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.

Responding Post: Eang & Mink

I smiled reading Eang’s piece. I smiled when she reminded me of times when I too sat with my family of 7 or 9 learning English through Wheel of Fortune. I smiled when she found happiness and change through education. If feminism truly means what Mink suggests, that it’s “fundamentally about winning choices for women,” then Eang’s hit it. She’s found herself the choice to pursue a medical career over the blueberry farm.

But there were also parts that I didn’t smile, couldn’t smile and had to stop. Those were the parts where she described her mother. Her mother that was able to become a warrior within the confines of feminine subservience. Her mother that I’m convinced has bones and sinews saturated with the struggles and suppression of personal dreams that she had endured in the name of duty and mere survival. This I see as not only a portrait of Eang’s mother alone, but as a portrait of many Asian immigrant women struggling to bring up their children uneducated, disadvantaged, and invisible.

This leads right into Mink’s discussion over welfare reform and how it further punishes women that are already struggling. Our meritocratic way of thinking has influenced to believe that negative reinforcements such as the withdrawal of welfare funds for the needy are necessary to motivate these “lazy” people. To challenge this, Mink asks us to discard our economic mindset for thinking about welfare and instead to look at it from a moral standpoint. It is the current trend to see people as dollar bills. Those that have the most cultural and social capital have the highest potential in generating dollar bills. Those that are at the bottom are seen as leeches. This is how we have come to understand welfare – more specifically welfare to benefit citizens who actually need it. What we overlook that I will not spend much time elaborating on is corporate welfare. Why is corporate welfare not seen as supersized leeches, I cannot tell you.



But I like Mink’s perception of welfare a lot more than the one we have now. Welfare should be seen instead as money owed to the people, especially to the women who need it to raise our future democratic citizens.

This discussion is very interesting to me because I didn’t think welfare would even be discussed after reading about how un-unified the groups of feminists were in the second wave. It was upper-middle to upper class women that dominated and thus their issues were the ones dealt with. It’s very promising to read from Mink that the “war against poor women is a war against all women,” (56). If this is truly the direction that the feminist movement is going for – to help bring up the “weakest link” which happens to be a huge population of women – then the third wave might be the last big wave.

Main Post 3.31

Gwendolyn Mink

The Lady and the Tramp: Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenege of Welfare Justice

In this essay, Gwendolyn Mink discusses the welfare in the context of giving single mothers a source of income. Her strong background in politics and scholarship lead Mink to discuss welfare in terms of single mothers. Mink’s most recent endeavor was working at a member of the Steering Committee for the Women’s Committee of 100. Historically, welfare has been thought of as a women’s issue (Mink 56) and Mink has claimed “a war against poor women is a war against all women” (56). Unfortunately, these claims did not do a sufficient job of rallying women to fight against the welfare bill, and the “republicans on their war against poor single mothers with the complicity of millions of other feminists”. Hence, the Personal Responsibility Act was passed. When this bill passed, many feminists were either unconcerned or possibly unaware that this reform bill took away single mother’s entitlement to cash assistance and also came dangerously close to impeding on their civil rights (57). Mink asks the question…why were feminists so unconcerned with his bill?

Mink goes on to state her main argument: that welfare is essential to female equality, and she defines equality as “full and independent citizenship” (58). She argues that mothers who are not paid and have no working spouse are usually forced to take a job with bad hours. On the other hand, if a mother does have a spouse who works, then she depends on that partner for money and therefore does not have marital freedom. Because of these conditions, we cannot think of welfare in the stereotypical sense that people on welfare are careless and reckless. Welfare is necessary to ensure that certain women can maintain independence and take good care of their children.

Mink closes her essay with a discussion of how wages for stay-at-home single mothers should be determined (wages being welfare). Mink argues that women who act as caregivers for a people who are not part of their family (ex/ daycare) get wages, so looking at those wages would be a good starting point. This quote nicely sums up the essay: “A socially provided income for solo parents who bear the dual responsibilities of providing care for their children and financing it, welfare is a condition of equality in the family, in the labor market, and in the state.” (63)

Rosanna Eang

Leading By Example: My Mother’s Resilience and Power in the Fight against Poverty

Rosanna Eang’s piece is extremely hard to read, because she and her family went through so much unimaginable hardship. They fled from Cambodia and came to American in 1981 to find a better life. While it was better to be in America where terrorists weren’t murdering men for being educated and/or monks (which was occurring in Cambodia), conditions in America were still extremely hard. The family began living in a duplex building in West Philadelphia, where they experienced discrimination and terrible living conditions. Their duplex was over crowded, and the author worked in farm fields with her parents and sister as a child, unaware that his was illegal. Many family members died, and the author and her sister experienced sexual abuse and harassment one of her aunt’s acquaintances. After a brick was thrown into their apartment as a hate crime, the family decided it was absolutely necessary to move.

They moved to Camden City, New Jersey, which is still one of the poorest cities in America. In Camden City, the author worked in many different sweatshops with her mother and the family continued to live in a very packed house. The author attended public schools of Camden City. In the summer, after farming season ended, the family used “public assistance” for a while, which was like welfare. The author was extremely active in her high school and took measures to try to improve her community. She went on to pursue a college degree, like her older sister had before her. She discusses how it felt to break the stereotype and be a Cambodian woman attending college.

At the end of her story, Eang discusses female empowerment and how to change the cultural beliefs that people have about Cambodians (stereotypes). She says to end this cycle, “women must adopt leading, decision-making roles in both the home and the workplace” (65). Eang explains that her mother was a huge role model for her, and since her mother survived so many unimaginable hardships, she knew she could do anything with her life.