Feminist Model and Employment Policy in Canada - Assignment Example

Social Work 300R – Canadian Social Welfare Policies Feminist Model and Employment Policy Introduction Feminists’ claims of equal status for women of all races, classes, sexuality and abilities are generally accepted as reasonable principles in Western society in the 21st century. Yet the contradiction between this principle of equality and the demonstrable inequalities between the sexes that still exists exposes the continuing dominance of male privilege and values in the work place. This paper will provide an historical perspective and discuss the source of women’s employment problems as they relate to patriarchal policies, ideology, social, political and economic influences in the development of policy. It will analyse historical and contemporary issues associated with gender, power and oppression in the work place as a result of Canadian employment policies. This paper will provide an assessment of present and future implications for women impacted by Canadian employment policy. It will consider what issues feminists should be prepared to deal with to initiate change, provide appropriate strategies that could benefit women and recommend actions that might help to prevent these kinds of problems in the future. Description of Feminist Model The feminist model views how government social policy impacts women. Government social policy strongly supports dependency of women and children on the male. Women are necessary actors in social welfare; as clients, reformers and state employees of the welfare state, yet the welfare state has been negligent in meeting women’s needs; they have been oppressive and reinforce gender inequalities that arise within patriarchal structures, especially in the workforce (Graham, Swift & Delaney, 2003). “Women in Canada continue to have lower shares of income than men throughout their lives. At the same time, women continue to bear disproportionately larger shares of unpaid, poorly paid, part-time and other forms of irregular work” (Lahey, 2005, p. 1). In addition, women who are primarily responsible for the rearing of children are having a difficult time making their hard-earned dollars stretch far enough to cover all expenses at a time when men are pointing the finger at them claiming women to be the cause of current increases in social welfare spending. Meanwhile, Canadian fiscal policy serves to “reinforce the many social, economic and legal barriers women face when they try to gain access to full-time work with equal pay” (Lahey, 2005, p. 1). The introduction to Douglas Allen’s (1993) study is typical of the male-dominated world view of several studies conducted in the past: “The results of this study are not too surprising – low-income women respond to the financial incentives offered by welfare, while high-income women do not. The frequency of children born to unwed women, single parenthood, and divorce among low-income women is shown to be positively related to welfare benefits, while the opposite relationship holds for labor force participation” (p. S202). Ironically, it is through looking at these very policies and the numbers that are reported as a result, that we are able to gain a glimpse into how these policies have worked to subdue women and keep them at the barest level of survival. In general, social policies refer to those policies in which governments assume responsibility for those activities that were previously considered private, those things that usually occurred within the family. “Given the traditional gender-based division of labor in our society, family responsibilities were, generally speaking, women’s responsibilities. It is then clear that the transfer of activities from the private to the social realm has had a dramatic impact on women” (Andrew, 1984, pp. 667-68). However, what many scholars have failed to notice until fairly recently, was the large role that women have played in the development of these social welfare systems throughout history. “Women’s history first took root in the 1970s with studies of the relationship between private and public life. Exploiting new sources and embracing new populations, in the 1980s the field blossomed into a wide variety of subfields. As we enter the 1990s, one of the most vital is the history of women and social welfare. Its vigor flows from the light it sheds on the intersection of public and private life, a juncture that remains central to women’s history” (Sklar, 1990, p. 1109). These various welfare policies are created with the stated intentions to help individuals who are in need of assistance and to guide them on their way to a productive and self-supporting lifestyle. However, because these policies are often focused on male-dominated interpretations and political interests, much of the time these policies end up misguided, ineffective or counterproductive. For example, welfare policies in America require single mothers living on welfare to participate in education, job searches or job training programs without taking into account the fact that many of these mothers are already working and must supplement this income with welfare, or that these mothers are coming into the welfare system after having already been a part of the workforce (Harris, 1996, p. 408). “Welfare reform and public attention has focused primarily on getting women off welfare without a long-range vision for keeping women off welfare” (Harris, 1996, p. 408). There are a great deal of factors that weigh into whether a woman can go to work, hold a job or even obtain a position sufficient to support her and her children. These factors include the number and ages of children, child-care costs, and local unemployment rates and the woman’s ability to compete for one of the available jobs (Harris, 1996, p. 409). Historical Perspective Government social policy provides a unique way of viewing the social changes that have occurred in the lives of women in both perspectives of studies and in types of programs and benefits offered to women. Social history in France demonstrates a male-dominated picture of state aid as poor women were forced into a very narrow constraint of possibilities for help. “The state assigned no fiscal, moral or social responsibility to the fathers of children born out of wedlock. … The failure of the government’s efforts to stem the influx of already pregnant women by imposing residency requirements for admission to La Maternite revealed the desperate needs of unwed mothers” (Sklar, 1990, p. 1112). State aid amounted to the distribution of 1 million francs to support 11,000 single mothers and their children in 1890. “The story in late nineteenth-century France, then, was one of public policy vigorously defined and implemented by state officials who left some but not a great deal of room for maneuvering by the middle-class women assisting them and by the working poor women who received state aid” (Sklar, 1990, p. 1112). The history of social aid in the United States is much different, being largely dominated by the activities of middle class women between the years of 1880 and 1920 as they worked for more equality between the genders. “Clearly, women were acting autonomously in gender-specific ways that contradicted their fathers’, brothers’, and husbands’ views” (Sklar, 1990, p. 1113). Much of the social work that was done in the early days was conducted by volunteers, but this began to change as the women gained political status, becoming professionalized and again pushing the woman volunteer into the shadows. Many of the policies created in the early years were reversed in the late 1920s when the state again gained strength and several changes occurred in the values affecting gender identity and gender relations. Like the United States, social change in Britain was led by the ladies, but this time it was done in conjunction with the state rather than as its own separate movement. With women in the role of volunteer workers and men in the role of officials and political constituents, the British policy led to the development of the ‘separation allowances’ of 1914, which may have eventually led to the 1945 Family Allowances Act (Sklar, 1990, p. 1113). However, Sklar argues “that feminist calls for ethical equivalence between male and female forms of service were undercut by male-dominated institutional structures and political forces able to define women’s social and political status. In Canada, as in many countries throughout the world, the period between 1880 and 1920 represented a large shift in the way in which people lived. “Industrialization brought about the separation of work and home … and the growth and development of our large modern cities” (Andrew, 1984, p. 671). This urbanized society worked to bring the woman into the home with her main roles being defined as caring for the husband and the children, however, not all women were afforded this luxury. Women in lower class, poorer situations were still expected to uphold this ideal, but were given very little room in which to do so. These women were often trapped with appalling work conditions and forced to live in barely adequate slum buildings with their children. Meanwhile, middle class women with all this extra free time on their hands, began to realize the plight of poor women in the cities. Therefore, it was the middle class women, seeing this issue developing, who began to organize volunteer groups designed to help their poorer sisters as much as they could, giving birth to the concept of social welfare. Social policy change came to Canada in the form of the 1966 Canada Assistance Plan, or CAP. “The CAP not only replaced all earlier programs and extended benefits to areas such as rehabilitation, counseling, adoption, and day care, but for the first time it gave assistance to poor individuals who were capable of employment” (Allen, 1993, p. S204). Under most definitions, the CAP defines single parents as unemployable regardless of their actual physical or organizational ability, leaving a large area of room for those seeking state assistance. “The CAP allows provinces the freedom to make their own needs tests and to determine their own assistance levels. … Every province gives higher benefits to those it considers ‘unemployable’ as compared to those who are ‘employable.’ … ‘Unemployable’ individuals include the blind, the disabled, and single parents” (Allen, 1993, p. S204-5). Under the patriarchal system that insists women who have the opportunity to turn to social welfare programs will do so out of a fundamental laziness or unwillingness to work, this view is slowly being proven incorrect, at least in Canada. “The conventional wisdom is that single mothers and a welfare system that encourages dependence are at the root of the burgeoning welfare problem. However, the welfare debate in Canada is largely misguided … conclusions drawn from the research focusing on the U.S. welfare programs, which are categorically targeted to single mothers, can at best provide only a partial guide” (Barrett & Cragg, 1998, p. 166). Present and Future Implications for Populations Impacted by the Policy The current situation in Canada paints a slightly improving, but still bleak picture for the Canadian woman. “In 2001, 8.7 percent of all Canadian women were lone parents (compared to 2.1 percent of men)” (Status of Women Canada, 2005, p. 3). Although there has been an increasing trend for more and more women to enter the workforce, with 72 percent of women with children under the age of 16 being employed in 2003, women continue to have lower incomes than men. “The 2003 female-to-male earnings ratio for full-time, full-year employment was 71.2. With small fluctuations up and down, it has remained around the 70 mark since 1990” (Status of Women Canada, 2005, p. 5). It is believed policies that are designed to address these wage gaps, such as pay equity and employment equity, are not as effective as expected as many women currently working in paid positions do not tend to have ongoing relationships with their employers, frequently finding it necessary to switch jobs or work for small businesses in the service sector (Townson, 2005, p. 4). A study conducted by Monica Townson (2005) indicates that nearly 1.5 million women in Canada were living in poverty in 2003, despite increasing numbers in the workforce. A large proportion of these women are aboriginal women, women of visible minority groups, women with disabilities, lone parents and older women. “Many employed women do not have full-time full-year jobs. Globalization and restructuring of the labor market have resulted in a proliferation of non-standard work arrangements … Many workers have become multiple job-holders, working several different jobs to make ends meet. Many of these jobs are poorly paid, there is little job security and generally no access to benefits such as pensions … About 40 percent of employed women, compared with 30 percent of employed men, are now employed in these kinds of jobs” (Townson, 2005, p. 4). Because of these and other issues, women continue to be over-represented among the low-income set. “In each case, women face far higher rates of low-income than the average for women and the rates are higher than for men in a comparable situation. In addition to the high rate of 34.8 percent for lone parents, 39 percent of children in female-headed lone parent families were living in low-income as well” (Status of Women Canada, 2005, p. 7). In addition to the problem of equal employment, women are suffering from a lack of equal access to education, although the inequalities here are beginning to shift. “There has been a dramatic increase in the proportion of the female population with a university degree in the past several decades. In 2001, the percentage of women and men who have earned a university certificate, diploma or degree was almost the same” (Status of Women Canada, 2005, p. 3). However, as in the job market, those women who are struggling to raise children without the benefit of a helpful spouse have difficulty meeting the combined costs associated with pursuing university education while caring for children, not to mention the time constraints involved in studying, caring for children, attending classes and working. “Social assistance is generally not available for individuals who receive student loans meaning that lone parents must borrow large amounts to meet family needs, putting them in a situation of high expense, risk and stress both during their studies and the repayment period” (Status of Women Canada, 2005, pp. 3-4). In addition to the problems of obtaining decent paying employment and working around educational issues, women have continuously found it difficult to obtain access to adequate social services such as child care and medical assistance. Approximately 38 percent of women who worked have reported being forced to take part-time work as opposed to full-time work either because the jobs have not been available for women or because they have had to restrict the hours they were available for work due to family responsibilities such as caring for a child or an elderly relative. At the same time, “there is no comprehensive family policy that would address the needs of mothers and children. Maternity and parental benefits, available under the Employment Insurance program, provide for 52 weeks of benefits (including a two-week waiting period) for new parents. But self-employed workers are not covered” (Townson, 2005, p. 4). Women who have been employed only part-time have also found it difficult to qualify as they must be able to prove that they worked 600 hours in the previous 52 weeks. Indeed, the system has become so broken that Townson reports it is now easier for men to claim parental benefits than it is for women. “As well, benefits replace only 55 percent of the claimant’s usual earnings up to a maximum of $413 a week. As a result, new mothers – and almost 90 percent of maternity and parental benefit claimants are mothers – may face financial hardship when they take maternity or parental leave” (Townson, 2005, p. 5). Conclusion In working to address some of the more important issues that are facing Canadian women today, the Status of Women Canada is working to change the way in which government looks at issues, designs programs, develops policies and enacts legislation (Finestone, 1995, p. i). To begin addressing the disparity between women’s and men’s income levels, the Federal Plan for Gender Equality calls for the inclusion of men and women in assessing the valuation of both paid and unpaid work that is performed by women (Status of Women Canada, 1995, p. 2). With a more accurate idea of how much women actually contribute to the labor pool, it will be easier to enact legislation that both reforms the social welfare system and provides adequate support for those individuals who find themselves in life situations that are not amenable to full-time employment. Rather than being seen as a shiftless homebody, these individuals can be reclassified as full-time home health aides in caring for elderly relatives or as providing necessary child care services in a market in which demand still greatly outweighs supply. Similarly, readdressing definitions regarding who qualifies for aid and based upon what criteria can achieve the necessary goal of providing adequate health and cost of living assistance to those individuals who have had difficulty maintaining employment with a particular employer or for certain lengths of time. Removing the restriction for students receiving federal aid while attending college and taking out student loans could also significantly reduce the amount of money borrowed to support the family while attending school as well as the burden placed upon the household once the student has graduated and it’s time to begin repaying the loans. By listening to the voices of women, it is now being recognized that policies being created at the federal and province level can more accurately address those issues that are most seriously affecting women and serving to keep them in the lower echelons of Canadian society. References Allen, Douglas. (January 1993). “Welfare and the Family: The Canadian Experience.” Journal of Labor Economics. Vol. 11, N. 1, Part 2: U.S. and Canadian Income Maintenance Programs, S201-23. Andrew, Caroline. (December 1984). “Women and the Welfare State.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 17, N. 4, pp. 667-83. Barrett, Garry F. & Cragg, Michael I. (February 1998). “An Untold Story: The Characteristics of Welfare Use in British Columbia.” The Canadian Journal of Economics. Vol. 31, N. 1, pp. 165-88. Finestone, Sheila. (August 1995). Introduction to Setting the Stage for the Next Century: The Federal Plan for Gender Equality. Ottawa, ON: Status of Women Canada. Graham, J; Swift, K. & Delaney, R. (2003). Canadian Social Policy: An Introduction. (2nd Ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc. Harris, Kathleen Mullen. (June 1996). “Life After Welfare: Women, Work and Repeat Dependency.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 61, N. 3, pp. 407-26. Lahey, Kathleen. (November 2005). “Women and Employment: Removing Fiscal Barriers to Women’s Labor Force Participation.” Status of Women Canada’s Policy Research. Ottawa, ON: Status of Women Canada. Sklar, Kathryn Kish. (October 1990). “A Call for Comparisons.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 95, N. 4, pp. 1109-14. Status of Women Canada. (August 1995). Setting the Stage for the Next Century: The Federal Plan for Gender Equality. Ottawa, ON: Status of Women Canada. Status of Women Canada. (August 2005). Assessing Gender Equality: Trends in the Situations of Women and Men in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Status of Women Canada. Townson, Monica. (August 2005). “Poverty Issues for Canadian Women.” Status of Women Canada. Ottawa, ON: Status of Women Canada. Read More