Reclaiming Demographics: Women, Poverty, and the Common Interest in Particular Struggles

Advocates and scholars who work on poverty law issues confront the tension between general and targeted programs constantly. Institutional design choices are often driven by the political feasibility of broadening the base or alternatively reaching only those poor people who are deemed worthy. Proposals that might be "better" in theory-whether "better" is defined in terms of justice, empowerment, efficiency, or rights-may be simply dismissed because they are seen as unrealistic. Although it could be argued and imagined that poverty programs should be targeted to benefit the poor, with benefit levels set according to some understanding of basic needs, many of the most successful programs are both under- and overinclusive. Line-drawing is always hard but it is made even more so in the context of anti-poverty work by the moral judgments associated with poverty, by the feeling that the poor are to blame for their own poverty. Such judgments have been particularly powerful in shaping policy when it comes to women and poverty.The challenge for advocates can be to show that the seemingly "special" interests of particular groups or communities are matters that are, or should be, of general concern. The topic of "women and poverty" arguably invites both a narrowing and a broadening of readership and concern relative to articles on "women" or on "poverty" alone. Those who see themselves as primarily interested in women's rights may, for example, be more drawn to read a poverty related article than is ordinarily the case. That seems all for the good. But the reverse is also potentially true: those who are passionate about poverty in general might be less inclined to read about the particular challenges and struggles of women in poverty.1 The "women and poverty" label suggests that many-those who do not fall into the group (men) and those who assume they will not fall into the group (non-poor women)-can tune out.The AALS panel-from which the articles that follow in this issue of the American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law were drawn-was titled "Theory and Praxis in Reducing Women's Poverty."2 That is a good title. It emphasizes the best traditions of scholarship, the merger of scholarship with practice to help the vulnerable or marginalized. It also works well with the topics tackled in the subsequent articles. But the danger in such a topic and indeed in such a "specialty" journal is that it suggests that "reducing women's poverty" is a special interest, which it is not. It matters, or should matter, to everyone. Poverty is not blind to demographics, nor do certain groups just "happen" to experience higher and different types of poverty and marginalization. Such demographic facts reflect everything from the continuing power of historic advantages and disadvantages to present day discrimination and ingrained social norms. Anti-poverty approaches that relegate studies on particular demographic groups, such as women, to sideways glances fail to account for the continued salience of demographic differences. Perhaps more troubling, pretending as if poverty is indifferent to such differences plays into the cultural norms that deemphasize social obligations and support in favor of blaming people as individuals for their poverty.Strategically reclaiming demographics may be a way for advocates and scholars to better understand and work on poverty issues. The Census Bureau's recent report on income, poverty, and health insurance certainly illustrates the continued salience of gender on earnings and connection to poverty.3 Although the media reported heavily on the finding that the overall poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1%, the highest in decades, the femaleto- male earnings ratio of 0.77 for full-time, year-round workers got less attention, in part because the gap is not new and therefore not news.4 The overall poverty rate among families, 11.7%, not surprisingly varies considerably by family type.5 While only 6. …