If you happen to look at this before you start reading . . . the Gordon article is a bit denser than I remembered. You don't need to pay too much attention to all of the reformers, their social positions, etc. that fill up the first pages - instead focus on the part of the article towards the end when she gets to the family ideals supporting welfare policy in the early days.
What assumptions are going into welfare policy? How are welfare laws shaping marriage, or vice versa?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Welfare laws are being shaped by the tradional form of marriage. The government is still trying to replace the male breadwinner with welfare instead of giving aid to women and children. The dichotomy is interesting, however, in the way that women moved from not being supposed to work outside the home to being forced to working outside of the home.
I agree that the way in which welfare is being constructed now seems to function in a way to push women out of their domestic spheres. However, it can also be seen as an effort to force women to rely on male breadwinners. By making women work outside the home to support their families, the idea of a male breadwinner that can provide for a family becomes more appealing to the mother who is struggling to make ends meet and care for her children. In this way, the government is instituting a subversive power over the way families are being constructed. However as Coontz points out this has not been effective and women instead are relying less on men who they feel can be an added burden to their already stressed financial situation. Although the government is constantly attempting to hold on to the "traditional" family, it seems that individuals have their own ideas and agendas based on their personal situations, in which finances play a major role.
Post a Comment