In Mink's article "The Lady and the Tramp" she explains how poor single mothers are struggling to take care of their kids and provide financially for their families because the government does not recognize social labor as a source of income and thus these poor single mothers cannot receive welfare for single-handedly taking care of their kids. I think Mink made a lot of convinving arguments in the article, starting with the fact that while mothers (and fathers) do not receive income for taking care of their own children, yet they are paid to take care other peoples' children and handle other peoples' social labor -- nannies, housecleaners, chauffers, etc. While this income is paid for out of the personal pockets of other parents, I think it's very interesting that caring for other people's children is more socially productive than caring for one's own. What does this say about the system that we live in today when we put caring for someone else's children above our own? How can we give parents the opportunity to focus on their own kids while also providing financially for them, or should parents even be given this opportunity? Mink suggests the solution to this problem is providing an income for social labor to parents who stay home to take care of their kids.
I think another important point Mink makes is that throughout the feminist movement, especially during Second Wave feminism, white, middle-class women fought for equality in the workplace and independence through paid employment. The problem that Mink finds with this is that it makes the home seem like a site of oppression for women in the sense that if a woman stays at home instead of working, she is oppressed. While I think the intention of Second-wave feminists was not to belittle the housework that they do or make social labor seem any less important, but rather present themselves with the same opportunities that men have, I do think it could have given the impression that work in the home is not enough or adequate. As Mink explains this is a problem with the feminist movement in itself, but also presents problems for poor single mothers who are forced into work because they have no other source of income, as opposed to willingly enter the work force. However, even married mothers face the same problem when their husbands income is not enough to get by and they must go to work -- how are they supposed to take care of the kids if they're both working, especially if they can't even afford child care? Mink's solution is that we need to restructure welfare in a way that provides these mothers and fathers with the choice to either stay at home with their kids or work. While I think this solution may not be the easiest to attain, I do think there needs to be more appreciation and a sense of value given to care-taking in a way that allows parents who want to stay at home to be able to afford it instead of being forced to leave their homes for a job in order to make ends meet.
As we talked about in class today, these are some of the big problems facing couples today who simply do not have the money to have the families that they hoped for. A mother who always dreamt of staying at home with her kids may not be able to because her partner's income is not enough to get by. Or single parents who do not have another source of income and who do not receive welfare for staying at home and taking care of their kids have no other choice but to get a job, maybe even two jobs so their kids can have basic necessities. Thus as Mink suggests, perhaps the solution is providing welfare or a source of income for social labor so parents can take care of their kids while also providing for them financially.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the most disadvantaging aspect of the government not recognizing stay-at-home mothers (and sometimes fathers) for their labor and contributions to society is the adverse ideological effects that Mink describes. Since our society values income-generating labor as the be-all end all, and the only "real" form of work, these individuals feel like they're not really "contributing" to society. Their time and effort goes unnoticed and is entirely undervalued. Despite the fact that they're potentially sacrificing their desire to work to bring children into this world, rear them to become positive world citizens that will hopefully help society -- nobody really cares because they're not getting paid to do so.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Mink gets it right in describing welfare not as an "income substitute," but rather giving caretakers (mostly stay-at-home moms) what they deserve. This welfare can partially be used as a marker for equality -- though not entirely equally, because the work would still be highly undervalued given the history of caregiving/childcare. Regardless, welfare is a means of giving these women who work tirelessly to provide for their own family recognition for their efforts. I like how Mink describes welfare as a "safety net." In implementing this type of welfare, women will feel more independent, like they are worth something. Their self-esteem and self-worth will inevitably increase because their work is at the very least being acknowledge. They will have extra income to potentially do some things for themselves --increasing their autonomy -- rather than always having to depend on the primary breadwinners, their husbands. If welfare were reformed to meet the needs of the often (almost always) neglected stay-at-home moms, it would be inscribed in US law, giving it far more legitimacy in the eyes of society. Ultimately, Mink gets it right: reforming welfare is necessary to redress the undervaluing of caregivers, and to recognize these individuals for their efforts and for their contributions to society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I potentially like this idea of giving aid to mothers who truly need it in order to have healthy thriving families and a happy life, I feel there is just to much we dont know about the inner workings of each family to just give out hard earned tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know if the parent is abusive, physically or sexually. or addicted to drugs, or spends the money on manicures instead of medicine for her/his kids. We don't know if they are buying milk at the grocery store, not coke or sprite. Are they using this money for a healthy diet? to enroll their kids in sports? or are they gambling it away at the slots every night. Are these parents good? do they give love and support to their kids, or do they ignore them while watching the price is right reruns? Do they take their kids for granted? tell them to go play in traffic?
As you can see, there is so many variables and situations involved with this. The authors idea is a cute one, but not very well thought out. Perhaps if there is a receipt system, or a social worker system maybe, just maybe this could work. The fact is we do not know the inner workings of each family, so it would be very hard to hand out money, no matter how deserving they seem.
I think Mink’s article raises an interesting argument about welfare. I liked how she contrasts the “popular imagination where welfare participants are reckless breeders who bear children to avoid work” and with the idea that welfare should be an equalizing “safety net.” I definitely agree with Brittany, in the sense that Mink’s theories about welfare may be a bit too idealistic. While the theory of welfare may lead to equalizing the lives of singe-parent families, there are definitely families who learned to abuse the system. These are the families who “ruin” it for the others.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, Mink proposes two opposing theories again, regarding the feminists’ claim that women earn independence through earning wages. Although some feminists would claim that working would enforce equality, Mink presents the alternative to the situation, that women of color will find working enforcing inequality. If certain women cannot find employment the paths of equality are not the same. I think in order for welfare to fully achieve the ideals that Mink spelled out, there needs to be a common ground between the idealistic theories she presents and the families who manage to abuse the welfare system.
You bring up a number of good points. I believe I read in a study somewhere that all the household tasks that a stay at home mother does over the course of a year, on average, equals some 50k worth of work if she were payed. But you also bring up the point about white middle and upper class feminists fighting to get out of the home, only to hire lower class, minority women to take care of their children. I believe this points to a number of the shortcomings of second wave feminists as their scope and ideals really only account for a small amount of the population.
ReplyDeleteJessi, Fantastic thoughts to get this round of posts started! You do a beautiful job describing the Mink's critique of second wave feminism, and also do a nice job describing Mink (and Ehrenreich's) critique of the ironic ways in which we value housekeeping/childcare outside the home more than those jobs performed inside the home. Brittany and Maria, the questions you raise are good ones, but complicated: should welfare be contingent on recipient behavior? Is it realistic to have these sorts of contingencies? How might contingencies actually play out? Brittany, your milk vs soda example is particularly compelling: as is, welfare families/families on foodstamps who have limited budgets for food WOULD be more likely to buy soda because it is cheaper. How do we make health and other "good things" priorities?
ReplyDelete