Dear Sly.I think the answer lies in the historical treatment of women and children in general. The ideas that a woman without a man is incapable of caring for herself, much less herself and child(ren) are "chattel" has been around for centuries. Arranged marriages, dowries, "family honor", lack of rights as human beings, etc. have all contributed to and perpetuated these stupid stereotypes.If you were an older, unmarried woman - even up until the 1950's - it was assumed that there was something "wrong" with you and that is why you were an "old maid". Having children outside of wedlock made you a "bad", "fallen", etc. woman. Being raped meant the victim had been "asking for it" or "promiscuous". Women were referred to as ""the weaker sex" (ha!). Women were not allowed to have jobs, vote, own property, etc. for ages and even now that we have won the "rights" to those things we get paid less for the same jobs (hopefully the Ledbetter statutes will help with this!), have been pushed against "glass ceilings", harassed and discriminated against, etc.“Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income and own 1 percent of the means of production.”-Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p. 354" For many women, unpaid work in and for the household takes up the majority of their working hours, with much less time spent in remunerative employment. Even when they participate in the labour market for paid employment, women still undertake the majority of the housework. When women work outside the household, they earn, on average, far less than men. They are also more likely to work in more precarious forms of employment with low earnings, little financial security and few or no social benefits. Women not only earn less than men but also tend to own fewer assets. Smaller salaries and less control over household income constrain their ability to accumulate capital. Gender biases in property and inheritance laws and in other channels of acquiring assets also leave women and children at greater risk of poverty. Paid employment for women does not automatically lead to better outcomes for children. Factors such as the amount of time women spend working outside the household, the conditions under which they are employed and who controls the income they generate determine how the work undertaken by women in the labour market affects their own well-being and that of children."-— UNICEF, State of the World’s Children, 2007U.S. women represent 51% of the population, but comprise less than: * 1.2% of Fortune 500 CEOs. Source: Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers (www.catalystwomen.org ) * 2.7% of the highest paid officers at Fortune 500 companies. Source: Catalyst * 15% of the members of Congress. Source: Women's Research and Education Institute (http://www.wrei.org/pubs/WC_108.pdf )To reach equal compensation:In 2003, the median income of full-time, year round U.S. workers was $41,520 for men and $31,663 for women. Source: U.S. Census Bureau - Income in the United States: 2003 (www.census.gov )The simple fact is, women have more responsibility and less support than men. Being responsible for a child or children adds to a woman's "burden" of work without compensation. And since the prevailing attitude is that we (women) do not "deserve" help (despite the even most basic fact that we are RAISING THE NEXT GENERATION who will be making decisions for all of us at some point) or that that children are not a "communal responsibility"; it is quite possible that a woman CAN easily slip into poverty - with or without children.Until women have ACTUAL EQUAL RIGHTS and children have better and in some cases even just some RIGHTS and we start acting like communities instead of hanging families out to dry we will see this problem continue and this awful (because it IS partly true) stereotype and mindset in the general public. And no, I'm not "man bashing". Men AND women have allowed this to happen. It is up to men AND women to fix it.
