Response Post March 31

Gwendolyn Mink opens her discussion by questioning the lack of enthusiasm from feminists in regard to the welfare reform of the 1990’s. The law was clearly going to affect lower class women, particularly single mothers, and their right to welfare. But the voice of the middle class feminist remained dispassionate. It seems like Mink is laying out an example of one of feminism’s many obstacles; the issue of women’s equality is so complex and is being fought on so many fronts that sometimes the effort can spread thin. Many areas that are important opportunities for improvement get glossed over because of the diversity within the female and feminist demographic. Many of our readings have discussed this cumbersome obstacle that has yet to be overcome.

The remainder of Mink’s article shows her extensive knowledge as a welfare scholar and her understanding of its recent forms. She details how the current welfare system particularly disadvantages poor single mothers, driving them further into poverty and male dependence. It is a common argument whether welfare encourages dependence or facilitates independence. Mink sides with the latter, but takes it a step further by arguing that denying poor mothers welfare support actually disadvantages them specifically and deliberately in a way that perpetuates our patriarchal society and sweeping stereotypes about women and impoverished people.

I think Mink makes a very compelling argument that departs from some of our reading earlier this week. She says that the popular belief that wages are a means to female equality may be slightly more complicated than we think. She gives examples of how wages, in some cases, have been a means of exaggerating difference and encouraging concepts of superiority between gender and races. I agree that the solution is not as easy as providing women with wages or welfare for their efforts in the home, though this may help; the solution can only truly come when our society stops solely emphasizing “the bottom line.” As Americans in a capitalist society, we naturally gravitate toward whatever we think is more “valuable.” Our sense of “value,” though, has been cultivated around currency as the standard measurement. Only when we begin to value people for their character, their work, and their efforts outside of a strictly monetary mentality will we be able to create a more just society.