Why Women Should Receive the Majority of Relief Aid and Micro-Financing: Or Why Women are Better Spenders

With so many relief organizations giving money to developing countries, you can only wonder how that money is being spent.  Some people see relief aid money and micro-financing loans as a positive action which results in development and economic stability.  Others, however, compare it to giving money to homeless American drug addicts who will spend the money on more drugs and alcohol.  So let's look at what is really being done with generous donations and micro-financed loans.  Id' love to throw out some stats about how well the money is spent, but sadly, I cannot do that, at least not in one simple figure.  Why?  Well, we must first look at gender before we can have a real understanding of how this money is spent, and that is because women are far superior in managing this money, according to statistics which we will soon explore.

For this brief study, we are going to take a global perspective which primarily focuses on Africa, Asia, and Latin America.  Worldwide, we can see that 19.3 million people live in poverty.  Of those, 74% are women.  Moreover, 1.3 billion of the world's population live on less than $1 a day.  Of those, 70% are women.  Clearly, women need financial aid more than men, not that the men are incredibly well off either.  We can blame sexism for this.  Women are more financially insecure as a result of gender oppression.  They have less access to education which results in fewer job options.  They are restricted to the domestic field due to religion, culture, and gender roles.  If they somehow break out of the domestic sphere, they still face significantly less pay and fewer job positions.  So clearly, women are at a disadvantage.

Kaiser Family Foundation 2010 Survey of Americans on the US Role in Global Health

While women are clearly in need of financial assistance and job opportunities, most of the aid relief money from both private and government organizations has traditionally gone to men.  Compared to the women, men have more opportunities and experience in the public sphere.  They are almost always the providers for the families.  Because of this, most of the aid money was given to men.  But what did those men do with the money?  Well, multiple studies have shown that the money was spent on alcohol and weapons.  The men did not know how to invest the money or spend it in ways that benefited their families.  They wasted large sums of money while the women and children suffered.  Not to mention, these purchases were not stimulating the economy or generating business; in fact, it made things worse.  Much worse.

Eventually, some relief money and micromanaged loans and funds were given to women.  Organizations emerged with the intention of giving money to women.  Other organizations, like Women for Women, were created with the intention of giving women raised money to women in need.  And the results?  The results were astounding.  The Women's Entrepreneurship Development Trust Fund discovered that on average, women spent 55% of the money on household items, shelter, and food, 18% on education for all genders of the family, and 15% on clothing.  Once they were able to secure their households, these women began to invest in local business.  Though they never had a thorough education or opened a local business, they were able to open businesses, support existing ones, and stimulate the economy.  Furthermore, these women have excellent payment records.  The organizations that dealt with these women reported that they were pleasant and easy to work with as well, especially compared to men. 

Despite the responsible and productive actions of the women, many organizations are still less likely to assist women.  It appears that women are getting assistance since 60% of clients with the UN Capital Development Fund are female.  And as mentioned before,there are groups that exist for women only.  Currently, 14.2 million poor women have access to aid.  While this seems very positive, the women do not receive as much money as men.  Whenever they receive money, they are also subject to greater payback rates and interest. 

So why is this?  It really makes no sense since women have repeatedly shown how responsible they are.  They have shown that they can stimulate the economy, provide for their families, start businesses, and provide education while being peaceful.  Regardless, many American groups continue to see women as irresponsible spenders (which is not true).  The micro-investors and males who lead the organizations allow the men to continuously receive more money for these reasons, just to nae a few...

Women have less opportunities so they will not be able to do much with the money.  In reality, the women circumvent this by opening and supporting their own and local businesses.  Not to mention, anyone can buy food and other necessities, so gender should not matter in such cases.

Women are poorer than men, so they will need more money to become stable.  Well, this is a pretty pretty stupid reason since we've repeatedly seen that women can stretch their money and spend it responsibily.  Not to mention, these groups know that men are wasteful, irresponsible, and selfish with the money, so why should they get any money?  Especially more money than women?

Another reason women are less likely to receive fair amounts of money is this money is being distributed to men.  These men ignore the successes of women as they hold tight to the untrue stereotypes of helpless irresponsible women.

Despite these negative and sexist aspects of the issue, many organizations are beginning to see the light.  More organizations exist for women;  more organizations are begining to give more to women.  Nonehtless, these women still face many challenges. 

And just think, if these women can do so much on their own without any education or training, imagine what they could do with training programs and guided assistance!

(Primary Source Used... http://www.microcreditsummit.org/papers/empowerment.pdf)

More Gaydar Signals?

If you're trying to hide your sexuality around certain people, then you might want to avoid certain letters.  Watch out!  They might "out" you!  Or so these articles say...

While performing my daily Unicorn Booty read through, I discovered this gem. The article, "Can Gays Be Outed By Their Vowels?" (also found at topnews.in) briefly summarizes and examines a recent study involving 7 gay and 7 straight men. The straight men had never seen or heard these gay men, but their challenge was to listen to words with heavy vowel sounds to see if they could guess the sexuality of the speaker. The result? Seventy-five percent of the straight men's guesses were correct.

So, here are my thoughts on the study. The sample size was too small. And how diverse were these men? Did they mainly select gay men with effeminate voices? If so, that would explain the high correct percentage rate of the men's guesses. That, however, is problematic since it is stereotyping all effeminate men as gay, which is simply not a true stereotype. I am guessing that this was the case since I do not think all gay men sound a like. I know gay men who sound effeminate, gay men who have southern accents, gay men who sound like raspy blues singers, and gays that sound like they can beat the shit out of you. How can all of them pronounce their vowels the same way which "outs" them?

This piece got me thinking: Do lesbians have certain pronunciations which "out" them? Of course, there are some words that lesbians are more likely to use than straight women, but that is different then pronouncing things. So could we add pronunciation to our gaydar check list? Personally, I don't think so. I really don't think it is legitimately a part of detecting gay men, either.

I found it interesting that there was even a study about something like this. By the way, this study began and was conducted at OHIO STATE by Eric Tracy, one of OSU's cognitive psychologists. This further interested me because one of my best friends is a gay man in OSU's graduate social linguistics department. He, too, found this to be both interesting and silly. We both felt that studying these supposed speech patterns created a picture of gays as the "other". Why do the gays have to be the other, aside from the apparent fact that heterosexuality is the norm? Maybe the hetero men say their vowels differently, making them the "other"! Anyway, it also furthers stereotypes that gay men are effeminate. This, as mentioned before, is problematic since it is not representative of all gay men, and it makes straight and effeminate men appear to be gay.

So what do you guys think? Did this piece get you to pay more attention to the way things are pronounced?  Is there really a general difference between the speech patterns of heterosexuals and homosexuals?  What about lesbians?  Does a lesbian's speech out her?  And if there is a difference, what does that mean for bisexuals' speech?  Does it mean we like to label things no matter how stupid the criteria is?  Probably. Yes.