back to index of 2005 Conference papers

Poor Women as Heads of Households in Mexico

by Delia Esperanza García Vences

translated by Kendal Butler

INTRODUCTION

Gender studies are increasingly relevant in the context of social policy, in response to changes in our society such as the new composition of the family, in which many women have become heads of household, whether widows, divorced, or single mothers—those without a spouse or partner or whose spouse or partner is temporarily or permanently absent—or those who are heads of household even when their spouses are present.

Women play a very important role in their socioeconomic surroundings, a role that is different from past decades. With the passage of time, the economic responsibility of women has increased, without a similar change in their social position, although there have been attempts to find solutions for collective problems outside the family structure, by women working alone or with their spouses.

Even though it is generally recognized that women and men experience poverty differently, in poor homes changes in gender relations have been very slow, since gender differences are tightly linked to poverty.

The phenomenon of poverty has grown with the passage of time, since it reflects a growing chronic inequality in the distribution of wealth. It can be defined as insufficient income to cover needed goods and services in many levels of society.

To deal with the complexity of the problem: What is the meaning of the word poverty?

CONCEPTS OF POVERTY

The concept of poverty can be defined from different points of view, which have varied across time depending on the context and circumstances of each country. Reference is nevertheless always made to aspects that have to do with the qualitative and quantitative levels of people’s quality of life, a useful tool for describing situations characterized by inadequate income and precarious satisfaction of basic needs.

Following are a few definitions of poverty:

For Julio Boltvinik, definitions of poverty “are associated to a state of need or lack.” (Boltvinik, 1990: 1).

The World Bank establishes that poverty “refers to the absolute level of life of part of society.” (World Bank, 1992: 423)

PNUD (Regional Project for the Elimination of Poverty) defines poverty “as a situation that prevents the individual or family from satisfying one or more basic necessities and participating fully in social life.” (PNUD, 1990: 33)

According to CEPAL, “Poverty involves the lack of economic resources or social conditions considered basic by society, according to social norms that reflect minimum social rights and public objectives. These norms are expressed in both absolute and relevant terms and vary according to time and national territory.” (CEPAL, 2000: 83)

For Oscar Almitir, poverty is a “situational syndrome associated with underconsumption, malnutrition, precarious housing and bad sanitary conditions.” (Altimir, 1979: 25).

According to Hernández Laos, “Poverty is found in those places whose income generally is insufficient to acquire the goods and services of the basic minimum shopping basket.” (Hernández, 1992: 410).

For Amartya K. Sen, “Poverty can be defined in an absolute sense as a lack of basic capacities and in a relative sense as the lack of the means that a specific society considers appropriate to achieve such capacities.” (K. Sen, 1992:310)

In the Royal Spanish Academy, Madrid 1970, poverty is defined as: “need, straitened circumstances, lack of what is necessary to sustain life.” (Dictionary of the Spanish Language, 1983: 1041).

Therefore, “there is no single meaning of the term poverty, although a common element of the definitions is the identification of a level of life that cannot be achieved by some people, which represents a socially unacceptable adversity.” (Boltvinik, 2002: 17).

As we can see there are many definitions of poverty and although substantively they allude to situations of lack of goods and services to live and function adequately as a member of society, humans in order to survive must satisfy a series of needs.

According to Amartya K. Sen, not only poor people should be interested in the problem, but also those who are not poor, since this is not merely an economic phenomenon but one with social implications, as poverty begins when people’s incomes are so low that they cannot cover minimum consumption norms or satisfy basic needs. To the extent that individuals expand their productive activity and generate income, they will be able to satisfy their needs.

Homes headed by women represent a higher incidence of poverty than those headed by men, creating greater vulnerability and exclusion and fewer opportunities among the poorest women and their families, leading to a reduced capacity to generate income because they have less education and access to productive resources, as well as negative effects on child welfare because of the domestic and extra-domestic work the women must perform daily, which produces an additional disadvantage for homes headed by poor women.

In order to grasp why women are heads of household, it is necessary to understand just what is meant by “head of household,” a crucial term in gender studies as well as in this document.

HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

Being head of a household has to do with the power of one member over the rest of the family organization. “Specifically, the use of the ‘head of household’ concept implies a hierarchical relationship among family members. The head is the most important person in the family and the one who is regularly present in the home, the member with the greatest authority in making decisions, and the home’s principal financial support.” (Acosta, 1997:95)

The head of household makes decisions, provides income, and assigns tasks and responsibilities to the rest of the family. Such aspects are associated with the structure of the home as well as with the status of head of household.

FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

“The concept of ‘female head of household’ is useful for identifying women as the boss in the home (in which the absence of a masculine spouse/partner compels women to take complete charge of the support of the household).” (Acosta, 1997:95)

Female head of household implies support, education and striving to satisfy all the family’s needs. It is understood that this is a clearly agreed upon status, in which the women is the only person who makes decision, but must confront the limitations enforced by her financial and social surroundings. This deviates from the traditional model in Mexico, going beyond the limits imposed by the nuclear family model, which consists of a couple and their children, legally united.

It is important to note that these economic and social changes have had an effect on couples’ relationships, transforming families and homes. The entry of women into the labor market has affected couples’ relationships within the home, since many times women earn more than their husbands and are able to support their children, which leads to women’s making decisions and turning themselves into heads of household.

Acosta (1998) used the legal status of female heads of household as an approximation to posit different social situations that they might face, suggesting that the way of life of a female head of household his strongly connected to her legal status (for example, a female head of household enjoys a different status if she is widowed rather than divorced). Legal status thus allows us to determine the female identity of female heads of household.

Women who are heads of household often have to assume roles usually assigned to men, and the sexual identity of the head of household creates important differences between these women, their homes and their spouses. Legal status will determine the role women play within each home. Married women who are heads of household perform a function that is socially not properly theirs, to provide the family financial support. Single mothers don’t have a traditional spousal relationship since this is their choice in life, and therefore they become heads of household. Women who decide to divorce or separate from their spouse cease to be wives according to the traditional pattern, and often face individual or social failure, which sometimes limits their ability to enter into a new relationship. Widows, on the contrary, have fulfilled their role as wives and are recognized by society as members of a family, and do not face the rejection that accompanies the stigma of being a single mother, separated or divorced, since the widows’ marital situation has changed in unexpected fashion.

When a woman assumes the role of head of household, incidences of family violence diminish, because many women face continual conflicts due to constant physical and psychological violence, infidelity, alcoholism, or financial irresponsibility, which lead them to decide to continue their lives without a partner and assume the role of head of household.

Female heads of household are attributable to many causes, responding to demographic and cultural socio-economic transformations in our country, but can still result from an individual choice rather than a societal imposition. For this reason it is necessary to be aware of some numbers that exemplify the above.

HOMES HEADED BY WOMEN IN MEXICO

The female population of Mexico has increased in the last three decades. In 1980 it represented 50.57 of the total, and in 2000 it was 51.18%, which indicates that the proportion of women has been increasing, according to the 2000 census figures.

The composition of the home has also changed. In 1980 there were 13, 397,357 household headed by men; in 2000 there were 17, 671,681. Households headed by women went from 2, 805,488 to 4,597,235 in the same period; clearly the number is growing. These results have been caused by societal changes including the new composition of the family, in which many women have become heads of household because they are widows, divorced or single mothers.

Marital status tells us whether women are single, married, separated, divorced or widowed. According to the results of the 11 th Census of Population and Housing: Single men decreased from 44.2% in 1970 to 39.8% in 2000. Women showed a lesser reduction, from 36.8% to 34.6% in the same period. Married or cohabiting men represented 53.0% in 1970 and in 2000 increased to 56%; women went down in the same period from 54.1% to 53.6%. The weight of widowhood reflects women’s longer life expectancy, rising from 6.5% in 1970 to 6.6% in 2000. Widowers, on the other hand, accounted for 1.8% and 1.9% in the respective periods. Men whose marriage has been ended by annulment, separation or divorce rose from 1.0% in 1970 to 2.0% in 2000; during the same period women went from 2.6% to 5.0%, attributable to the fact that men, after a marriage has ended in separation or death, enter into second or later marriages more often than women. Women are then compelled to look for work, which, because of their educational level, does not produce enough income to satisfy their basic needs or those of their families.

“Many factors determine the current condition of women, as recognized by López and Izazola (1995). These include: female urban migration, earlier marriage age, marriage breakups, increase in single mothers, fewer second marriages by widows, and matters having to do with male irresponsibility. This irresponsible male behavior is related to the loss of legitimacy suffered by men in the last decades due to three causes: because they are no longer sole providers in the home, because the paternal role has weakened as a model to be followed by the next generation, and because of ideological tendencies that promote sexual equality and question the authoritarian values of machismo.” (Enríquez Rosas, 1995:77)

The image of the male boss as sole provider and his authority in the family are transformed when women earn greater or equal incomes, as the male may feel that his masculinity is threatened, as well as his role as sole provider and head of the family.

As women join the labor force, they contribute income to the home to provide the goods and services that allow them to improve their lives, as evidenced in recent years by their participation in the labor force. It is important to note that income in the home is closely related to the roles that men and women play in the home. In 2000, 45.7% of households received “mixed” incomes compared to 32.6% of households headed by women. Households headed by men but receiving female income amounted to 3.3%, and in households considered headed by women 62.3% received only female income.

Greater participation by women in work outside the home occurs because male income is not sufficient to cover expenses. But it’s worth pointing out that many women face discrimination in the job market and earn less. In 2000, 43.3% of households headed by women receive up to 2 minimum wages, while 34.6% of households headed by men earn that low amount, demonstrating that women earn less. The same thing can be observed at the level of 14 minimum wages, where 5.8% of households are headed by men and only 1.6 % by women, in the same period.

Women’s entry into the job market represents great physical and emotional effort on their part. Besides the responsibility of domestic work (cooking, washing dishes, setting the table, washing clothes, ironing, housecleaning, shopping, paying bills, etc.) and childcare (changing diapers, feeding, bathing, dressing, putting them to bed, making them brush their teeth, taking them to school, helping with homework, organizing birthday parties, talking with teachers, going to parents’ meetings, disciplining them, staying home when they’re sick, taking them to the doctor, etc.), they are forced to choose work that is more compatible with these responsibilities even when it pays less, and must face greater discrimination in the job market. “Women with less education and training who must juggle paying work with housework tend to work less regularly.” (Cortés y Rubalcava, 1995:26)

Informal jobs—unremunerated work done for oneself as well as industrial work done at home—become a source of income due to limited job offers and level of schooling of female heads of household. In 2000, 16.3% of female heads of household were without schooling compared to 9.5% of males. As for incomplete basic education, the female percentage of 49.3% is slightly higher than 46.3% for males. 16.1% of males and 11.9% of females have completed basic education; the figures for “post-basic” education are 25.4% for males and 18.1% for females. Educational level is an important element in obtaining well remunerated jobs, and it is often low among the poorest female heads of household.

The female head of household will seek to satisfy her own and her family’s needs and this will become her reason for being, ever if it requires leaving her home. The decision of the woman to emigrate has serious implications from the moment she makes the decision: social, financial and demographic imbalance both in her place of origin and where she moves to, since she often comes from a rural milieu where work and income are man’s work and arrives in a place which is very different but no more egalitarian in its sexual attitudes.

There are more female heads of household registered in urban than in rural areas, except for women 60 and older, in which case there were 24.4% female heads of household in urban areas and 28.5% in rural areas. Age is an important consideration: female heads of household increase beginning at age 40 due to divorce, separation or widowhood. Nevertheless, the size of households headed by women is smaller than those headed by men both in urban and rural zones.

The average female household had an average of 2.1 children in 2000, while the average male household had 2.2. This means that women who become heads of household and are responsible for both their care and their support may stop having children, since many of them have small children and no one to care for them, and working at home provides a source of income that satisfies their basic needs while allowing them to care for their children.

Very few will manage to find more than one job, however simple. Informal jobs become a source of income for female heads of household but they receive fewer financial benefits such as healthcare, housing and nutrition. They also face having to choose between caring for their children and working, with limited jobs available along with lower income levels. Different amounts are therefore spent on household needs according to gender: In 2000, female heads of household spent $1,378.00 a month on food, drink and tobacco and males spent $1,644.00; females spent $841.00 on education and entertainment while males spent $1,238.00; females spent $776.00 on transportation and communication and males spent $1,120.00.

There is another factor that makes female households more financially vulnerable: In spite of their lower income, women more often wind up caring for the elderly. The percentage of female heads of household caring for an elderly family member is 35.2%, with 20.2% for male heads of household.

Households headed by women working informally have constant worries, since there is no regular income and the women live hand to mouth, knowing that if they don’t work they don’t eat. “Women prefer to work for themselves because they can combine household duties with income-producing activities, adapting sales efforts to household chores, and sometimes taking their children with them.” (Alatorre, 1997:202)

In 2000, 38.9% of working female heads of household were in some kind of business, followed by 27.4% offering some kind of service. The growing participation of women in the labor market has been in specific activities and particularly in business, even though income is less.

It is worth noting that males can work with no conflict whatsoever, since societally they have no responsibilities toward the care of children or the elderly, or domestic chores. These reason make clear that equality in the labor market will be difficult to achieve, given the greater disadvantage experienced by female heads of household compared to other women and to men.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

It is clear that women play an increasingly important role, assuming different roles in society resulting from their household responsibilities and their entry into the job market, on top of household chores and childcare.

It is therefore necessary that government establish federal, state and municipal programs directed at poor female heads of household, responding to this vulnerable and often excluded segment of the population.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acosta Díaz, Felix (1997). Los Estudios sobre la Jefatura de Hogar y Pobreza en México y América Latina, en: Alatorre, Javier. Las Mujeres en la Pobreza. Comité Coordinador de GIMTRAP, México.

Acosta Díaz, Felix (1998).Hogares jefas Mujeres y Bienestar Familiar en México, en Beatriz Schmuker, (coord.), Familias y Relaciones de Género en Transformación. Cambios Trascendentales en América Latina y el Caribe. Population Council / EDAMEX, México.

Acosta Díaz, Felix (2001). Jefatura de Hogar Femenina y Bienestar Familiar: Resultados de la Investigación Empírica. Papeles de Población. Abril/ junio. CIEAP/ UAEM, Toluca, México.

Altimir, Oscar (1979). La Dimensión de la Pobreza en América Latina.Cuadernos de la CEPAL. (s/v) No. 27. CEPAL, Santiago de Chile.

Ariza, Mariarna y Oliveira, Orlandina. (2003) Acerca de la Familias y los Hogares: Estructura y Dinamica en Catalina Wainerman (copiladora). Familia, Trabajo y Género: Un mundo de nuevas relaciones. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (UNICEF) y Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina.

BANCO MUNDIAL (1992). La Medición de la Pobreza, Comercio Exterior. Vol. 42, No. 4. Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior.

Barquet Mercedes (1999). Condicionantes de Género sobre la Pobreza de las Mujeres, En Alatorre, Javier, et al, Las Mujeres en la Pobreza. Comité Coordinador de Gimtrap. Centro de Estudios Sociológicos: Grupo Interdisciplinario sobre Mujer, Trabajo y Pobreza. El Colegio de México, México.

Boltvinik, Julio y Hernández Laos, Enrique (2002 ).Pobreza y Distribución del Ingreso en México.Editorial Siglo XXI. México.

Boltvinik Julio. (1990). Pobreza y Necesidades Básicas. Conceptos y Métodos de Medición, PNUD, Bogotá.

CEPAL (1997). Desarrollo Sostenible, Pobreza y Género en América Latina y El Caribe: Medidas hacia el año 2000. Naciones Unidas, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Santiago de Chile.

CEPAL (2000). Panorama Social de America Latina 1999-2000. Publicación de las Naciones Unidas. Santiago de Chile.

Consejo Estatal de Población. (1992) Derechos y Deberes de la mujer. Toluca, Estado de México. Gobierno del Estado de México.

Cortés Fernando y Rubalcava Rosa María (1995). El Ingreso de los Hogares, IEGI/ colmes/II-UNAM, México.

Diccionario de la Real Academia Española (1983). Madrid, España.

Enríquez Rosas, Rocío. 1995. Hogar, pobreza y bienestar en México. Editorial ITESO. México.

Galbraith, J. K. (1979). Origen de la pobreza de las masas. Ed. Diana, 1982. México.

Hernández Laos Enrique (1992). Crecimiento Económico y Pobreza en México. Una Agenda para Investigación. UNAM. Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Humanidades. México.

INEGI. (1970, 1980,1990, 2000.) Censos Generales de Población y Vivienda. Estado de México.

INEGI-INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE LAS MUJERES Mujeres y Hombres en México, 2003. Instituto Nacional de Geografía e Informática. México.

K. Sen (1992). Sobre Conceptos y Medidas de Pobreza, Comercio Exterior. Vol. 42, No. 4. Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior. México.

Lamas Marta. (1996) La Perspectiva de Género.La Tarea, Revista de Educación y Cultura de la Sección 47 del SNTE. No. 8. México.

Meghand Desai (1992). Bienestar y Privación Vitales: Propuesta para un Índice de Progreso Social. Comercio Exterior. Vol. 42, Núm. 4. Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior. México.

Oliveira Orlandina 1999, Familia y género en el análisis sociodemográfico en Brígida García (coord.) Mujer, género y población en México, El Colegio de México/ Somede México.

PNUD (1990). Desarrollo sin Pobreza. II Conferencia Regional sobre la Pobreza en América Latina y el Caribe Proyecto Regional para la Superación de la Pobreza. Noviembre 20-23. PNUD, Quito.

Scott W, Joan. (1996). El Género: una categoría útil para el análisis histórico. En: Lamas Martha (compiladora) El Género: la construcción cultural de la diferencia sexual, Programa Universitario de Estudios de Género. Edit. Porrúa, México.

Tortosa, José María (Coord.), 2000. Pobreza y Perspectiva de Género. Icaria Editorial. España.

Wainerman, Catalina (Comp.) (2003). Familia, Trabajo y Género: Un mundo de nuevas relaciones . Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (UNICEF) y Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina.

back to index of 2005 Conference papers