On “Welfare Mothers”
Whilst reading about the increase in the 70’s and 80’s of unemployment rates due to structural unemployment due to increasing numbers of women and youth in the workforce (due to increasing opportunity costs related to women staying in the home due to increasing costs in housing) and about “welfare mothers” being considered by some to be part of the “phantom unemployed” as they are considered unemployed even though they don’t really want to find work (making token efforts at job finding to continue to obtain income transfers from the government), I came to a conclusion. Underprivalaged women are put at a terrible double standard which in turn subjectsunderprivalaged children to a double standard of their own. If one thinks about it, the upper middle class and upper class, particularly those prescribing to right wing political oppinions are perhaps some of the biggest proponents of women remaining in traditional homemaking, child-rearing roles rather than entering the work force. Certainly they advocate offering this choice. Consider the frequent rhethoric of what I would deem the conservative feminist who expounds on the fact that traditional in-home roles of women are every bit as demanding and rewarding as a career. However, when a women is poor, single, and a minority the response quickly becomes “get a job!” This seems terribly unfair. I think few would argue that the term “welfare mother” has a negative connotation, however, when one examines the actual position of a “welfare mother”, one quickly sees that a “welfare mother” is nothing more than someone who would rather spend time in the home caring for her children than enter the workforce. Why would a situation supporting such a traditional “family” value be so looked down upon in society? The motivations for such hypocrisy are unclear, but the implications are extremely lucid. This sets up an incredibly unfair double standard.
Mothers who come from middle/upper class backgrounds are not neccessarily forced to choose between parenting and financial stability. A women could have sufficient education and skills so as to obtain enough financial stability to sustain her through the years that she choses to stay home with a child. Similarly, I would argue that most middle/upper class women are in a position where the household could be sustained financially by the income of her partner (though this seems to be rapidly changing). Also, upper/middle class women have increased access to situations that allow their partners to take an increased role in parenting so they can pursue their careers. Finally, they have increased access to quality child care so that they can insure their child’s happiness and continued development if they choose or are forced to enter the workforce or obtain additional education.
For a “welfare mother”, however, the choice between parenting and career is zero sum. As many are single, they cannot be supported by another income. The cruelest irony, however, is that if an underprivalged women decides to enter the job market, her lack of skills, coupled with gender based wage inequality ensures that she will make only a subsistance income. If she wishes to obtain additional education or training to improver her standard of living, she must still make the same parenting trade off. As high quality child care is virtually inaccesible to underprivalaged women, the negative impacts of the womens situation are only compounded.
While the odds stacked against a “welfare mother” are certainly great, it is her children who are the real victims. I would argue that children benefit greatly from a fostering, nuturing environment. The hikes, story time, trips to the museum and library, and later nursery school certainly gave my brother and I a distinct advantage over other children. I think that a clear correlation can be drawn between children who had a great deal of parental interaction and quality child care as young children and children who succeed later in life. By forcing underprivalaged women into the work force (to avoid the “welfare mother ” stigma, as well as to maintaing government support), we are depriving their children of great opportunity and ensuring that they will continue to be part of this cycle of inequality. The cruelest reality, however, is that the amount of money that underprivalaged women make when they move off welfare (and therefore sacrifice time with their children) is so little that they cannot offer the benefits of increased economic prosperity to their children. Their children are, in effect, doubly screwed.
What can society do about this problem? First, quality child care needs to be accessable to all children, regardless of economic standing. Also, employers and educational institutions must make it easier for mothers and fathers to juggle career and parenting. Finally, the social stigma assigned to underprivaleged women who choose to focus on parenting should be removed. Government support via welfare is a small price to pay for increased opportunity for children. If conservatives truly value women taking a more traditional, child-rearing role, they ought to support it across the board, and not just for the wealthy.