Women and the Welfare State
Women and the Welfare State
001040806
Clare Ryan Linda Gordon asserts “most Americans think of womensingle motherswhen they think of “welfare.”1 Diana Pearce explains this view is rooted in the fact that women have always experienced more poverty than men. She further elaborates the relative economic status of families maintained by women alone has declined, with average income of womenmaintained families falling from 51% to 46% of that of the average maleheaded family. Once poor, the womanmaintained family is more likely to stay poor, ten times more likely by one estimate.2
Although Pearce’s statistics are dated (from the late 20th century), to this day, there continues to be a trend of higher poverty rates for women and families headed by women than compared to men. In a sense, these statistics are surprising as the welfare state was founded on gendered assumptions3 that sought to “protect women” against class inequality and industrial capitalism. In light of this, I raise two questions: 1) how is it that, contrary to the state’s proposed intentions, women continue to bear the brunt of poverty and 2) what role does the welfare state play in the feminization of poverty? These two questionsand my endeavor to reconcile the contradiction between welfare ideology and welfare practice in realitymake up the basis of my argument.
Although the American welfare state sprang to life from gendered assumptions, I argue that it did women more harm than good in the long run. I assert that the relationship between women and the statewhere women depended on monetary benefits from the stateallowed for the institutionalization of women’s dependency
1
Linda Gordon, ed.,
Women the State, and Welfare (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1990), 9.
2
Linda Gordon, ed.,
Women the State, and Welfare
(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1990), 266.
3
Linda Gordon, ed.,
Women the State, and Welfare
001040806
Clare Ryan Linda Gordon asserts “most Americans think of womensingle motherswhen they think of “welfare.”1 Diana Pearce explains this view is rooted in the fact that women have always experienced more poverty than men. She further elaborates the relative economic status of families maintained by women alone has declined, with average income of womenmaintained families falling from 51% to 46% of that of the average maleheaded family. Once poor, the womanmaintained family is more likely to stay poor, ten times more likely by one estimate.2
Although Pearce’s statistics are dated (from the late 20th century), to this day, there continues to be a trend of higher poverty rates for women and families headed by women than compared to men. In a sense, these statistics are surprising as the welfare state was founded on gendered assumptions3 that sought to “protect women” against class inequality and industrial capitalism. In light of this, I raise two questions: 1) how is it that, contrary to the state’s proposed intentions, women continue to bear the brunt of poverty and 2) what role does the welfare state play in the feminization of poverty? These two questionsand my endeavor to reconcile the contradiction between welfare ideology and welfare practice in realitymake up the basis of my argument.
Although the American welfare state sprang to life from gendered assumptions, I argue that it did women more harm than good in the long run. I assert that the relationship between women and the statewhere women depended on monetary benefits from the stateallowed for the institutionalization of women’s dependency
1
Linda Gordon, ed.,
Women the State, and Welfare (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1990), 9.
2
Linda Gordon, ed.,
Women the State, and Welfare
(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1990), 266.
3
Linda Gordon, ed.,
Women the State, and Welfare