Race and Gender in Welfare
In their articles on the welfare state, both orloff and quadagno find fault in past emphasis on class struggle when understanding welfare states. Orloff focuses on the way that gender relations have influenced policy in welfare states, and how this has in turn affected the state of gender relations. Quadagno also discusses gender inequalities, but also includes some thoughts on how race has influenced and been influenced by the welfare states. Orloff discusses how the welfare state has been responsible for the reproduction of gender hierarchies where the male figure is seen as the head of the household, the main breadwinner, responsible for the economic support of the family. The female figure is seen as the caregiver, responsible for tasks in the home and raising the children. This trend in different welfare states keeps women out of the workforce and increases their dependence on men. Because of the sexist policies of modern welfare states, women experience low participation in the labor market as well as lower rates of wages. Quadagno deals with both gender and race in her article as she uses President Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan of 1969 as a case study. She says some similar things about gender inequalities as Orloff did. She explains that men receive benefits through their participation in the labor market while women gain benefits through their relationship to a male breadwinner. Important to Quadagno’s article is how she confronts the issue of race with regard to the welfare state. She talks about the ways in which welfare has oppressed the black community, and reproduced the legacy of past discrimination. According to Quadagno, due to past discrimination, black workers are not eligible for as much old age insurance as it is determined in relation to previous market earnings. She claims that since the FAP was designed by white males, it would tend to segregate blacks into lower wage jobs, limiting their mobility.
Both Orloff and Quadagno have convincing and evocative articles on the importance of both gender and race in welfare. Orloff’s focus on gender is very insightful as she sheds light on the relationship between gender relations and welfare policy. Welfare policies, while claiming to help impoverished people, actually can act to further their oppression, solidifying the barriers to their mobility. Quadagno’s article was very insightful and helpful in understanding the underlying interests of those making the policy. It showed how welfare policies, specifically those of Nixon’s FAP worked to cement the African American community into a position of servitude in the American economic hierarchy.
Discussions Quests.
1. In her explanation of the Power Resource Theory Quadagno states, “Power resource theory’s emphasis on the balance of power between capital and labor, usually used in comparative welfare state analysis, helps explain why the U.S. never achieved the advanced welfare state status of, say, Sweden� (p. 13). How might the racial climate in the U.S. also be seen as a factor in limiting welfare state status achievement?
2. Were the racist and sexist policies discussed in the article instituted in order to intentionally oppress blacks and women? Or instead were the consequent inequalities merely a result of a maintenance of the status quo?
Comments
It's hard to say whether or not the policies put in place at that time were intended to oppress blacks and women. They were absolutely put in place to promote the concept of family, and marriage and children. At that time, that's what was needed to succeed and dominate as a country. We needed people in the workforce, and the white men that created these policies may have purposely pigeon holed blacks and women into these positions. Because these weren't the most desireable positions, blacks and women may have been pigeon holed into them, or it may have been a side outcome when there were really other goals in mind. It's hard to speculate now, when it was such a different time then. I think the fact that many of these policies still linger today is a totally different ridiculous story, and that may have quite a bit more to do with oppression, because we certainly are not lacking in the population department, but we still need people doing the less desirable work.
The racial climate in the US is also not so focused on actually achieving equality, whereas in other countries there is either very little diversity, or a much less abundant amount of inequality built into the systems from long ago. The US's habit of looking the other way and diverting the blame for the minority/poverty ratio plays a very large role in the status of our welfare state, and how successfull it is.
Posted by: Chelsea B | April 30, 2007 12:19 AM