Welfare Queen Myth

From 1935 to 1996, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was created by the Social Security Act and administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. 

This is how the image of families with dependent children used to look like (when there was only black and white photography): 

 "Aid to dependent children keeps families together." 

And this was the promise of the American government programs (once again, notice the portrayal of the white mother and the white baby):

Safe & Secure!

Did you notice the whiteness of the first image of an American family? It is a picture of a white single mother with many kids--5 kids. And the second photo had the image of a white woman with her white baby.

Now pay attention to the shift of family image when the AFDC program changed to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 1996.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Contemporary American Family 

Notice how it is a family of color? And specifically, families of black and brown folk. 

This is US society's dominant image of the families that are poor and are in need. Americans have been made to think that families like these are leeching off of the government. Politicians make these poor families seem like they are having a life of extravagance.

USA is known as having the richest poor of the world. For instance, the poor in the US have microwaves and a roof over their heads compared to the extremely poor in India where poor Indians hardly have anything. This comparison is out of proportion. This comparison is only a tactic for class warfare. It makes Americans go against the poor in their country and eventually will lead to more havoc.  

Notice how historically, the white single mothers who were getting government financial aid through the AFDC program were also never known as welfare queens.

Anti-racist activist

About half an hour into Tim Wise's speech at Colorado College, he analyzes the discourse of welfare queens, and the ideology of the anti-government and anti-tax narrative. 

After reading the congressional record for why the congressmen voted for the main cash welfare program for single mothers and kids, Wise found out how they wanted to have these programs so that white mothers would be able to stay at home to raise their children without having to go into the paid workforce, while their husbands left to find work during the great depression. For the record, the congressional vote for welfare program also applied to white single mothers and white widows.

Now, the big question is:

"Is this the narrative today about cash welfare?"

Should we still encourage people to stay at home and raise their children, today?

NO!

The purpose for which the welfare programs were created was to allow white women to stay at home and not have to sell their labor to someone else for a wage. But once women of color gained access to the program, which didn't happen until the 1960's, all of a sudden that rhetoric changed. All of a sudden people started shouting about how the struggling and needy mothers in poverty need to get a job--that they're so lazy just sitting around getting money for nothing, merely raising children only. The poor are labeled pathological, dysfunctional and worthless.

The rhetoric of women living in the home wasn't seen as a bad thing until women of color began gaining access to financial aid from the government. This is not to over simplify the situation. It is to make you understand how all of this is racially connected. (Here I summarize Wise's ideology analysis of the anti-government and anti-tax narrative debate)

Questions for the readers: What observations have you made about the Welfare Queen myth and society?

Compare that to what is known as "housewives" today to the black housewives (I mean, there is no such thing as a "black housewife"...they are only known as welfare queens):

*Cha*~*Ching*!*

Doing the Laundry

"Why can't mommie take care of me?"

As a little child, I hardly ever became ill. I loved going to doctor visits because they always told me how healthy I am. I lived in California at the time. It was warm all year round.

Minnesota......on the other hand........can be a super cold place.

If you searched through my genealogy, you will find out how we are from the warm tropics. I remember my father telling me stories of the times he hunted for birds in the jungles of Laos. There were no roads but narrow dirt paths to follow through the jungles of Laos. My family immigrated to the US in 1976, and later I was born in 1991 in California. It was nice and warm like in Laos. When we moved to Minnesota in the summer of 2002, it was warm, indeed.

And then, winter came along.

I enjoyed the beauty of snow, but endured the annual flu for 4 years in a row. From 4th grade all the way to 7th grade, I had the flue whenever it was winter. I guess my body wasn't made for the -10 degree weather. I'm supposed to be in the tropics 24/7. But I remain here in Minnesota.

I remembered how, during those times of illness in elementary school and middle school, I would have to miss my winter band concerts. The state of Minnesota began to question whether I was a juvenile delinquent. I received a notice from the state of Minnesota for missing so many days of school.

But instead of roaming around the city stealing or vandalizing stuff, I was home alone trying to get well. My body was wrapped in blankets. I slept through the whole day until someone came home from work or school. One of my five siblings were usually home by 4pm to find me on the floor of the living room burning up. Sometimes they'd help bring me a cup of water, but they knew that my body will eventually heal on its own. They pretty much just let me lay there on the ground wrapped in blankets.

And where were my parents in all of this?

Yum!

My mom and dad were working at minimum wage cutting vegetables all day at a factory in a freezing room-sized refrigerator.

My father was never home to take care of me when I became ill. He never took a day off of work to care for my illness. I was never certain of why.

My mother could only care for me in the few hours she had before work. She would hand me a bottle of DayQuil. Then she would say goodbye and headed out the door to drive to work. And that was it. I was on the floor of the living room, and she was gone. Is this a form of neglect? Or is there something else going on?

My own copy of her book!

In Joan C. Williams' book Reshaping the Work-Family Debate, she states how 3 out of every 4 employed adults say they have little or no control over their work schedules. According to one study done by WorkLife Law--an organization founded by Williams herself--53% of working-class employees cannot take time off to care for sick children.

My parents would have easily lost their low paying jobs if they took off so many days off of work to stay home to take care of me. It isn't their fault that they couldn't stay home. The real source of the issue here was that the workforce and its politics is failing families.

In Williams' book, she shows how the workplace disadvantages both women and men. Masculinity norms at work make men less willing to admit they need to leave work to care for their children. Men have faced termination because of leaving their job to attend to their family responsibilities. Williams promotes reframing the issue of workers' need for time off as an issue of workers' rights rather than family responsibilities. She discusses how we can reshape the work-family debate in consideration of class issues.