Women in the United States face a complex economic reality. Sex discrimination, while often declared dead by media and lawmakers alike, has persisted over time. One of the starkest illustrations of this discrimination is economically. Foremost, the wage gap, or difference between men and women’s wages in America, has not closed significantly in over twenty years. Though, the number has shrunk dramatically since its broad discovery in the late 1960s early 1970s, it has stagnated since. Also, women are more likely to be poor in the US, as well as to need the now dwindling social supports. Three-fourths of poverty in the US is concentrated in women and their children. This number is not shrinking, but growing, particularly among women who are unmarried, single parents, widows or displaced homemakers. There is not one reason for the poverty rates among American women, but a complex web of both cultural and economic issues that form the climate for this increased poverty. The capitalist market economy is structured around the sexist idea of specialization, meaning that women are expected to take care of home care and production at the expense of their economic worth. Even women, who decide to enter the labor force and earn a wage, whether by choice or necessity, suffer the implications of this economic assumption. Work associated with women is often devalued, and professions that are ‘women’s work,’ such as health care, child care, and other service jobs are often valued less in the market than traditional ‘men’s work,’ such as manufacturing, production and the traditional professions. Now that the US economy is suffering a large drop in these ‘men’s’ jobs and a large increase in ‘women’s work,’ all low income people are seeing the effects of devaluing some of the most important work in any society such as caring for our sick, young and elderly.

A central aspect of feminization of the poor is the wage gap. On average, in America, women make 76% of a man’s wage. Another way to think of this is that American women make about $.76 to a man’s $1. This number, however, is based on all women vs. all men.

The cultural conception of women as dependents is a main aspect of poverty for women. It contributes strongly to the wage gap as well as the lack of social services for women not attached to a man. The fact that men are expected to bring home a family wage that supports an entire family fosters the idea in the labor market that women’s earnings are only supplemental. The social message as well as economic one is that women belong in a family with a man at the forefront and any other choices they may make deserve to be punished accordingly. Women are still seen primarily as wards of men and are not trained to be breadwinners, but are forced into low wage temporary positions. They are more likely to be nurses, teachers, and middle management than men, who are more likely to be doctors, lawyers and CEOs. In the managerial/professional class of jobs, women only make up 10% of the top tier of earners. Men, however, make up the other 90%. This is explained in part by the difference in job tracking and years at work. For lower income jobs, the wage differentiation is even starker. Men are much more likely to be in the manufacturing and manual labor sector than women who are often concentrated in the service sector. Jobs such as construction, plumbing, manufacturing and trucking are generally better paid than childcare, home health assistants, and administrative jobs. Women, therefore, are focused in these lower valued and lower paid jobs. These jobs are less stable, less mobile and have undesirable work conditions. 80% of people who start in these lower classes of jobs will never move to the higher paid more stable white collar or even higher paid blue collar jobs.

Also, women in the same job class as men are making less than their male counterparts. Because of gendered division of labor, women often are forced to leave the labor force in lieu of carework. This means that they are either expected to leave the labor force, or have more stress and have more work than their male counterparts in the work force. Carework is not only just childbearing, but also the care of sick elders, disabled family members, their own sickness and the sickness of their spouse. This problem feeds itself, though, as women are paid less than men because they are seen as secondary incomes and are more likely to take on part time work or leave the labor force. Then, when it comes time for someone to care for a child or sick family member, the family has economic incentive to preserve the man’s wage, as it’s higher. The myth of choice, that women decide to leave the labor market because they want to care for children and family, is often economically driven.

Differences in pay while they affect the family immediately, also affect women on the long term. Over women’s lifetimes, even a small difference in wages at any one time can equate a huge differential in lifetime wage earning. Not only does this impact the family as a whole, it also impacts women individually. Divorce, which is at about 50% in America is a huge factor in this. A woman who has taken time off for childrearing will make less than her male partner who has not. After a divorce, she is able to make less money and therefore is at risk for poverty. Also, the American Social Security system is based on the amount of years worked and how much wages were during those years. This means that women, who live longer than men, are likely to have lower social security payouts later in life.

Unmarried or single childbearing is also a large predictor of poverty in the United States. There is no system of affordable child care, and many women who have children out of wedlock end up in unstable service jobs. Another factor that impacts women is the incarceration rate of black men in America. Black men make up 13% of the population, though they are 30% of people arrested, 41% of people in jail and 49% of people in prison. Many of the men that could be contributing parents to these single mother families are now in jail and therefore unable to earn. Also, once they return there are large obstacles to finding housing, employment and this population is also unable to apply for many social support services.

Social support services, even, are divided into two sectors. The top tier or well-funded services such as Medicare, social security and unemployment have historically been created for and used by men. Social services created for women such as welfare and childcare are often underfunded and stigmatized. Welfare, for instance, was created out of a 19th century widows pension program and now is misrepresented as being a program for black women. To receive benefits a person must abide by many regulations and restrictions that are not only paternal and obtrusive but also limit who can benefit. For example, a person on welfare needs to participate in 35 hours of work participation a week. Though they get childcare rebates and vouchers, they are not assisted in finding affordable childcare. Also, educational activities, such as homework, are only counted when they are done in a supervised study hall. This is almost impossible for a single mother with children to achieve.

The housing crisis is another aspect of how women’s poverty is worsening in the United States. Right now, women are 32% more likely to get a subprime loan than a man and these loans are ten times more likely to foreclose than prime loans. Women have always had barriers to prime loans, and with this new crisis it appears that predatory lenders are actually targeting both women and people of color. The rate of homeownership for women is just 30% compared to 68% for all Americans. The interest rates they have been offered raise exponentially over time, and these populations are at a much greater risk for foreclosure. Homeownership is one of the main sources of equity, and not only are women losing this wealth base, they are also at risk for homelessness and further poverty. Homelessness is a barrier to stable work as well as a huge detriment to children. These women are looking to be plunged into deeper poverty and sent into a rental market that is squeezed and has rising rental rates.

Of course these are not all the causes and manifestations of women’s poverty in the United States. It is just one snapshot of how past and present discrimination and inequalities affect one group of the working class. The divisions in race and gender that are formed over wage issues, access issues and “deserving” and “undeserving” poor are used as a wedge to divide the working class as a whole and impede movements that could only help women, but the whole of working people.

Subordination of women is a social reality that stems from economic exploitation. In the past two hundred years alone, women’s confinement to the home and expectations of care work have been ways to privatize the rearing of a new working class. If families have to absorb the cost of raising their children and caring for their elders, the government doesn’t have to collect money for those services from the ruling classes. In addition, it tampers activism among men, as they are less likely to stand up to their bosses, unionize or demand fair working conditions if their being fired would put their family in destitution. The economic detriment to women by this system punishes them for moving outside of the socially acceptable bounds put forward by the system. It is acceptable to society that these people be punished economically because socially they are seen as undeserving or outcasts.

It would be a direct hit to the pocketbooks of the ruling class if they were serious about gender equality beyond reproductive rights. The only way for women to achieve equality in the work place, economically and politically is for the working class– women and men– organize to fight back. A strong women’s movement that focuses on unionizing the service sector workforce and the traditional women’s work is a strong first step in ending the gendered disadvantage to that work. It also would help bring men and women together in union halls and on the street to understand that their plights are not entirely different. What is needed is a break from the two parties of capitalism and for an independent pro-worker, pro-women political challenge to be built. It needs to be a springboard of a movement that unites all of the working class regardless of gender and race as well as youth and progressive activists that will stand for a working class program of gender equality. While the ruling class system of capitalism maintains, we cannot be guaranteed our efforts will be successful in the area of women’s rights and we need to build a new democratic, socialist society.