Basic income | “Economic violence” against women and universal basic income – El Salto

That the Supreme Court recognizes, in a recent ruling, that non-payment of pensions by divorced parents is “economic violence” against women, is very good news for us. Until now it had not been recognized as such, although there are many cases in which parents refuse to pay alimony for their sons and daughters when, after the divorce, custody rests with the mother. As a consequence, women are impoverished; household expenses and the needs of minors remain the same and, without the contribution of parents, fall solely on women.

There are different reasons for these defaults but there is abundant the case of the resentful, vindictive or spiteful male who wants to take revenge for the offense received with the divorce. Some men do not understand that their women want to leave them. They undoubtedly suffer a deep narcissistic wound. Especially if they are self-centered, they consider that the money they earn should go first to meet their own expenses. Those of his sons and daughters and those of his ex-wife will occupy the last place. Likewise, there is also a perverse pleasure in that the one who rejects you as a husband, must ask you for money to survive.

From a feminist perspective, the importance of economic independence for women, a goal not easy to achieve, has been frequently pointed out. For many women, this independence is still a myth.

From a feminist perspective, the importance of economic independence for women, a goal not easy to achieve, has been frequently pointed out. For many women, this independence is still a myth: given the precariousness of salaries, a large part goes to pay the necessary help to take care of the children while working. One wonders if it is worth the effort in a poorly paid job leaving the daughters in charge of other people whose payment takes a large part of the earnings. Wouldn’t it be better to stay home and take care of them yourself?

This approach does not take into account that, without their own sources of income, women come to depend entirely on the male economy, which will reinforce their role as pater families as they are the sole breadwinner for the home. If your income is already generally higher than that of the woman, which reinforces your role, let alone if yours is the only income. Their status is extraordinarily reinforced while that of women is weakened. To a greater extent still given the scant consideration of domestic work.

All these factors influence that some men consider alimony in divorce cases as a kind of added penalty that they have to pay for a crime they have not committed. It is not uncommon for them to consider themselves victims of a feminist conspiracy that forces them to assume the costs of maintaining homes that are no longer theirs and they do not understand that regardless of what may have happened between the parents, the descendants continue needing resources. They perceive it as an unjustified decrease in their income that prevents them from rebuilding their lives as they would like. They do not understand the violence embedded in their behavior, because it is always easy to justify that one does not have enough money for himself, that the children do not stop asking and that the ex-wife is insatiable.

I remember a case of a divorced man who lived in a different city than his ex-wife and children, whose pensions he did not pay. But when he went to visit them, he stayed in a good hotel and invited his children to dinner in good restaurants. In one day the amount corresponding to a month’s pension was spent. He never did this calculation. For him, his ex-wife had to take care of daily household expenses. He was only for the extraordinary strutting from his privileged position. Well, a first step to put an end to these behaviors is to make them visible as “economic violence”, insofar as it involves taking money for basic needs from dependent people who do not yet have the capacity to fend for themselves and towards whom these men- parents still have obligations. Denying them sustenance is a form of violence that also means impoverishing the ex-wife who will have to continue caring for them.

Perhaps with more information and more sentences of this type, the behavior of many men will change and they will realize how much suffering they cause with this way of proceeding.

We cannot forget the great role of money in our society; If denying it to those who need it and cannot provide it is a form of violence, having it would ensure the material conditions of their freedom

Meanwhile, and given the great importance of having money in a society like ours, alternative measures such as the universal basic income would help to weaken this violence as it would guarantee unconditional resources to all people, naturally including women. It would make us less financially dependent. It could decouple, at least in part, capitalism and patriarchy, enabling women to gain economic independence not only with well-paying jobs – which has been essential for middle-class feminists – but with their own money contributed by public institutions. . It would reduce inequality, also from a gender point of view, and would basically benefit women with fewer resources.

Certainly the defense of universal basic income does not directly incorporate a gender perspective or question the feminization of reproductive work. That is why it is sometimes discussed from feminist positions. But that does not mean that its implementation did not entail a notable improvement in the living conditions of many women, increasing their autonomy. Having their own money would be a great help in building their own freedom that would allow them to more easily escape this and other forms of violence. We cannot forget the great role of money in our society; If denying it to those who need it and cannot provide it is a form of violence, disposing of it would ensure the material conditions of their freedom and reduce the dependence on women and the power of husbands and ex-husbands. It would assure all of us better living conditions.

–