encourages moms to submit videos of themselves explaining how they’ve figured out how to save money while shopping, cooking, and cleaning.  The website reads:

With creativity, ingenuity, and Walmart’s unbeatable prices.  Moms can do anything.

(I bet they can’t coupon us out of this economic crisis though.)

Here’s a screen shot:

My first thought was: So apparently the wife is the one doing all the spending and, if she is a good little wife, she’s frugal and makes her husband’s hard-earned money go further.  This would reproduce the husband as money-earner/wife as money-spender stereotype.

But then I realized: There’s no mention a dad or any earner anywhere on the front page.  It’s nothin’ but moms.

Jay Livingston over at Montclair Socioblog reports on a report by the Pew Center. First this image:

Jay writes:

When Reagan asked this question in the 1980 presidential debates, most people, according to Gallup felt that yes, they were better off – 52% vs. 25% who felt they were worse off. That’s puzzling, considering the apparent success of Reagan’s question – he won the election handily.

The interesting result from the Gallup numbers is that when Reagan left office – after the “Reagan recovery” cherished by anti-tax, anti-regulation conservatives – the numbers were identical. If you look at actual changes in median family income, you see a slight decline in the Carter years and an increase in the Reagan years. But these changes aren’t reflected in how people felt, at least not as measured by Gallup.

This year’s numbers show optimism at its lowest ebb since Gallup started asking the question in 1964. “Better off” still tops “worse off,” but by only 41% to 31%. Even more surprising to me was the proportion of these self-identified middle-class Americans who rate their quality of life as low (five or less on a ten-point scale).

This is an ad for Allstate’s retirement programs; it appeared on the back cover page of The New Yorker. What struck me is that the ad is using the fact that women leave the workforce to care for children as a tactic to scare families into buying their product:

The average woman spends 11 years out of the workforce taking care of family. Leaving her without enough retirement money to take care of herself. Those 11 years are spent doing important work, caring for children or elderly parents. But then can also hurt her ability to retire. Fact is, women are still earning less than men do, and they live longer…Women care for America. It’s time we showed that America cares about their future.

Notice the picture: it’s a woman with a small child and a stroller, all about to fall off into the large crevice in the $20 bill.

I’m really not sure quite what to make of this or what my take on it is.