Although I found Gwendolyn Mink’s accusatory tone and vast generalizations off-putting, Mink raised several interesting points worth considering. Within her article The Lady and the Tramp, the author identifies welfare reforms as a “war against poor women” (56). While the intention of self-proclaimed “feminists” in Congress clearly was not malicious, Mink attempts to reveal how the Personal Responsibility Act perpetuates inequality, especially within the lowest social strata of the population. Mink asserts that the (relatively) new welfare legislation “distinguishes poor single mothers as a separate caste, subject to a separate system of law” (58). Mink hopes to draw attention to the potentially unnoticed disparities within our legal system and demonstrate how such imposed laws may alienate a specific group of people. In order to overcome the perpetuation of control over a vulnerable number of women, Mink believes welfare must be accessible. To her, “welfare… is a condition of women’s equality” (58). Mink proceeds to offer a brief context of second-wave feminism, suggesting many of the policy claims made by these women marked a transition to “independence through paid employment” as the new primary goal of white feminists. This argument is extremely controversial in its large generalization of individual motivations, however once the reader recognizes the exaggeration within the statement it is possible to find some truth behind it. Middle-class feminists, Mink reasons, understood the home to be their historical site of oppression. In attempting to challenge this tradition, women turned to paid employment as a means of liberation and independence. What Mink believes many people fail to realize, however, is that “when middle-class women moved into the labor market, they did not trade in their caregiving obligations” (60). Now working as an employee was supplemental to the existing responsibility within the home setting.
In order to compensate caregivers for their parenting efforts, Mink concludes with the challenge “to lead policymakers to give poor mothers’ caregiving work the dignity it is due by providing it an income” (62). By suggesting mothering deserves to be on payroll, Mink supports her notion that parenting within the home is work in itself and should be thus rewarded as so. The author makes sure to mention men would not be excluded from this type of income, as not to create more divisions of inequality within our society – the wage for caregiving should be available to all those qualified.
Although Mink raised several interesting arguments throughout the course of her article, I was rather irritated by her vast generalizations and eagerness to place blame on others. As she attempts to unveil why the Personal Responsibility Act was passed, Mink asserts that over time recipients of welfare have been labeled with “radically charged images of lazy, promiscuous and matriarchal women” (59). While there is undoubtedly a stigma attached to welfare and various stereotypes that accompany it, we are reminded that such misconceptions are undeserved because every situation is unique to itself. Although Mink is quick to dispel any biases surrounding women on welfare, she finds no problem in stating “Republicans won their war against poor single mothers with the complicity of millions of other feminists” (56). Even if Mink intends to shock the reader with her blameful language in hopes of drawing attention to the subject, it seems hypocritical to fault such a diverse body of people with the same offense. Instead, I think it would be more productive to approach the topic of welfare with an inclusive approach. Peggy McIntire, for example, recognizes her advantage as a white female and calls upon the reader to join her in a comprehensive effort to promote women’s rights. An individual is likely to be deterred from supporting Mink after being blamed with years of inequality among struggling mothers. Mink’s article would have been more effective had she used more progressive and encouraging rhetorical strategies.
"We should not think of welfare as a subsidy for dependence but as insurance for the rights that comprise independence"(59). I agree with Teal in that Mink presents an accusatory tone in her article that seems one-sided and takes away from many of the valid points she presents. However, Mink presents a few ideas that challenge the common approach to the ideas about welfare and that redeem her argument. I think Mink does well in presenting how welfare should be considered a right creating 'independence' rather than a hand-out that many consider to foster 'dependence.' In order for this change to occur a fundamental shift in how welfare is viewed by the public and, more importantly, by politicians is needed. The example that Mink presents that resonates most clearly and that I feel defends her stance on welfare the best is the bind that stay at home mothers may be placed in when they have no personal source of income and are trying to leave a marriage. Without income and thus the ability to be independent these women are without rights and may be forced to stay in relationships that can be detrimental to those involved. Whether it is the atmosphere created for children of a strained or empty marriage or constant unhappiness for the couple in one of these marriages it is clear this is a less than desirable situation. In order to ensure equality in our society we need to view caregivers not as welfare queens fostering their dependence on the system but rather as individuals that deserve their independence and compensation for the services they provide in the home. Even with Mink's inherent tone in this article she still accomplishes, at points, the goal of revealing society's misconception about the role of caregivers and the treatment of welfare by our government.
ReplyDeleteI think Teal raises many important points in her post. I found Mink's article very compelling, especially with our last class conversation regarding women's rights in the workplace. I thought Mink's article related to Ehrenreich's "Maid to Order" in many ways, highlighting the challenges that a woman faces in the lower classes of society - the majority of women who are benefitting from welfare in this country.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the second-wave feminist conversation, I think Mink brings up a good point in saying that the home was the site of oppression for many of these women, and paid wages liberated these women in giving them the rights they felt they deserved. As the authors of Manifesta pointed out, Feminism is evolutionary and changes with the times. Social justice takes a lot of time. Today, welfare reform is much different than it was even ten years ago. I appreciated Mink's point in saying that "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" (56). I think this is very important, for women to open a dialogue amongst each other, and to transcend the lines of class, race, and education, to help each other and recognize what every different group of woman finds important within feminism itself.
As Teal and Dave brought up, the accusatory and at sometimes contradictory tone Mink presents could turn the reader off. Mink is quick to generalize that policymakers are completely ignoring our society and strictly focusing on their political agenda. I think this is frustrating for the many prominent people who are privileged in our society - like Peggy McIntosh - who really do put in hours to recognize that ALL women deserve equal rights, and as Mink even says, that these types of women are "uniquely positioned to make a difference" (57).
Welfare and equality do, in fact, have a way of going hand in hand. Unfortunately, poor single mothers have been put in a type of "separate caste" and are viewed with many stereotypes that have no validity. Race has begun to play a large role in this, giving (especially) Black women another obstacle in the fight for women's rights.
Today, little emphasis is placed on the role of mothers in the home. Wage-earning and parenting are "supposed" to come easy. However, only a very small proportion of the population have the ability, through monetary means, to make this look "easy" in a way. "Feminism is about winning women choices" (61), and it is the right and obligation of all women to stand up for each other. I agree with Mink in that disagreements arise in the debate surrounding "WHEN that work (mothering) is worth something and in WHAT kinds of families" (61). I think this is a valid point, but also I do not think it is realistic to assume that mothers who stay at home and care for their kids will be receiving subsidies from the government in the near future. I think we need to focus on restoring the DIGNITY of these single mothers stuck in the throws of poverty. They need to recognize that they do in fact have rights in this society and there is an avenue (the government and welfare programs) to aid them in eventually becoming self sufficient and prosperous, to allow them to make the life decisions they so desire, and to realize their self-worth as a woman in this society.
Great comments, Dave, Teal, and Katie! Your three posts come together beautifully. Teal, you make a really wonderful point, and one that I hadn't thought about before: Mink absolutely *does* generalize even as she fights generalizations in other sectors. I'm glad, however, that you were all able to acknowledge both this shortcoming and some of the useful elements of this article. Great connections to Ehrenreich too, Katie -- we'll talk more about this in class!
ReplyDelete