Isn’t a price just a price? A market just a market? Don’t men and women feel the ups and downs of economic activity equally, whether they are black or white, straight or gay? Won’t a change in interest rates affect everyone the same way, regardless of gender? To all these questions feminist economists answer, “no.” Gender, like race, ethnicity, class, nation, and other markers of social location, is central to our understanding of economics and economic systems. The categories of economic analysis do not express timeless truths. Economic categories and concepts, like the categories and concepts of every knowledge project, are embedded in social contexts and connected to processes of social differentiation.24
Indeed, concentrating on who is excluded in policy assessments can reveal just as much about hegemonic interests in certain locations and historical contexts as concentrating on who is included in these analyses. When socioeconomic studies fail to account for fundamental differences in a population, it is crucial that feminist researchers highlight gender bias, exposing the blind spots in the original study. This first step in underscoring omissions can lead to social analysis that is more thorough, informative, and inclusive.
While the ARC report fails to isolate the category of gender adequately, it does provide some useful general information on Appalachian lives. Defining Appalachia and delineating its boundaries have been the subjects of a complex, long-standing debate among those who study the region, but most current scholarship follows the ARC demarcations. In this latest ARC report, Appalachia covers 410 counties in 13 states, including all of West Virginia and portions of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.25 The commission also divides Appalachia into three subregions: northern Appalachia, which includes parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, and 46 of West Virginia’s 55 counties; central Appalachia, which includes 9 counties in southern West Virginia’s coalfields, and portions of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee; and southern Appalachia, which includes sections of Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.26 This study makes important distinctions between areas within the 410-county Appalachian region, which in the popular point of view is a monolithic region with uniform social and economic conditions. The commission results, detailed by Kelvin M. Pollard, also distinguish between “transitional,” “competitive,” “attainment,” and “distressed” counties in the region.27 Pollard discloses that most of the “transitional” counties, those on par with national averages in some categories but lagging behind in others, are found in northern and southern Appalachia. The “competitive” counties, those closely resembling the rest of the country in social and economic indexes, are primarily in southern Appalachia. The “attainment” counties, predominantly urban areas in the region, are also on par with national averages. The “distressed” counties, located in central Appalachia, are below national averages, but also fall behind Appalachian norms in all categories.28
The “distressed” area of the region includes all of West Virginia’s coalfield counties, which are characterized as “experiencing the greatest economic hardships.”29 Counties in the “distressed” category have per capita incomes no greater than 67 percent of the national average, and rates of poverty and unemployment that are at least 150 percent of the respective rates for the country as a whole.30 Most households in this region experience socioeconomic hardships, and workforce participation rates are lower than national averages. Pollard reveals that in 2000, West Virginia workforce participation rates were 45 percent for women and 58 percent for men, behind the 2000 national averages of 58 percent for women and 71 percent for men.31 These gender disparities can be attributed to the manufacturing-based economy of the state, which relies primarily on male labor. Areas reliant on heavy manufacturing typically contain stark occupational segregation based on gender. Some feminist scholars suggest that disparities based on occupational segregation and earnings speak to the value placed on women’s labor in the US economy. Deborah M. Figart claims:
Six out of ten women still work in female-dominated occupations, particularly in a growing service sector. Most women are clerical and professional specialty workers, especially African-American women who left domestic service to replace white women in offices. About eight of ten men are employed in male-dominated occupations, especially craft and managerial or administrative work. Relatively few occupations are truly integrated, as evidenced by visits to individual workplaces. The wage gap is narrower in female-dominated occupations where overall average pay is lower, although men still earn more than women in jobs such as secretary, cashier, social worker and nurse. This not only suggests that men’s earnings exceed women’s, but that traditionally women’s work is devalued in the economy.32
In short, the devaluation of female labor consigns many women, particularly in areas with a large manufacturing base, to low-paying work that typically lacks health benefits and opportunities for advancement. In West Virginia, some scholars have argued this pattern was established long ago and still informs labor practices in the region today. For example, Frances S. Hensley argues that historically, industrial development in West Virginia provided jobs in “coal mines, coke plants, steel mills, machine shops, construction, and lumber mills, industries which did not, as a rule, employ women.”33 The concentration of employment in these industries “became a dominant feature of West Virginia’s industrial structure and imposed long-term restrictions on employment opportunities for women.”34 These socioeconomic conditions are still influential today, rendering women more dependent upon male wages and lacking opportunities for adequate means of employment.
The ARC report reveals as well how central Appalachia, where the West Virginia coalfields are situated, also lags behind other areas in annual income. This census information indicates that in 2000 the national per capita income was $21,600, while in southern Appalachia it was $19,200 and in central Appalachia it was $14,300, just 66 percent of the national average.35 Keeping in mind that the ARC was initiated to alleviate poverty in the region, the 2000 assessment found that poverty in Appalachia improved slightly from 1990 figures but still posed formidable obstacles, particularly for central Appalachia, where 1 in 5 people (22.1 percent) were considered poor, whereas in the southern and northern regions, 1 in 8 residents (12.8 percent) were impoverished.36 When considering educational achievement rates between the subregions of Appalachia, Pollard reveals that in 2000, 81 percent of northern Appalachian residents, 75 percent of southern Appalachian residents, and only 64 percent of central Appalachian residents had high school degrees, while the national average was 81 percent.37 The figures for college education were even starker. In 2000, the national average for persons holding a college degree was 25 percent, while 18 percent of northern Appalachian residents, 19 percent of southern Appalachians, and only 11 percent of those living in central Appalachia held college degrees.38 As the ARC report reveals, central Appalachia faces formidable challenges in raising the standard of living and providing educational opportunities for the population. Although challenges impact all residents, women in central Appalachia, particularly in the coalfields, face the greatest obstacles.
Women in West Virginia, like others in the country, lack social, political, and economic equality with men. However, the socioeconomic conditions for women in this state are more troubling than for women in other parts of the country. Gender, like race, ethnicity, class, and so forth, is a fundamental category of social difference. It is important that these dissimilarities, which are embedded in our social institutions, be isolated in policy studies. Some feminist economists, such as Deborah Figart, Ellen Mutari, and Marilyn Power, promote the concept of “practice theory” when assessing the outcomes of social differences.39 They suggest that “in practice theory, gender is treated as an ‘organizing principle’ of social structures rather