for poor women but will probably never receive a welfare check in their lives. Both of these arguments are valid, but combined they leave little room for wealth (or semi-wealthy) women to fight for poor women. If poor women cannot fight for themselves because they need to work at least 2 jobs (a paying one and caring for their children) who is supposed to fight their battles? Mink makes upper class women (or maybe just me) feel both guilty for not helping and guilty for helping when their help is condescending.Mink makes an interesting argument that I am calling pro-choice; she promotes women's ability to choose to raise their children themselves or to go to work outside of the home. She also says that single men would benefit from childcare wages, which would encourage more men to stay home and raise their children. I think this is the true embodiment of feminism and freedom, the ability to choose the life you would like to lead regardless of the opportunities you have been given. A critic would say this puts a burden on other women and men taxpayers who must then support you financially. I argue against that because if everyone agreed to give a steady small amount, none of the taxed people would feel a burden and all of the people receiving the welfare would be able to have access to the assistance they need, which in turn will help them leave the welfare program.
The most interesting quote from the article was "We should not think of welfare as a subsidy for dependence but as insurance for the rights that comprise independence" (Mink:59). I never thought of welfare as a way to insure independence, especially since it deems people dependent. However, welfare allows people to be individuals and dependent on the U.S. government, not another individual. It gives women and men the opportunity to exist as citizens in conversation with their government and not through a mediator.
Mink does make some good points in her article: the difference between a middle class mother's right to work outside the home and the poor single mothers' obligation to do so (61)-the difference between right and obligation is huge.
ReplyDeleteHowever, on most of her other points, Mink is living in LaLa Land. Firstly, she says middle class women spoke against reforms that would not affect them but poor women (55). Although the effect on poor women is far more severe, it does affect other women because they pay taxes (whether or not they should they do so it has somewhat of an affect on them).
Mink continues, "Without Welfare, mothers who work inside the home are deprived of equal citizenship, for they alone are not paid for their labor" (58). I don't really understand this...no stay at home mom is paid for their labor-rich or poor cause its not a wage earning job. This does not mean I don't think poor single mothers should not be helped out at all but the point Mink makes just does not make sense.
On page 59, Mink states "nor should we think of welfare as an income substitute for the wage earned by breadwinners-fathers-in the labor market"--yeah it's all fun and happy if you think of it this way but its not reality. Mink has childish optimism here. Welfare in some cases is an income substitute for male breadwinners. Mink says the view that "welfare participants are reckless breeders who bear children to avoid work" is just "popular imagination." Yes, I'm hoping that most Welfare recipients are not reckless breeders but this isn't full out imagination. The reckless breeder circumstance sadly may be more common than we'd hope to believe or else the "myth" never would have surfaced. I won't say who or how I know this person but trust me I do (and I'm not just saying this to make a point): this person I know, a male, had 7 kids...7! And his reason for this which he shared out loud?: so he could get more money in Welfare payments. And this guy does NOT use the payments to pay for his 7 kids...he uses it to, frankly, buy drugs. Is this responsible behavior? Not at all. Is he abusing the Welfare system? Oh yeah. Hopefully this scenario is not an often occurance; I highly doubt it is. But the fact that I know someone who fits the "reckless breeder" mode makes a point. It's sad that "reckless breeders" like this particular man has ruined the positives of Welfare for all, especially poor single mothers who truly care for their children and are struggling to get by.
Mink states: "In the absence of widespread feminist attention to the social value of the childraising and home management work mothers do, poor mothers' right to do motherwork has been only faintly defended"--But, uhhh, I don't see the typical feminist defending a middle class/or rich mother's right to stay at home either.
It's true the Welfare system does need to be changed so that poor single mothers can have a chance-and on this note I completely agree with Mink. However, Mink only goes so far to state the philosophies behind it. She never provides any solution. Welfare is necessary-but we have yet to find a truly effective way to activate it.
Lindsey and Regan both make interesting points here. I agree with Lindsey's post in that Mink calls out white middle-class feminists for not doing enough to reform welfare legislation, thus preventing single women from receiving the funds they need in order to support their child/children. Yet until reading this article, I had thought little to nothing of welfare women, and I identify as a white, middle-class feminist. Sure, this article dates back to 1998, but what was Mink doing at that time? Certainly not organizing protests, marches, or sit-ins, as she criticizes the general feminist population for their neglect to do so. Instead, she caught herself almost opposing the types of welfare reforms for which she vehemently argues in this very article. Mink needs to set herself straight, I think, before she can place the blame on her female comrades.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Regan's post, I agree with her claim that Mink foolishly uses welfare as an income substitute. This is the main qualm I have with Mink's argument, her regard for those women who don't work as entitled to welfare dollars as a lifestyle choice. She says welfare mothers are "feminist agents of their own lives as women who are entitled to and capable of making independent and honorable choices about what kind of work they will do and how many children they will have and whether they will marry" (60). Sure, this is so, but I don't think such should be applied to all welfare mothers, such as those who may be capable of earning income to support their children, as opposed to battered women who live under different circumstances. I don't mean to compartmentalize the lives of welfare mothers in order to highlight those most needy, rather, I think it's necessary for Mink to delineate how one qualifies for welfare, and differentiate the different kinds of cases of affected women, in order to determine how the state/"middle-class feminists" should respond to the needs of welfare women, for they truly run the gamut. Still, I recognize that Mink stresses the options that must be available to welfare women, for the (at least then) current legislation calls for them to work outside the home, while work within the home, for many of these women, is overwhelming enough. It'd be interesting to discuss the following question in class, "should social policy require [poor single mothers] to perform yet another job?" (61). I believe in every woman's right to choose her own lifestyle, and not have to fulfill nation-mandated expectations in order to provide for her hungry children.
The most interesting part of Mink's article, I found, was her reference to the debate that women earn "independence, autonomy, and equality through wages" (60). This is pertinent to our class discussion from Tuesday, when we discovered, through some shocking statistics on the board, that women, in fact, do NOT earn equality through wages, for they don't even earn equal wages.
I like how Lindsey used the phrase pro-choice in her post. I too believe that women should have a choice how they are going to raise their children. If a mother decides that she needs to hire a baby sitter so she can work, then that is her choice. If she decides to stay at home and raise her child, then she should be able to do that as well.
ReplyDelete