A study in Canada found that a large percentage of women end up financially insecure after the death of their husbands.
The study found that the adjusted income of senior widows dropped 13.2 per cent in the five years after the death of their husband, while the income of widowers increased by 5.8 per cent in the same period.In addition to experiencing an overall decline in median family income, more widows also fell below the low-income threshold. Five years after the spouse's death, 8.7 per cent of women were living in poverty, compared with 5.1 per cent of men. Among seniors who did not live below the threshold before their spouse's death, 8 per cent of widows and 4.3 per cent of widowers had slipped into poverty five years later.
Many of the women within this particular generation (that had the option i.e. middle class or wealthier) did stay home and "take care of the family". As a result they rarely have a pension for themselves. This study will obviously look different as the proceeding generations, either by choice or necessity, most women DO work, but I wonder how different. And what about women that never marry or people that can't get married, like gays? Hm Hm, I guess they just stay poor. Interesting.
via GlobeandMail.com
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Widows get the short end of the stick..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3622
When I read this blog entry, I thought of the Book of Ruth--which is basically all about the financial insecurity that the "traditional family" has imposed upon widows.
Cheers,
TH
Um, I think taking all things into account, the widow is not getting the short end of the stick, as she is the one who is not dead.
Not really, yellownumber5. (Great name, by the way.)
The idea is that women get the short end of the stick in comparison to men in the same situation, not compared to their dead spouses. Women are disproportionally the ones who live in poverty in Canada, especially the elderly and single mothers, so it's always good when attention is drawn to it.
um... gays can get married in Canada.
Good point, TH. The sad thing about Ruth, though, is that she pretty much had to marry again to sustain herself. Even when gathering leftover wheat, she was in constant danger of being harrassed by the workers until Boaz specifically told them not to.
Kirsten, I was wondering. If gays are allowed to marry in Canada, do they receive traditional spousal benefits like shared health insurance and so on? Otherwise, the state of marriage wouldn't afford the protection that it does a heterosexual couple...
EJ: yes, the legislation is based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which enshrines that gays cannot be (legally) discriminated against, including benefits, insurance, and the distribution of an estate in case of death without a will. So yes, they are real marriages.
Although health insurance isn't as much of an issue because we have universal healthcare.
I imagine that gay people were not included in this study because gay marriage has not been legal in Canada for that long. That is, not long enough for a sizable number of gay married couples to have survived their spouse for five years. (Yes, I realise there are elderly couples who have lived together their entire lives, but they weren't married.)
Five or ten years from now, I'm sure they will be included, and five or ten years from now, I'm sure the situation will have changed based on the greater number of working women who will receive pensions. (And depending on whether things horribly backfire in the fall when the House of Commons will vote on gay marriage again.)