Women and Children in Poverty

Search

Women and Children in Poverty

As part of her evidence, she cites a New York City study by Columbia University researchers which found that the Reagan administration's policies had reduced or eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to such an extent that the number of working mothers living below the poverty had more than doubled (Sidel:20). Similarly, the total number of poor families receiving AFDC (four out of five of which are headed by women) decreased from 88 percent on 1979 to 62.9 percent in 1983 and the amount of the entitlement had fallen from 63 percent of the poverty threshold in 1960 to a mere 43 percent of it in 1985 (Sidel:87).

The underlying causes Sidel blames for the feminization of poverty are numerous, but I feel that three have the broadest significance: the weakening of the nuclear family and subsequent increase in the number of female-headed families, the continuation of a segregated and discriminatory labor market, and the governmental cuts of social programs facilitated by outdated Protestant ethic attitudes.

There are many reasons why families headed by women are likely to be poor. Probably first among these is the fact that women are almost always the ones who bear the responsibility of childcare, whether they are working outside the home or not. Sidel contends that the lack of adequate and affordable day care has prevented many women from working or getting the training or education necessary t

VIEW THE REST OF THIS ESSAY!

The problem seems to be that American society still doesn't really believe that women should be working outside of the home. The antiquated attitude that women are temporary and undependable workers taking jobs away from men with families to support lingers on to prevent equal employment opportunity and pay equity.

Sidel's prescriptions for a U.S. family policy are, I feel, morally unimpeachable, but I think she skims too lightly over the question of funding. While we may have a lower tax rate than some other industrialized nations, I think most people think 28 percent is quite enough - at least, George Bush managed to get elected on the strength of those three little words, "No new taxes!" However, I find her argument for the reduction of the defense budget in favor of domestic programs more supportable, especially in light of the political situation in Eastern Europe today. If there ever is any "peace dividend" I would certainly favor using it to implement the sort of policies Sidel has outlined.

I believe that one can hardly dispute Sidel's claim that the feminization of poverty has been occurring for the last 20 years. Although Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies...lies, damn lies, and statistics," I think that in this case her statistical evidence is overwhelming. As for the causes of this trend, I agree that it is apparent that sexism and racism have served to lock people into roles and lifestyles from which they need help to break free. Similarly, the Protestant ethic is, in my opinion, nothing more than classism and has been a real impediment to our society's willingness to help those in need.

o support her family. Furthermore, of the women awarded child support by the courts in 1981, only 47 percent received the full amount while 37 percent got less than half and a shocking 28 percent got nothing at all (Sidel:104). Mothers w

1266

VIEW THIS ESSAY

SAVE PAPER


		Some topics in this essay

		Sidel20 Similarly \| \| Sidel192 Regarding \| Sidel67 American \| Sidel86 Sidel's \| Similarly Protestant \| Mark Twain \| Labor Statistics \| George Bush \| Third Sidel \| female-headed families \| women children \| feminization poverty \| outside home \| sidel argues \| poor families \| headed women \| day care \| labor market \| protestant ethic \| living below poverty \| women outside home \| families headed women \| female-headed families increased \| affordable day care \|