Nonetheless, their ambivalence about recognizing privilege suggests a deep tension at the heart of the idea of American dream. While pursuing wealth is unequivocally desirable, having wealth is not simple and straightforward. Our ideas about egalitarianism make even the beneficiaries of inequality uncomfortable with it. And it is hard to know what they, as individuals, can do to change things.
In response to these tensions, silence allows for a kind of “see no evil, hear no evil” stance. By not mentioning money, my interviewees follow a seemingly neutral social norm that frowns on such talk. But this norm is one of the ways in which privileged people can obscure both their advantages and their conflicts about these advantages.
Ma and Dad have been worried about me since I started high school last year. It’s because I tried out for the track team and didn’t make it, even though I can run faster than anyone else at the school. Than anyone in the city. It’s because the state athletic board has rules about wild carders competing in sports against nats. Unfair advantage, they say, even though I’m just me. But my friend Beastie can’t go out for football because he’s like seven feet tall and super strong. He’d kick ass at football, and I guess that’s the problem. The coach says there’s too big a chance he’d hurt somebody. But I know Beastie. He can control himself, and he’d never hurt anybody. He just wants to go for a letter jacket like anyone else.
–The Thing about Growing Up in Jokertown (A Tor.com Original) by Carrie Vaughn
Calls from liberal and left social critics for advantaged people to recognize their privilege also underscores this emphasis on individual identities. For individual people to admit that they are privileged is not necessarily going to change an unequal system of accumulation and distribution of resources.
Instead, we should talk not about the moral worth of individuals but about the moral worth of particular social arrangements. Is the society we want one in which it is acceptable for some people to have tens of millions or billions of dollars as long as they are hardworking, generous, not materialistic and down to earth? Or should there be some other moral rubric, that would strive for a society in which such high levels of inequality were morally unacceptable, regardless of how nice or moderate its beneficiaries are?
Keeping silent about social class, a norm that goes far beyond the affluent, can make Americans feel that class doesn’t, or shouldn’t, matter. And judging wealthy people on the basis of their individual behaviors — do they work hard enough, do they consume reasonably enough, do they give back enough — distracts us from other kinds of questions about the morality of vastly unequal distributions of wealth.
…Such moves help wealthy people manage their discomfort with inequality, which in turn makes that inequality impossible to talk honestly about — or to change.
What is Women’s Empowerment?
Simplified, it is the actions that result in women being able to own and control property. It is primarily financial, but extends into the areas of body autonomy (the ability to chose what is done with your own body), childcare, education and violence against women because they all directly impact a woman’s ability to work, run a business and/or manage property.
Addressing inequality and Human Rights violations are key to resolving poverty. When inequality is high, poverty goes up; when inequality is low (and equality is high), poverty goes down.
It’s an important economic concept that has been thoroughly examined, discussed and researched by academics and activists all over the world (see references below).
My Own Experience
Since I’m just a poverty survivor and not a world-renowned academic expert in economics (or anything else), allow me to provide a ground-zero perspective from life here in the United States of America.
The examples I have collected show how an individual is kept in poverty or under absolute financial control of another individual. Therefore, it is important to understand that placing one person in a family (or community or collection of humans) under the absolute control of another person contributes to poverty overall.
The most simplistic explanation for this statement is this: If the controlling person is wealthy, the person they control is impoverished because they care unable to own property.
However, these human rights violations continue the cycle of poverty in many other ways. If a woman is unable to make decisions, maintain control over her body or well being, is subjected to violence, or is simply trapped in her home, then she is not contributing her full potential to the household or the community. Also, if something happens to the individual who is controlling all finances, leaving him unable to work, then the entire family becomes homeless.
For the purposes of this answer, I will focus on the effect on the women (specifically). Please understand that there are others who are effected, both directly and indirectly, by these issues.
Image source: Asterisk
(Note: this is NOT a photo of my mom. Technically, it’s a 1950s photo, but the hairstyles remind me of photos of my mother during her late teens.)
During the late 1970s, my mother told me the story of her first drivers license. She a navy child, so my grandfather was out at sea when it came time to go to the DMV, take the test, and get her license; so, my grandmother took my mother in herself.
The man behind the counter asked one question: “Where’s your father?”
They explained the situation and he flat out refused to allow my mother to get her license without a man present, providing his permission. She was not allowed to drive until my grandfather returned home. You can imagine how infuriating it was for both my mother and my grandmother.
Why this is important
Not being able to drives means being shut out of nearly all forms of employment in the far majority of people in the USA. It also significantly restricts movement and the ability to complete simple daily tasks, like shopping for food and going to the doctor.
Simply making divers licenses available to women (and punishing this sort of discrimination on the part of DMV workers) improves both women’s rights and women (economic) empowerment.
Images Source: NIH:
As a kid growing up in the Midwest, I had a stay-at-home-mom and lived in a house surrounded by houses filled with stay-at-home-moms. Some of the women were literally trapped in their homes without a vehicle or access to public transportation (at that time, it did not exist outside of the city). A few were doubly trapped by an abusive spouse.
Domestic violence was also common. Not just in my little town – everywhere.
This was when the women’s movement was picking up steam and making a lot of progress, but deep social and political change always seem to take an extra 5–10 years to reach the deeply rural areas and the states located in landlocked areas between the coasts. It took a while, but it did, finally, arrive.
Why this is important:
Without realistic options for income, these women were unable to escape violence and abuse against themselves and their children. Without employment they could not escape. Employment was not possible until after they managed to escape. It was an impossible situation.
When domestic violence awareness campaigns reached all corners of the USA, and changes to the laws provided all people of all ages protection from violence and abuse, then large numebrs of women were finally able to achieve both physical and financial freedom.
Image Source: 1985 cover of
As a teenager in the 1980s I found myself faced with some strange contradictions. There were people who were claiming that women had achieved equality and feminism was dead (sound familiar).
Yet, at the exact same time, many of my classmates were getting pregnant due to many difficult realities. Chief among them were the anti-birth control and anti-abortion sentiments of the local religious and political leaders and the disturbingly common occurrence of date rape.
While the majority of teenage girls simply gave their babies to family members to raise, there was a not-insignificant minority of teenagers who were forced to marry their boyfriend and/or rapist. I listened to more than one story that roughly translated into the following process:
- Boy ‘likes’ girls and wants to control her (permanently).
- Boy rapes girl.
- Boy tells everyone, including girl’s parents, that they had sex and the baby was his. There may not be a baby on the way. This did not appear to matter.
- Girl is now socially tied to boy. Other teens and adults perceive her as ‘his.’
- Boy continues to rape girl until she gets pregnant.
- Boy demands marriage.
- Parents force marriage, while trying to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing.
- Girl is now physically, socially and financially trapped by boy.
This is not a relic of the past – it continues to happen.
Why This is Important:
Body autonomy is about significantly more than ‘wanting to be a parent.’ It’s about physical safety and freedom – literal freedom.
No human being, regardless of age or gender, should be subjected to rape. Laws are in place to protect the victim, but they are difficult to enforce. The circumstances are also frequently complicated, particularly when it’s ‘date rape.’
The ability to prevent a pregnancy under any circumstance is the last line of defense against this particular kind of predator. Therefore, birth control is absolutely necessary in the fight against rape, domestic violence, and women’s inequality.
The ability to raise a child as a single parent, and still pursue a career and/or life goals is something our entire society MUST support, because it provides freedom to girls facing this kind of abuse,
The ability to address everything that goes along with a teen pregnancy, including medical care, without being forced into a marriage, is also absolutely necessary.
Those who have access to these necessities are also provided access to the possibility of a financially independant and reasonably secure future.
Image Source: Huffington Post:
I started working full-time after college. Then I went to grad school, and returned to working full time immediately after. That makes the 1990s the decade of my introduction into the regular workforce. Here are somethings that I heard on a regular basis during that decade (said to me directly and to other women):
- Of course your pay is low, you’re married. Your husband is bringing in the real income.
- You’re young and married. You’ll be having babies soon. We don’t expect you to stick around.
- We need someone to take notes. [Name of only female in room], you can be the secretary for the meeting.
- The best job [a woman] can get is secretary (nurse, teacher, [other stereotypically female position]).
- You should wear clothes that are tighter (more revealing, more fashionable, etc.). If you want to get ahead, you have to learn to work it. Don’t you want to succeed?
I could go on but you get the idea.
While all of these things were frustrating, uncomfortable and occasionally infuriating; none of them were perceived as harassment. In fact, the possibility of harassment didn’t come up until the Anita Hill hearings brought the topic into the TV sets and living rooms of every American with access to standard news channels. Even then, the focus was on extreme examples of sexual harassment.
Therefore, I will put aside the general atmosphere that was prevalent a few decades ago, and focus on the one specific comment that had real and far-reaching consequences for every working woman in the USA:
- Of course your pay is low, you’re married. Your husband is bringing in the real income.
This is just one of the many excuses/responses to questions about pay disparity that I, personally, encountered. Attempts to pursue this line of inquiry, or negotiate for a simple pay raise, were usually (invariably?) met with threats (direct or implied) of dismissal.
(Note: Reason it’s important will be explored in 2000s)
2000 to Present
Image Source:(Also see: )
While being held back in the pay-scale during my 20s was frustrating, I didn’t realize just how important it was until many years later. The problem is this:
- New employers base their pay-level offering on the amount of money previous employers have already paid you.
Requesting pay history and verifying the amount former employers paid is standard background check process. These are also standard discussion points during the interview process.
When it comes time to talk salary, it’s ALLWAYS based on information the new employer has on what previous employers paid. If you made $30,000 doing the same (or similar) work at your last company, why would the new company pay you significantly more? The fact that the men in the company are getting $90,000 during their first year, is irrelevant.
Bottom line: Your price has been set.
Why this is important:
Women consistently making 70% of the salary earned by men (across all professions) has serious implications for total household income. It reduces a woman’s ability to sustain herself and her children without a roommate or a husband. It significantly reduces her ability to find a job that pays a living wage, if she happens to be an unskilled worker.
However, it also has wider implications that directly affect men. The existence of wage disparity establishes a process by which some people are financially discriminated against. This process can be…and often is…applied to any group of people, as the company sees fit.
This isn’t about finding the best candidate or paying for a stronger skill set. Wage disparity is the act of paying significantly different wages to people who are doing the exact same work.
This perpetuates poverty by systematically restricting select groups of people from accessing key resources.
What the Academics Have Said
There are many highly respected academics and activists who have been saying poverty is reduced when women are economically empowered for a long long time. Here are a few examples of published academic papers that illustrate this fact:
- World Bank:
- UN Univ:
- World Bank:
- UN Women:
For an excellent speech on the effects of violence (specifically) and unenforced laws (in general) on poverty, please watch this TED talk:
Ted Talk () Gary Haugen: The hidden reason for poverty the world needs to address now
Originally posted in response to How powerful is female empowerment in resolving world poverty? on Quora.
Bryan Stevenson is known for defending people on death row. He specializes in helping people who have nowhere else to go. He built the Equal Justice Initiative and has earned international respect for the work he does. All of this more than earns my admiration.
However, the reason I would like to either meet him or attend one of his speeches is because of the following quote:
My work with the poor and the incarcerated has persuaded me that the opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice.
This is definitely someone I would like to meet.
That one place may be preferable to another in terms of opportunity says little about whether that first place is as equitable as it should be.
–White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son by Tim Wise
During a discussion Does feminism exist on the street? Does it exist for women who are homeless or living in poverty? That response was: “Poverty doesn’t kill people.”a comment was made in response to my answer to the question
The comment has been deleted. At the time it was posted I chose to simply allow it to stand without response.
However, it stuck in my head for several days, rattling around and making connection with another statement I have heard many times over the years: “AIDs doesn’t kill, complications from contracting the AIDs virus kills.”
AIDs vs Opportunistic Infections
From a scientific or medical perspective HIV (the AIDs virus), in and of itself, does not kill. AIDs attacks the immune system, which makes the patient vulnerable to other diseases (opportunistic infections) and those diseases are what ultimately kill the patient. For additional scientific data see:
- HIV/AIDs World Health Association
- HIV InSite USCF
- HIV/AIDS Treatments Improve Survival, But The Death Toll Is Still Too High, Medical Daily, 06/04/2015
- HIV in the United States: At A Glance, Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
- AIDs and HIV, Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Poverty vs Social Determinants
It is also true that poverty, in and of itself, does not kill. Humans do not need cash to live, they need the things cash can buy. In that respect, poverty is just like the AIDs virus – potentially lethal problems are introduced as a direct result of being poor (Social Determinants or Social Factors) but the cause of death is never identified as ‘poverty.’ For example:
- A homeless person without winter shelter dies of exposure or hypothermia.
- A lifetime of poor nutrition or malnutrition, causes medical problems that can become lethal.
- A child who does not survive the first two years of life has succumbed to infant mortality.
- A teenager who is shot on the way to school is a murder victim who dies from a gunshot wound.
- A poor person ensnared by human trafficking is a victim of criminal activity.
- Living in close proximity to other people, under highly unsanitary conditions, causes a poor person to contract a lethal respiratory disease – the cause of death is tuberculosis.
For more information on the Social Determinants that contribute to the death of poor people, see the following (sadly incomplete) list of references and links:
- Cold Weather Has Already Claimed The Lives Of The Homeless, Think Progress, 01/08/2015
- Cincinnati homeless are dying on our streets, Cincinnati.com
- Homeless Remembrance Project, Facebook Page
- Vigil memorializes 41 homeless people who died in the District in 2015, The Washington Post
- Poverty and child (0-14 years) mortality in the USA and other Western countries as an indicator of “how well a country meets the needs of its children” (UNICEF).
- Poverty and death in the United States. International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation, Vol. 26, No. 4. (1996), pp. 673-690
- The income-associated burden of disease in the United States.
Social science & medicine (1982), Vol. 61, No. 9. (November 2005), pp. 2018-2026
- Giving everyone the health of the educated: an examination of whether social change would save more lives than medical advances. American journal of public health, Vol. 97, No. 4. (1 April 2007)
- Estimated deaths attributable to social factors in the United States.
American journal of public health, Vol. 101, No. 8. (16 August 2011),
- Greater income inequality linked to more deaths for black Americans | Berkeley News
- Poverty leads to death for more black Americans than whites | Money | The Guardian
- Poverty Kills. Better Policy, Not Better Medicine, Is the Solution | Kristen Lewis
- Poverty Kills More People Every Year Than Either Of the Top Killers — Heart Disease or Cancer, Hub Pages
‘Poverty does not kill’ is a legitimate statement but a failed argument. Neither poverty nor AIDs are directly and immediately lethal, but there is a clearly identified connection:
- If the AIDs virus could be destroyed or removed, the immune system would return to normal and a reasonably healthy life could be resumed.
- If poverty were eliminated, the resources necessary to establishing and leading a safe and healthy life could be achieved.
I welcome all comments on this topic. In particular, I would like to invite people to post articles illustrating all of the Social Determinants that result in the deaths of people trying to survive poverty.
January is Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.
Letter To A John
“I want you to pay me for my beauty
I think it’s only right
‘Cause I have been paying for it
All of my life”
“We barely have time to react in this world
Let alone rehearse
And I don’t think I’m better than you
But I don’t think that I’m worse
Women learn to be women
And men learn to be men
And I don’t blame it all on you
But I don’t want to be your friend”
–Out of Range by Ani DiFranco
Additional resources for Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month:
- National Child Traumatic Stress Network
- Blue Campaign
- Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking
- The Freedom Fund
“It is surely not my fault that I was born, as with so many others, into a social status over which I had little control. But this is hardly the point, and regardless of our own direct culpability for the system, or lack thereof, the simple and incontestable fact is that we all have to deal with the residue of past actions.”
“Just as a house or farm left to you upon the death of a parent is an asset that you get to use, so too is racial privilege; and if you get to use an asset, you have to pay the debt accumulated, which allowed the asset to exist in the first place.”
“The notion of utilizing assets but not paying debts is irresponsible, to say nothing of unethical. Those who reap the benefits of past actions—and the privileges that have come from whiteness are certainly among those—have an obligation to take responsibility for our use of those benefits.”
–White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son by Tim Wise