I immediately find respect for Gwendolyn Mink in this week’s reading, “The Lady and the Tramp”. As I started reading the paper, I wasn’t quite sure why welfare is seen as a “woman’s issue”. Admitting some ignorance, I figured that I didn’t understand welfare because I had never experienced living in that position. It was refreshing to read that Gwendolyn Mink didn’t pretend to have experienced it either, with her statement, “We mobilized not to speak for poor mothers but with them--- to speak for ourselves as feminists frustrated by the absence of women’s voices and by the lack of gender equality concerns in the welfare debate” (3). After reading this statement I respected Mink for straying away from the normal issues of second wave feminists who rarely addressed lower /minority issues, and for acknowledging her place in the situation as well. She feels that, “The new welfare law distinguishes poor single mothers as a separate caste, subject to a separate system of law” (5). Although Mink acknowledges that she is not the same as the “poor” mothers who actually need to struggle with welfare laws, she does not believe they should be subjected to an entirely separate system of law. This separate system of laws stipulates that, “Poor single mothers are the only people in America forced by law to work outside the home. They are the only people in America whose decisions to bear children are punished by government. They are the only people in American whom government may demand the details of intimate relationships” (5). Even with recognizing that welfare was not exactly an issue that directly affected her, “welfare [was] a women’s issue” and “a war against poor women is a war against all women” (3).
Mink pointed out the differences between where she stood as a welfare activist and where the second wave feminists often stood. The second wave of feminism was all about gaining equality in the workforce, and becoming as economically independent as men are seen to be. In short, “From this perspective, the home [was] the site of oppression for women, while the labor market [was] potentially liberating” (7). Following this train of thought it became clear that all women should pursue work outside the home, no matter what. Even if that meant they should give up caring for their own children in order to care for someone else’s (8). Therefore, it seems like second wave feminists think of women who receive welfare as “reckless breeders who bear children to avoid work” and basically oppress themselves with their bad decisions of having children and staying in the home to care for them (6). Yet, Gwendolyn Mink offered a new perspective. Instead of condemning these women who benefit from welfare, and saying they depend on the money they could receive from the service, she suggests we should think of welfare as “insurance for the rights that comprise independence” (6).
Once Mink gets into more of her argument and some of her solutions, she kind of loses me. I understand that the welfare system probably needs to be reconsidered, but I am not ready to say stay-at-home mothers deserve an income based on what day-care services and Nanny’s for other families earn.
On a side note, I think it is valuable to have read the short essays from “Listen Up” prior to reading Mink’s paper. If I had not read about the struggles of someone getting an education, and making a living while raising a child, I would have been much more quick to judge anyone needing welfare as a “reckless” breeder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welfare is not only just a word, but it is also a word that has an image associated with it. This image has been conjured up by society. It is the image of an over-sized lazy woman, who is probably a minority, and chooses to stay at home and collect welfare, rather than go out and work to earn money. However, this is clearly not the case, and nothing more than a stereotype. I too agree with Caren and think that Mink makes some very interesting points in her article. I agree with her statement that welfare is a woman’s issue, for the reason that “a war against poor women is a war against all women” (Mink 56). However, it seems to be that the only people who are left to fight this fight are the poor women. Unfortunately, these women are left to fight a system that is completely and entirely flawed, the welfare system.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that Mink has already shot herself in the foot when it comes to trying to gather up people to fight the fight. She has left out men. One problem that Mink fails to address is the fact that both men and women are on welfare. While I understand her argument and the fact that her focus is on mothers on welfare, I believe that Mink leaves out a significant factor, men. To this day, the best documentary that I have seen on the “working poor” and the welfare system has been Waging a Living. It is a PBS documentary that follows a diverse group of people who are struggling to make ends meat. Some of these people are on welfare and some are not. One of the most important factors of this documentary is the fact that all of these various Americans are different. In fact, the most moving and most touching story is about a man. Thus, I think that this documentary shows that the stereotypical image of a welfare recipient is incorrect. Waging a Living is a type of movie that gets people fired up about the disadvantages that some American families face. I remember after watching it in my Sociology of the Family class, my entire class was ready to wage a protest against the welfare system. So maybe in order to bring together people of all different classes, races, genders, etc to help fight the poor fight, all we need to do is show people this documentary. But in all honesty I 1) do not know how to increase the number of women fighting the welfare fight 2) let alone do I know how to fix the welfare system. However, I think that the first step that we must take in order to help the situation is to get rid of the stereotype of a welfare recipient.
Great thoughts, Caren and Katrina! Caren, you do a beautiful job of articulating Mink's critique of second wave feminist approaches to women and work, and the negative impacts they've had for particular groups of women. I appreciate your comment about the _Listen Up_ essays, too: I was hoping that they would work that way! Katrina, your point about men is absolutely crucial, too, and I would hope that Mink would agree that men's support is a vital part of these campaigns. As Caren notes, though, Mink's point that the second wave privileged the concerns of some women while disregarding those of others is a poignant critique. I'll need to check out _Waging a Living_, too!
ReplyDeleteI am happy that what I could take away from the cocktail party conversation is that people understand that poor people who were put at a disadvantage don't want to be on welfare. I"m also happy that people understand the welfare policies that people are on. I remember this discussion in class and the stereotypes that people had hear from I don't know where. To come to class and see "reckless breeding" brought some fire into my eyes. Some students saying that these people are lazy and they have never worked a day in their lives. To see how the system has marginalized many groups of people to merely nothing more than a number that the government gives a check to at the end of the month. I can say that I am happy that Kirsten said what all people should think about, and to me this is a critical aspect to everyone's life.Before you make any assumptions about someones life, live it and see if you can come out and be half the person they would be, if you were living under their conditions.
ReplyDelete