Again about “food on the table”, pushing the boundaries on what is discussed as “poverty”

By accepting the definition of poverty as “not having food on the table” and reducing poverty to only such fact, we are also allowing the discussion to be limited to providing only the most basic sustenance. This discourse serves the current system of inequalities well because as long as the basic morsels are thrown at “the poor”, then we do not have to debate all the other “extras” that should be included. Unless we start to look at poverty as a state well beyond basic food and the most precarious of shelters, where is the incentive to provide the decent living conditions that actually elevate us from mere predators to wholly realized humans? We are responsible for including all these other “luxuries” as part of the definition because otherwise, they will remain off the table, non negotiable. Food on the table as a basic human right, yes. But also books in the shelves, toys for children, entertainment, a life worth living. Because honestly, I do not think poverty is defined solely on the amount of bread crumbs the privileged allow the poor to access.

For the past decade and a half I have been making all my content available for free (and never behind a paywall) as an ongoing practice of ephemeral publishing. This site is no exception. If you wish to help offset my labor costs, you can donate on Paypal or you can subscribe to Patreon where I will not be putting my posts behind a lock but you'd be helping me continue making this work available for everyone. Thank you.  Follow me on Twitter for new post updates.