Brazzil

Since 1989 trying to understand Brazil

Search


Cheap Mobile Phones
---------------
Members : 1464
Content : 3284
Content View Hits : 18841780

Who's Online

We have 183 guests online

Login Form



Related Items



Pingo
Breaking News from Brazil
From Brazzil Mag news team
Brazzil Magazine
Breaking News from Brazil
From Brazzil Mag news team
Brazzil Magazine


For Women Brazil Is a Paradise. A Shame It's Only on Paper. PDF Print E-mail
Written by Augusto Zimmermann   
Thursday, 08 June 2006 19:06

Violence against women in BrazilBrazil's legal protection of women's rights has been praised by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as 'unprecedented' and an 'influential model' to be imitated by all nations. While the Brazilian Constitution says that everybody must have the same basic rights, other laws provide prison penalties and fines for any situation of sexist behaviour, including the use of pejorative terms against women.

The law of the land also provides special police stations only for women, offering them specific services such as psychological counseling for victims of domestic violence, hospital treatment for victims of rape, and investigation of any crime against women.

Despite the written law, it is well known by everybody that violence against Brazilian women occurs with frequency. A 2004 document released by the UN-Habitat reveals that Brazil has one of the highest levels of incidents described as rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault against women in the world. The report also states that such violent crimes are usually underreported, and the perpetrators unlikely to be punished.

A 2001 study of 61.5 million women carried out by the Perseu Abramo Foundation found that every year 2.1 million Brazilian women are victims of physical violence. This means that every 15 seconds a woman is beaten in Brazil. It also reveals that 6.8 million Brazilian women have suffered from beatings by their partners, relatives, and other acquaintances.

In 2004 alone, explains Health Minister Saraiva Felipe, 189,000 Brazilian women over the age of 10 had been admitted to hospitals with fractures, dislocations, and traumas to various parts of the body, including the skull.

The vast majority of criminal complaints related to violence against women in Brazil have been suspended without final conclusion. A 2002 document of the World Organization Against Torture (WOAT) explains that only 2% of such complaints have led to any conviction. As for those few cases resulting in conviction, the WOAT complains that the punishment for first-degree murder and rape were 'very light'.

According to Norma Kyriakos, a Brazilian lawyer and former attorney-general of São Paulo state, "instead of giving him [the criminal] community service [or jail sentence], judges [often] propose he pays for a basket of food or other goods for a charitable institution.

And so the man keeps doing it because he knows that's all he'll have to pay... Women today are still afraid to go to the police because they are afraid of their attackers... They know that when they are finished here with the delegada [i.e.; female chief police] or judge they are on their own again".

A case which serves to illustrate the current situation occurred in 1983. The case is about a woman who was left paraplegic after suffering several murder attempts by her husband. After waiting more than 15 years for any judicial decision, she then filed a lawsuit against the country with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. In 2001, members of this commission judged the government of Brazil guilty of negligence, omission, and tolerance with respect to domestic violence against women.

In relation to the working rights of women, the 1988 Constitution explicitly forbids any salary differentiation between the sexes. Actually, the basic law actually provides 'positive discrimination' in favour of working women, granting them special constitutional rights such as three months' paid maternity leave and protection against dismissal for pregnancy.

In practice, however, the Organization of American States (OAS) reports that women bearing children have been dismissed in Brazil regardless of legislation to the contrary. The report suggests that some employers have illegally required 'proof of sterilization' as a pre-condition for women to be employed.

Finally, the OAS maintains that even the government itself openly recognizes that the average salary of women is 54% below what is normally paid to male counterparts possessing similar levels of education and qualification.

The constant violation of women's rights highlights the prevalence of a 'macho' culture where Brazilian men are expected to 'prove' their 'masculinity' by treating women as mere sexual objects. A major problem for the application of these rights is associated with the extra-legal, sociological fact that many men in Brazil "believe they have the right to physically dominate their partners, and many women accept a submissive role".

This 'macho' culture may help to explain the proliferation of sexual violence, unstable unions, adultery, and illegitimacy, as factors that might naturally lead to the widespread violation of women's rights.

Augusto Zimmermann is a Brazilian Law Professor and the author of the well-known books Teoria Geral do Federalismo Democrático (General Theory of Democratic Federalism - Second Edition, 2005) and Curso de Direito Constitutional (Course on Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition - 2005). His e-mail is: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Comments (204)Add Comment
...
written by Guest, June 08, 2006
what else is new? Brazil is always being praised for this legislation or that legislation. But they're never enforced.

It truly makes one wonder why they even waste the time putting it on paper.
...
written by Guest, June 09, 2006
Violence against women is not a Brazilian thing. Unfortunately this happens in all countries, and many women who have been attacked will remain silent for fear and/or shame. Doing the right laws is a positive first step. Doing work to help awareness and empowerment is necessary, not only in Brazil but in every country where women are disrespected and abused, and this means a great majority.
...
written by Guest, June 09, 2006
well, you're right, it is a problem in all countries, but once again, brazil is a WORLD LEADER in this area!!



quote:

"A 2004 document released by the UN-Habitat reveals that Brazil has one of the highest levels of incidents described as rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault against women in the world. "

So, once again, please don't try and diminish the severity of the problems here in brazil by saying, "well, there are these types of problems everywhere".

Yes, there are, but isn't it funny how brazil seems to be a world leader, or in the top 10 in things like murder, corrupiton, assault against women, crime, unequal distribution of income, and many other unfavorable aspects?

Would you not say that there is some type of societal ideology here in brazil that seems to gravitate towards violence and stealing?? Immoral behavior?


...
written by Guest, June 09, 2006
"Yes, there are, but isn't it funny how brazil seems to be a world leader, or in the top 10 in things like murder, corrupiton, assault against women, crime, unequal distribution of income, and many other unfavorable aspects? "

Could you please list reliable sources to corroborate your statements?

There is important difference between saying, for example, “Brazil has one of the highest level of incidents against women” and “Brazil is the world leader of crimes against women“.

Once again the incapacity of posters here to use logic or even interpret English or statistics are nothing short of amazing.

Again and gain, the same myths are continuously propagated here, the same crap, the same exaggerations, the same false premises.

There is no way to stop stupidity, it just keep going on and on.
...
written by Guest, June 09, 2006
excuse me, but you're the one not understanding english, and I've posted statistic after statistic on this site in relation to murder statistics in brazil, unequal distribution of income, prostitution, and this very article states that brazil is a world leader in, well, let's quote a United Nation report!

quote:

" A 2004 document released by the UN-Habitat reveals that Brazil has one of the highest levels of incidents described as rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault against women in the world."

An incident of rape is a crime...did you know that? Rape is a crime, just because they characterized these crimes as "incidences", that is normally how people characterize rape, assault, etc.

We don't say, there were 10,000 crimes of rape, you say, there were 10,000 incidents of rape...and rape is a crime.

Is rape a crime? Attempted rape? Indecent assault? Of course they are. Obviously you can't comprehend what this very article states.

The brazilian consititution states, per this very article....

quote:


"While the Brazilian Constitution says that everybody must have the same basic rights, other laws provide prison penalties and fines for any situation of sexist behaviour, including the use of pejorative terms against women."

And once again, you're a champion at putting words in others mouths....english isn't your first language is it? Read the following quotes, first mine, then yours, and any bonehead can tell you that YOU twisted my words.

quote:

"but isn't it funny how brazil seems to be a world leader, or in the top 10 in things like murder, corrupiton, assault against women, crime, unequal distribution of income, and many other unfavorable aspects? "


your response:

quote:

"There is important difference between saying, for example, “Brazil has one of the highest level of incidents against women” and “Brazil is the world leader of crimes against women“. "

You know what's truly amazing, is that after someone like yourself, reads this article, you still think that brazil is not a world leader in rape and assault to women...f**k the U.N. report, you know better than them huh?


You were right about one thing although....

quote:

"There is no way to stop stupidity, it just keep going on and on. "






...
written by Guest, June 09, 2006
and you should note, that "A WORLD LEADER" and "THE WORLD LEADER" are two different things. I even said, "in the top ten" in the above quote.
...
written by Guest, June 09, 2006
quote:


"Again and gain, the same myths are continuously propagated here, the same crap, the same exaggerations, the same false premises. "


I never knew there were so many ostriches in brazil!!! But there are!!!

Get your f**king head out of the sand!!

They're all myths huh? the murder, child prostitution, rape, corruption, poverty...it's all a big american propaganda machine that has a score to settle against brazil huh?? LMAO!

Steven Spielberg did a helluva job a few weeks ago when he produced that new short film down in Sao Paulo...what was it called?? The Bomfim Inferno??
Duh!!!
written by Guest, June 09, 2006
Brazil has many good things "on paper." If you have any familiarity with Brazilian history you will immediatly recognize that the laws concerning the protection of women are just another Brazilian example of, "Only for the English to see." which Brazil has made an art form over the past 200 years or so.
Reliable sources ?
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
Strange request !

JUST READ THE NUMEROUS ARTICLES ON THIS SAME SITE !

I am not referring to articles written by a reporter/journalist but by reports and rankings issued by International Agencies and also by Brazilian Agencies.

Therefore you better stop watching watching 24/7 your TV soap operas and read more news on this same site or on the Government site : Radiobras.com...for news and rankings of your own country.

Quite surprising that you voluntarily reject and deny the simple truths !

Time to wake up...the reality is very sad and what Lula want you to swallow is pure lies !

Just look at your crime rates of over 30'000 per year.
Just look at your poverty rate compared to your GDP per capita.....and you are Nbr 1 here too.
Same for corruption. You even call this yourself : Custo Brazil !

Dont you export annually around US$ 40 billions in agriculture when you have tens of millions of under nourrished citizens ?

Dont you have hundreds of innocent killed annually by your police and by large landowners ? Do these people go to jail ? Noooooo......No one !

Is SP not the city with the highest kidnaping rate in the world ?
Is SP not the city with the highest armored cars in the world ?
Is SP not the city with the highest number of helicopters in the world...due partially of your violence against wealthy people ?

You better stop putting one hand in front of your eyes and the other in your ears !!!!!

And what about your so proud industry of Ethanol ? Is not 40 % of your sugar cane harvested...MANUALLY.....by workers not only badly paid but very close to being treated as slaves ???????
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
quote:


"Just look at your crime rates of over 30'000 per year."

that's waaaay low...the last two years brazil has had over 50,000 murders each year, that's only murder, that's not mentioning all other crimes.
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
Are you some kind of sick obsessive people? The guy just said that crimes against women happen all over the world and it is not a Brazilian thing. Does that hurt so much to hear? He was capable of giving a good suggestion on how to deal with this issue by increasing awareness and empowerment of women. What did you marvelous guys have to add but your negative comments that Brazil is the meanest place in the world? Again with your linguist oppression and power game? Do you have wives or daughters? Do you think of their happiness? And I am not even asking their nationalities, because these outrages happen everywhere despite race and INCOME. Don‘t come here stereotype by saying that Brazilian men are machos who can’t treat a woman, I say that foreigners are nothing better.
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
quote:

"Don‘t come here stereotype by saying that Brazilian men are machos who can’t treat a woman, I say that foreigners are nothing better. "

quote from article:

"The constant violation of women's rights highlights the prevalence of a 'macho' culture where Brazilian men are expected to 'prove' their 'masculinity' by treating women as mere sexual objects. A major problem for the application of these rights is associated with the extra-legal, sociological fact that many men in Brazil "believe they have the right to physically dominate their partners, and many women accept a submissive role".

This 'macho' culture may help to explain the proliferation of sexual violence, unstable unions, adultery, and illegitimacy, as factors that might naturally lead to the widespread violation of women's rights."


quote:

"Do you have wives or daughters? "

Yes, I do, and am sick about them being here in brazil, one of the worst places on the planet for them to be in respect to violence and rape!!!!




...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
"many men in Brazil believe they have the right to physically dominate their partners, and many women accept a submissive role"

I don't think so... If they would physically dominate any women they would be history to them, many women simply are not treated as mere sexual objects and don't play a submissive role! You are a gringo to say that. Brazilans are democratic and liberals in their relationships! But it happens more and more to have disfunctional couples. Now it is Brazilian caracteristic! Lol!!!!!Go look at America! Anyways, why don't you say something constructive and stop sounding like a broken record? If you were so concerned you would beeing adding something positive to the matter.
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
divorces are in high rates in Brazil did you know that? I guess that says something? If the relationship degenerates they will end like it has to be!!!
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
Quote:


"Brazilans are democratic and liberals in their relationships!"

The problem with people like you is that you think sao paulo capitol and rio de janeiro IS brazil. Do you know that a larger population of brazilians live in the interior of states? And that there is a large population of brazilians in the northeast of brazil??

People like you tend to discount this huge population of brazilians that do not have a high level of education, and where many of these crimes occur!
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
and United Nations reports obviously mean nothing to people like you....to be honest, to people like you, your own governments reports don't mean anything. You type of people hind your head in the sand and think that everything is just hunky-dory in brazil, that these types of problems exist everywhere, and to the same degree as in brazil.

You're the worst kind of brazilian, the kind that will keep this country from making changes for the better!
AAA
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
HIT THE FEMALES UNTIL THEY DO THE BLOWJOB
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
"You're the worst kind of brazilian, the kind that will keep this country from making changes for the better!"

What kind of Brazilian are you? If you even are a Brazilian.And for your information beating women is not privilege of the have nots, much less is out of Rio-SP area. Did you see the other day the Veja magazine cover? a married womam was continuously spanked by her global actor husband They are from Rio and they definetely are not poor!

AAA
Há, Há, Há pathetic..
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
"You're the worst kind of brazilian, the kind that will keep this country from making changes for the better!"

And what are you effectively going to do? I am the one who can complain and you, what you do? I don't think reports don't mean anything, And I do know these problems exist everywhere and to the same degree. This is all bullshit you know? What American movies can say about it? It was not long ago that women in America could work and divorce without being considered whores. And in Spain, violence against women is so current that articles about it appears routinely in the paper and you can watch movies that approachs the theme.
T.
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
Hello. i'm looking for information on orphanages in Brasil. I am starting a non profit org to benefit children in need, primarily assisting orphanges in the Americas. I'm looking for contacts in Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro. Does anyone reading this site have any info? If so, please let me know. I will check back daily. Thank you.
Why Brazil?
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
Why don´t you do it in your country? Every country is in need of this sort of assistance.
The last time I met a guy who "was interested on helping Brazil" , it turned out to be a very suspicious affair.
Just fancy - he was going to set up a church in Rio.( Can you guess how many churches there are in Rio ? ) He was a nice guy, intelligent and socialized easily. He was learning Portuguese in a crash-course. I asked him what were his plans and he answered: "My main project is making friends".
Suddenly,he reminded me of Graham Greene.
THE OLD STEREOTYPE AGAIN!!!
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
Brazil this, Brazil that. How come, don´t you all read the newspapers, magazines or the WWW?
Can´t you read between the lines?
Every time some stupid guy makes a millionth STUPID statement about this country, I can´t refrain from realizing how many morons live on this planet.
Why focus on Brazil? You have enough of all this misery you just see down the Rio Grande.
How stupid it is.
Open up any USA newspaper , today´s issue, and you will be very well served of crime, corruption, stupidity, prostitution, etc., etc.
Don´t say you are innocent . Maybe you are lazy. Maybe , just robots. Who knows you are just a produce of those awful schools you have .
I don´t deserve spending my time on you , transcribing every complicated story about America and American citizens..
.
Anyway, try and stop your finickiness. Go have your daily super McDonalds sandwich. You will put up weight a little more
(HAHA, a little stereotype of America!!1 )
Brazilian machos !!!
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
Why dont you ask to Brazilian women as they perceive you ????

I know several brazilian women who have only one desire :
to meet a nice foreigner and to have a love story she did not have in Brazil !

They say you are terribly bad as to how you treat them. I am not talking of violence but of your machism.
You really dont like to care much for them !
That should explain why they have such a dream !
LOVE STORY.
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
Maybe you have a point here. They fancy nice foreigners , just like those fake guys you see on American films. They represent the ideal guy to be met. The propaganda begins since they are teenagers and goes on with every TV film or movie.
It really works, and their fantasy fly high. (Not for all of them, of course)
On the contrary, I bet the American women imagine the Brazilian men the way they learn to see them. Macho men, moustache on the face, ignorant, black hair, etc., etc.,
HAHA, this world is quite complicated, isn´t?
...
written by Guest, June 10, 2006
To Brasilian machos!!!

Many Brasilian women look to Yanks or Euros for a fat wallet that Jose just cannot ever earn!
That´s it.
written by Guest, June 11, 2006
First of all: When you write Brazil or Brazilian , in English, you write 'Z ' instead of " S ".

What a f**king world we have . We have to put up with all kinds of underdogs there are around.

Just the Brazilian prostitutes look for Americans or Europeans, or whatever nationality there is. That´s part of their work and you can´t blame them for this. They will go doing it to the last prostitute.
José is not a very common name in Brazil. You chose the wrong name. It means that you are just one of those guys who have a stereotype in your head from your films. It means you are robotized.
Now, prostitutes are affordable to anyone otherwise there would be no prostitutes.

Another point: Americans and Europeans come to Brazil for sex because they frustrated.Their moms , their friends, their laws, prohibit such a bad thing like having sex. Then they go to streets (in America ) and rape women ( what is rampant ) in American territory.
When they get here they go with prostitutes because the Brazilian who is straight (99,999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999% ) turn their faces to them because they are such morons.

Besides, don´t forget, in America you have a whole 34 million poors (12,7 percent of the whole population ).
( This figure is superior to the whole populations of CANADA


Canada (33,098 millions )and...
written by Guest, June 11, 2006
Arabia (27,019 millions ), Australia (20,264 millions ), Nine times the whole population of New Zealand (4,076 millions).
That´s not all , but I stop here because you might hang yourself from shame.( Like the prisioners in Guantanamo - haha )

P.S. Can you visualize 34 million poors? That what you have in America. Can you see them all f**king your prostitutes? No , they can´t because they are poor and can´t afford paying those expensive sluts.BESIDES THEY WOULD PISS ON THEIR PANTS OUT OF FEAR OF THE POLICE, OF THEIR NEIGHBORS, OFTHEIR MOMS, OF THEIR BOSSES AND SO ON. THEY WERE MOLDED TO BE ASHAMED OF WOMEN AND TO BE NON-THINKING ROBOTS.

YOU ARE NOT "IN" , MAN. MEDDLE WITH A PROSTITUTE IN THE STATES AND YOU RISK HAVING YOU PHOTO ON A NEWSPAPER THE NEXT DAY.

HUSH, HUSH, MY DEAR.
HOW STUPID, IT IS USELESS TALKING TO ROBOTS.
...
written by Guest, June 11, 2006
quote:

"Just the Brazilian prostitutes look for Americans or Europeans..."

that's simply not true. I know numerous brazilian women who have very good jobs, a college education, and they're looking for a educated gringo to marry. They know all about the 99.9999% of brazilian men and that they're NEVER faithful. Odds are when you meet a brazilian man that's married the women with him very well may not be his wife!! It may be one of his numerous girlfriends.
Re: Why Brazil?
written by Guest, June 11, 2006
Why not Brazil? One has to start somewhere! Or do you want us to just sit on our cans and do nothing!

Humans are Humans regardless of where they live.

The US has safety nets for children here, Brazil does not! That is the reason why the poster wants to help! If you're not doing anything, then get your rice and bean eating butt out of the way, so that others with the WILL, and the MEANS can solve a humanitarian problem!
Re: 34 million poors
written by Guest, June 11, 2006
34 Million Poors in America live like middle class Brazilians in your country. Most of them own cars, live in section 8 housing, and have access to everything! In other words they are poor because they want to be poor! Do you have the same choices?
...
written by Guest, June 11, 2006
I've already mentioned what "poor" is defined by the U.S. census....and these so-called "poor" people in the U.S live like many lower middle-class and even middle-class brazilians.


Report:


"Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.

What Is Poverty?
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the "Poverty Pulse" poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in 2002 asked the general public the question: "How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?" The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.2

But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.3 While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

Ownership of Property and Amenities Among the Poor
Table 1 shows the ownership of property and consumer durables among poor households. The data are taken from the American Housing Survey for 2001, conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Census Bureau, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy.4



As the table shows, some 46 percent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a half-acre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States.5

Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over three-quarters have air conditioning; by contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own microwaves; a third have automatic dishwashers.

Poor households are well-equipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. One-quarter own large-screen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty.

Housing Conditions
A similar disparity between popular conceptions and reality applies to the housing conditions of the poor. Most poor Americans live in houses or apartments that are relatively spacious and in good repair. As Chart 1 shows, 54 percent of poor households live in single-family homes, either unattached single dwellings or attached units such as townhouses. Another 36.4 percent live in apartments, and 9.6 percent live in mobile homes.6



Housing Space
Both the overall U.S. population and the poor in America live, in general, in very spacious housing. As Table 2 shows, 70 percent of all U.S. households have two or more rooms per tenant. Among the poor, this figure is 68 percent.



Crowding is quite rare; only 2.5 percent of all households and 5.7 percent of poor households are crowded with more than one person per room.7 By contrast, social reformer Jacob Riis, writing on tenement living conditions around 1890 in New York City, described crowded families living with four or five persons per room and some 20 square feet of living space per person.8

Housing space can also be measured by the number of square feet per person. The Residential Energy Consumption survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy shows that Americans have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person. Poor Americans have 439 square feet.9 Reasonably comparable international square-footage data are provided by the Housing Indicator Program of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, which surveyed housing conditions in major cities in 54 different nations. This survey showed the United States to have by far the most spacious housing units, with 50 percent to 100 percent more square footage per capita than city dwellers in other industrialized nations.10

America's poor compare favorably with the general population of other nations in square footage of living space. The average poor American has more square footage of living space than does the average person living in London, Paris, Vienna, and Munich. Poor Americans have nearly three times the living space of average urban citizens in middle-income countries such as Mexico and Turkey. Poor American households have seven times more housing space per person than the general urban population of very-low-income countries such as India and China. (See Appendix Table A for more detailed information.)

Some critics have argued that the comparisons in Table 3 are misleading.11 These critics claim that U.S. housing in general cannot be compared to housing in specific European cities such as Paris or London because housing in these cities is unusually small and does not represent the European housing stock overall. To assess the validity of this argument, Table 4 presents national housing data for 15 West European countries. These data represent the entire national housing stock in each of the 15 countries. In general, the national data on housing size are similar to the data on specific European cities presented in Table 3 and Appendix Table A.





As Table 4 shows, U.S. housing (with an average size of 1,875 square feet per unit) is nearly twice as large as European housing (with an average size of 976 square feet per unit.) After adjusting for the number of persons in each dwelling unit, Americans have an average of 721 square feet per person, compared to 396 square feet for the average European.

The housing of poor Americans (with an average of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of the average American but larger than that of the average European (who has 976 square feet per unit). Overall, poor Americans have an average of 439 square feet of living space per person, which is as much as or more than the average citizen in most West European countries. (This comparison is to the average European, not poor Europeans.)

Housing Quality
Of course, it might be possible that the housing of poor American households could be spacious but still dilapidated or unsafe. However, data from the American Housing Survey indicate that such is not the case. For example, the survey provides a tally of households with "severe physical problems." Only a tiny portion of poor households and an even smaller portion of total households fall into that category.

The most common "severe problem," according to the American Housing Survey, is a shared bathroom, which occurs when occupants lack a bathroom and must share bathroom facilities with individuals in a neighboring unit. This condition affects about 1 percent of all U.S. households and 2 percent of all poor households. About one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) of all households and 2 percent of poor households have other "severe physical problems." The most common are repeated heating breakdowns and upkeep problems.

The American Housing Survey also provides a count of households affected by "moderate physical problems." A wider range of households falls into this category--9 percent of the poor and nearly 5 percent of total households. However, the problems affecting these units are clearly modest. While living in such units might be disagreeable by modern middle-class standards, they are a far cry from Dickensian squalor. The most common problems are upkeep, lack of a full kitchen, and use of unvented oil, kerosene or gas heaters as the primary heat source. (The last condition occurs almost exclusively in the South.)

Hunger and Malnutrition in America
There are frequent charges of widespread hunger and malnutrition in the United States.12 To understand these assertions, it is important, first of all, to distinguish between hunger and the more severe problem of malnutrition. Malnutrition (also called undernutrition) is a condition of reduced health due to a chronic shortage of calories and nutriments. There is little or no evidence of poverty-induced malnutrition in the United States.

Hunger is a far less severe condition: a temporary but real discomfort caused by an empty stomach. The government defines hunger as "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food."13 While hunger due to a lack of financial re-sources does occur in the United States, it is limited in scope and duration. According to the USDA, on a typical day, fewer than one American in 200 will experience hunger due to a lack of money to buy food.14 The hunger rate rises somewhat when examined over a longer time period; according to the USDA, some 6.9 million Americans, or 2.4 percent of the population, were hungry at least once during 2002.15 Nearly all hunger in the United States is short-term and episodic rather than continuous.16

Some 92 percent of those who experienced hunger in 2002 were adults, and only 8 percent were children. Overall, some 567,000 children, or 0.8 percent of all children, were hungry at some point in 2002. In a typical month, roughly one child in 400 skipped one or more meals because the family lacked funds to buy food.

Not only is hunger relatively rare among U.S. children, but it has declined sharply since the mid-1990s. As Chart 2 shows, the number of hungry children was cut by a third between 1995 and 2002. According to the USDA, in 1995, there were 887,000 hungry children: by 2002, the number had fallen to 567,000.17



Overall, some 97 percent of the U.S. population lived in families that reported they had "enough food to eat" during the entire year, although not always the kinds of foods they would have preferred. Around 2.5 percent stated their families "sometimes" did not have "enough to eat" due to money shortages, and one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) said they "often" did not have enough to eat due to a lack of funds. (See Chart 3.)



Hunger and Poverty
Among the poor, the hunger rate was obviously higher: During 2002, 12.8 percent of the poor lived in households in which at least one member experienced hunger at some point.18 Among poor children, 2.4 percent experienced hunger at some point in the year.19 Overall, most poor households were not hungry and did not experience food shortages during the year.

When asked, some 89 percent of poor households reported they had "enough food to eat" during the entire year, although not always the kinds of food they would prefer. Around 9 percent stated they "sometimes" did not have enough to eat because of a lack of money to buy food. Another 2 percent of the poor stated that they "often" did not have enough to eat due to a lack of funds.20 (See Chart 3.)



Poverty and Malnutrition
It is widely believed that a lack of financial resources forces poor people to eat low-quality diets that are deficient in nutriments and high in fat. However, survey data show that nutriment density (amount of vitamins, minerals, and protein per kilocalorie of food) does not vary by income class.21 Nor do the poor consume higher-fat diets than do the middle class; the percentage of persons with high fat intake (as a share of total calories) is virtually the same for low-income and upper-middle-income persons.22 Overconsumption of calories in general, however, is a major problem among the poor, as it is within the general U.S. population.

Examination of the average nutriment consumption of Americans reveals that age and gender play a far greater role than income class in determining nutritional intake. For example, the nutriment intakes of adult women in the upper middle class (with incomes above 350 percent of the poverty level) more closely resemble the intakes of poor women than they do those of upper-middle-class men, children, or teens.23 The average nutriment consumption of upper-middle-income preschoolers, as a group, is virtually identical with that of poor preschoolers but not with the consumption of adults or older children in the upper middle class.

This same pattern holds for adult males, teens, and most other age and gender groups. In general, children aged 0-11 years have the highest average level of nutriment intakes relative to the recommended daily allowance (RDA), followed by adult and teen males. Adult and teen females have the lowest level of intakes. This pattern holds for all income classes.

Nutrition and Poor Children
Government surveys provide little evidence of widespread undernutrition among poor children; in fact, they show that the average nutriment consumption among the poor closely resembles that of the upper middle class. For example, children in families with incomes below the poverty level actually consume more meat than do children in families with incomes at 350 percent of the poverty level or higher (roughly $65,000 for a family of four in today's dollars).

Table 5 shows the average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals as a percentage of the recommended daily allowance among poor and middle-class children at various age levels.24 The intake of nutriments is very similar for poor and middle-class children and is generally well above the recommended daily level. For example, the consumption of protein (a relatively expensive nutriment) among poor children is, on average, between 150 percent and 267 percent of the RDA.



When shortfalls of specific vitamins and minerals appear (for example, among teenage girls), they tend to be very similar for the poor and the middle class. While poor teenage girls, on average, tend to underconsume vitamin E, vitamin B-6, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, and zinc, a virtually identical underconsumption of these same nutriments appears among upper- middle-class girls.

Poor Children's Weight and Stature
On average, poor children are very well-nourished, and there is no evidence of widespread significant undernutrition. For example, two indicators of undernutrition among the young are "thinness" (low weight for height) and stuntedness (low height for age). These problems are rare to nonexistent among poor American children.

The generally good health of poor American children can be illustrated by international comparisons. Table 6 provides data on children's size based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Data Base on Child Growth: Children are judged to be short or "stunted" if their height falls below the 2.3 percentile level of standard height-to-age tables.25 Table 6 shows the percentage of children under age five in developing nations who are judged to be "stunted" by this standard.



In developing nations as a whole, some 43 percent of children are stunted. In Africa, more than a third of young children are affected; in Asia, near-ly half.26 By contrast, in the United States, some 2.6 percent of young children in poor households are stunted by a comparable standard--a rate only slightly above the expected standard for healthy, well-nourished children.27 While concern for the well-being of poor American children is always prudent, the data overall underscore how large and well-nourished poor American children are by global standards.

Throughout this century, improvements in nutrition and health have led to increases in the rate of growth and ultimate height and weight of American children. Poor children have clearly benefited from this trend. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than boys of similar age in the general U.S. population in the late 1950s. Poor boys living today are one inch taller and some 10 pounds heavier than GIs of similar age during World War II, and nearly two inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than American doughboys back in World War I.28

Poverty and Obesity
The principal nutrition-related health problem among the poor, as with the general U.S. population, stems from the overconsumption, not underconsumption, of food. While overweight and obesity are prevalent problems throughout the U.S. population, they are found most frequently among poor adults. Poor adult men are slightly less likely than non-poor men to be overweight (30.4 percent compared to 31.9 percent); but, as Chart 4 shows, poor adult women are significantly more likely to be overweight than are non-poor women (47.3 percent compared to 32 percent).29

Living Conditions and Hardships Among the Poor
Overall, the living standards of most poor Americans are far higher than is generally appreciated. The overwhelming majority of poor families are well-housed, have adequate food, and enjoy a wide range of modern amenities, including air conditioning and cable television. Some 70 percent of poor households report that during the course of the past year they were able to meet "all essential expenses," including mortgage, rent, utility bills, and important medical care.30 (See Chart 5.)



However, two caveats should be applied to this generally optimistic picture. First, many poor families have difficulty paying their regular bills and must scramble to make ends meet. For example, around one-quarter of poor families are late in paying the rent or utility bills at some point during the year.

Second, the living conditions of the average poor household should not be taken to represent all poor households. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor; while more than a quarter of the poor have cell phones and answering machines, a tenth of the poor have no telephone at all. While most of America's poor live in accommodations with two or more rooms per person, roughly a tenth of the poor are crowded, with less than one room per person.

These points are illustrated in Table 7, which lists the financial and material hardships among poor households in 1998.31 During at least one month in the preceding year, some 20 percent of poor households reported they were unable to pay their fuel, gas, or electric bills promptly; around 4 percent had their utilities cut off at some point due to nonpayment. Another 13 percent of poor households failed, at some point in the year, to make their full monthly rent or mortgage payments, and 1 percent were evicted due to failure to pay rent. One in 10 poor families had their phones disconnected due to nonpayment at some time during the preceding year.



Overall, more than one-quarter of poor families experienced at least one financial difficulty during the year. Most had a late payment of rent or utility bills. Some 12 percent had phones or utilities cut off or were evicted.

Poor households also experienced the material problems listed on Table 7.32 Some 14 percent lacked medical insurance and had a family member who needed to go to a doctor or hospital but did not go; 11 percent experienced hunger in the household; and around 9 percent were overcrowded, with more than one person per room. Slightly less than 4 percent of poor households experienced upkeep problems with the physical conditions of their apartments or homes, having three or more of the physical problems listed in Table 7.



Overall Hardship
Altogether, around 58 percent of poor households experienced none of the financial or physical hardships listed in Table 7 These families were able to pay all their bills on time. They were able to obtain medical care if needed, were not hungry or crowded, and had few upkeep problems in the home. Another 20 percent of poor households experienced one financial or material problem during the year. Around 10 percent of poor households had two financial or material problems, while 12 percent had three or more.

The most common problem facing poor households was late payment of rent or utilities. While having difficulty paying monthly bills is stressful, in most cases late payment did not result in material hardship or deprivation. If late payment problems are excluded from the count, we find that two-thirds of poor households had none of the remaining problems listed in Table 7. Some 22 percent had one problem, and 12 percent had two or more problems.

While it is appropriate to be concerned about the difficulties faced by some poor families, it is important to keep these problems in perspective. Many poor families have intermittent difficulty paying rent or utility bills but remain very well-housed by historic or international standards. Even poor families who are overcrowded and hungry, by U.S. standards, are still likely to have living conditions that are far above the world average.

Reducing Child Poverty
The generally high living standards of poor Americans are good news. Even better is the fact that our nation can readily reduce remaining poverty, especially among children. To accomplish this, we must focus on the main causes of child poverty: low levels of parental work and high levels of single parenthood.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week through the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.33

The decline in marriage is the second major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. Increasing marriage would substantially reduce child poverty: If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.34

In recent years, the United States has established a reasonable record in reducing child poverty. Successful anti-poverty policies were partially implemented in the welfare reform legislation of 1996, which replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

A key element of this reform was a requirement that some welfare mothers either prepare for work or get jobs as a condition of receiving aid. As this requirement went into effect, welfare rolls plummeted and employment of single mothers increased in an unprecedented manner. As employment of single mothers rose, child poverty dropped rapidly. For example, in the quarter-century before welfare reform, there was no net change in the poverty rate of children in single-mother families; after reform was enacted, the poverty rate dropped in an unprecedented fashion, falling from 53.1 percent in 1995 to 39.8 percent in 2001.35

In general, however, welfare reform has been limited in both scope and intensity. Even in the TANF program, over half the adult beneficiaries are idle on the rolls and are not engaged in activities leading to self-sufficiency. Work requirements are virtually nonexistent in related programs such as food stamps and public housing. Even worse, despite the fact that marriage has enormous financial and psychological benefits for parents and children, welfare reform has done little or nothing to strengthen marriage in low-income communities. Overall, the welfare system continues to encourage idle dependence rather than work and to reward single parenthood while penalizing marriage.

If child poverty is to be substantially reduced, welfare must be transformed. Able-bodied parents must be required to work or prepare for work, and the welfare system should encourage rather than penalize marriage.

Conclusion
The living conditions of persons defined as poor by the government bear little resemblance to notions of "poverty" held by the general public. If poverty is defined as lacking adequate nutritious food for one's family, a reasonably warm and dry apartment to live in, or a car with which to get to work when one is needed, then there are relatively few poor persons remaining in the United States. Real material hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.

The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

But the living conditions of the average poor person should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, EVEN THESE HOUSEHOLDS WOULD BE JUDGED TO HAVE HIGH LIVING STANDARDS IN COMPARISON OT MOST OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!

Perhaps the best news is that the United States can readily reduce its remaining poverty, especially among children. The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work and high numbers of single-parent families. By increasing work and marriage, our nation can virtually eliminate remaining child poverty."

Robert E. Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., is Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Fellow in Statistical Welfare Research in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.



What some idiots need to understand, that obviously they don't, is that brazil and the U.S. are two DIFFERENT REALITIES!!

The poor in brazil and the "poor" in america couldn't be more different!


RE: To Guest of June 10, 07:16:07
written by Guest, June 11, 2006
You are correct in your sense many nations have social ills to a high level. Brazil may have many of them at a far higher rate than most nations for various reasons, which perhaps trained experts would have to try and figure out why that is.

After reading the book "Maximum City" about the city of Mumbai, India, I do say Sao Paulo and Rio's police force is *far* better than India's most populated city's police force. Brazilian treatment of women is *far* better too. For instance the police in India's largest city will often rape women with impunity, according to the author of the book. One time the police trying to lure a man back to the city who stole money from a woman, went and arrested his sister who had nothing to do with it, placed her in jail and even offered the author of the book on one of his visits to the police station, to go in the cell and have his way with the woman. Supposedly jailed women in India have not only been "train" raped, but been made to do many humiliating things. Supposedly one girl was forced to fondle her father's penis and eat his sh**.

South Africa is another place with a very high rate of rape and sexual abuse.


As for me personally I grew up in a neighborhood, in a U.S. city, that has always had chronic or acute rape and sexual assault problems. And I emphasize always. However I don't doubt the problem is worse in many Brazilian cities, largely due to the fact of machoism in Brazil compared to the United States.

Here are some excerpts from an article in today's Milwaukee Journal. The full story can be read at: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=434344

Speaking of someone speeding down the highway:

"You can't see the smashed windows, littered streets or gun-toting teens. You can't hear the blasting music at 2 a.m., screeching tires, or prostitutes soliciting passers-by.

It's tough to imagine stepping over dozens of spent condoms to get from your parking lot to your front door. Nor is it easy to picture a woman playing with children on her front sidewalk on a sunny Monday afternoon getting shot in the neck with a paintball in a drive-by shooting, or a man trying to stop a thief from breaking into his car at 6 a.m. getting clubbed in the head, needing 60 stitches.

These aren't Milwaukee's worst crimes. Not by anybody's definition. They don't make the TV news or a mention in the newspaper. And they aren't common in every corner of the city. Many neighborhoods are thriving and safe. But this type of crime - noise, vandalism, burglaries, batteries, drug dealings, arson and others - is causing growing frustration among some city residents, some so fed up they're moving their homes and businesses.

One group of police, city workers and others who see and hear about such problems every day is launching a campaign of sorts, expressing what members say is a need for city leaders to harden their approach to these "softer" crimes.

Calling it "What Would Breier Do?" - referencing the late, longtime and controversial police chief Harold Breier - the group has printed T-shirts with the slogan and Breier's photo, and plans to sell them in bars and at festivals in hopes of sparking not only conversation, but action.

"We've got to have a plan to restore order," said Milwaukee Police Officer Mark Dudenhoefer, a 23-year veteran of the department involved with the campaign. "You should be able to sit on your porch at 99th and Howard or 9th and Hayes and not have to put up with the noise and commotion. . . . This city's philosophy is wait till a neighborhood goes to hell before we do anything. How can we afford to do that?"

Dudenhoefer worked for Breier for about a year before Breier retired in 1984 after 20 years as chief. He remembers his gruff, tell-it-as-he-sees-it approach to policing.

"I don't think he'd be as worried about offending people as people seem to be today," Dudenhoefer said. "Everybody is so politically correct. It doesn't matter what the truth is anymore."

While Breier supporters championed his uncompromising style, his ways alienated African-Americans and other minorities in the community and within the department. Breier was in command of the Police Department when race riots broke out in 1967 - leaving four dead and 1,700 arrested - and in 1981 during the protests after the death of Ernest Lacy, a young black man who died in police custody.

In 1974, black officers formed the League of Martin, an organization aimed at protecting the rights of black officers in the department who said Breier didn't promote them to special units or upper ranks and tolerated racial harassment...

Harris said there is a way for police to be Breier-like - tough and aggressive - without violating individuals' constitutional rights.

That's just the type of policing Tom Cahala and Guadalupe Lopez would like to see.

Lopez lives on the south side near 24th and W. Mitchell streets with her mother and three children. The family has lived there 11 years and has seen a huge upswing in quality-of-life crimes, she said.

"My uncle's car got stolen three times. His windows have been smashed twice, all in the last year," she said.

Her mother was robbed at gunpoint last month in the grocery store next to their apartment. Prostitutes stand near her front door a