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 than simply a characteristic of individuals. . . . All social structures and institutions, including the labor market and the state, are structured by gender.”40 The authors also point out that gender is just one structure of social practice, with race, ethnicity, class, and nationality being considered additional social structures.41 However, they emphasize that the ways in which gender (or other distinguishing social markers) is structured in a particular time or place “reflects the relative dominance of different social interests.”42 Many women live in precarious socioeconomic conditions, and much work is needed to create institutional change that can provide women with greater opportunities. In the end, the Appalachian Regional Commission report does not suggest possible solutions to persistent problems in central Appalachia. The study ends by concisely reiterating the troubling information and lists several forthcoming reports aimed at analyzing demographic changes noted in the 2000 census. While the ARC report fails to sufficiently analyze gender difference, other studies focus explicitly on current conditions of women in West Virginia.
In 2002, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research released The Status of Women in West Virginia report, which relies on data from 1997 through 2002 in assessing the social, political, and economic conditions of women in the state.43 Barbara J. Howe, cochair for the West Virginia Advisory Committee, asserts, “The report sets forth a blueprint of where we are and where we might go to improve the status of women in the state. And if we do not address the obstacles that are keeping women from achieving their fullest potential, we will not progress as a state, for women are the majority (51.4 percent) of the population of the state.”44 Following the policy guidelines of the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, the aims of these state-by-state studies is to thoroughly assess the status of women and provide solutions for improving their lives. The Status of Women in West Virginia report provides grades in these distinct areas: political participation, employment and earnings, social and economic autonomy, reproductive rights, and health and well-being. Feminist researchers contend that overall, West Virginia ranked forty-eighth in the nation in women’s social and economic autonomy.45 In fact, out of the five areas of assessment, West Virginia received only one passing grade, a B–, in reproductive rights. The state received D and F grades in all other categories.46 The report states that “almost 19 percent of West Virginia women lack health insurance, and almost 17 percent live below the poverty line. . . . Women in the state have the lowest levels of educational attainment in the country.”47 Furthermore, this study revealed a challenging economic situation for most women in this part of the country:
Women in West Virginia participate in the workforce much less often, earn significantly lower wages, and work as managers or professionals much less frequently than women in the nation as a whole. Their earnings in relation to men’s are also lower than in most of the country. These factors combine to place West Virginia last in the nation on the employment and earnings composite index. The state receives a grade of F in this area, reflecting the inequality women experience compared with men.48
Not only do West Virginia women fall below the national average in these categories, overall they received the worst grades of all the Appalachian states.49 After revealing the scores for West Virginia women in each area, Howe baldly claims, “If statistics do not lie, the status of women in West Virginia is terrible. . . . Except for the reproductive rights score, which is a good score only if one is pro-choice, West Virginia would undoubtedly rank as one of the worst states in the country for women.”50
While the Appalachian Regional Studies Commission and Status of Women in West Virginia reports are based on socioeconomic data from the late 1990s and early 2000s, recent reports reveal findings consistent with these earlier figures.51 Most of the studies assessing material conditions in West Virginia suggest basic political and economic reforms to improve the status of those suffering in the state. For example, the Women’s Policy Research Center, in its state-by-state analysis, claims West Virginia women would benefit from “stronger enforcement of equal opportunity laws, better political representation, adequate and affordable child care, stronger poverty reduction programs, and other policies that would help improve their status.”52 These studies, particularly those highlighting differences based on gender, race, nation, and so forth, provide a fuller picture of life in this troubled region. However, most policy studies fail to examine the root causes of the adverse socioeconomic conditions facing most West Virginians. While socioeconomic assessments are useful tools in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of West Virginia, a more transformative vision exposes the underlying causes of such immiseration.
The material and structural problems of rural central Appalachia are attributed to what Jeff Goodell calls the “resource curse,”53 a designation that denotes a pattern of social, political, and economic problems in areas rich in natural resources. Goodell claims that “by conventional economic logic,” places such as the West Virginia coalfields, the Niger Delta, Venezuela, Colombia, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo should have higher standards of living because of resource riches inherent in the natural environment of these areas.54 In reality, these resources “curse” the land and the people in the following ways:
Control over natural resources allows a few people to obtain tremendous wealth, giving them huge sway over the economic fortunes of the state and offering enormous opportunity for self-indulgence and corruption. At best, economies that are dependent on natural resources are unstable. When coal or gas prices are up, they’re awash in cash; when prices fall, they struggle to keep the lights
