Feminism and The Work Experience of
Low-Income Women In the U.S.
Marcia Bok and Jane Marcus-Delgado
Introduction
Feminism and the women’s movement have often been criticized for
having a white, middle-class bias with the resulting neglect of poor women. The
goal of inclusiveness for all different women within a feminist framework is an
ongoing struggle, with the definition of feminism controversial and continually
evolving. Some of the issues around feminism often distort, minimize or
disparage women and feminist ideas. Clarifying these issues can help to
maximize the importance of a low-income woman’s perspective on her work
experiences.
This paper addresses three aspects of this situation: 1) identification of
some of the current challenges in the relationship between low-income women
and feminism; 2) historical, theoretical, and policy perspectives on feminism and
low-income women; and 3) opportunities to engage and strengthen feminism and
low-income women around commonalities and diversity, domestically and
internationally, among working women.
In this paper. feminism is considered one dimension in the context of
larger societal and global issues. This includes structural changes in the
economy and issues of race/ethnicity, class, and other intersectional gender
differences. The paper discusses what has been accomplished and why a
1
feminist perspective is important for understanding the progress and obstacles in
the work experiences of poor women, particularly those with children, in the
United States. Feminism provides a unique lens through which low-income
women’s work issues can be understood. A feminist movement provides the
strength of collective engagement that individuals alone cannot provide.
Current Challenges
Of the many challenges that currently confront feminism and low-income
women, three are addressed here: 1) identity politics; 2) “trickle-down” feminism;
and 3) the current War on Women.
Identity Politics
Gender, like race, are concepts that never seem to be resolved and there
is always ongoing debate about the meaning, implications, and consequences of
race and gender issues. With race, similar to gender, special attention to the
unique experiences of people of color provides a lens that highlights important
characteristics and experiences.
Feminism acknowledges that women have unique experiences, based on
their gender; and that women are often considered subordinate, inferior, or
otherwise unequal to men. These experiences are likely to be lodged in the
structure of the society. Gender differences may be overlooked, however, when
men and women both suffer from economic downturns or when poverty is being
discussed. Without a feminist lens and feminist activism we might be discussing
individuals or groups who are poor, without consideration of structural
2
characteristics and differences based on gender. Despite changing definitions
and lack of agreement around the meanings of feminism, concern and sympathy
for women’s issues has generated feminist ideology; and feminist activism has
been a long-term response to concerns about women’s economic and social
hardships and inequities. Thus, despite often deserved criticism of feminism for
neglecting the economic needs of poor women, highlighting the needs of some
women provides gender awareness and may heighten awareness of differences
among women and differences in societal gender norms.
In the case of poor women, we are faced with the special case of women
who are considered different from “mainstream” women – with “mainstream”
women defined as white and middle-class and receiving extensive media
attention – but with the added dimensions that poor women are often considered
invisible and race is often confounded with gender when poor women are
discussed. This not only often reflects inaccuracies, stereotypes and prejudices
that marginalize poor women, but also ignores the extensive diversity among all
women, including women of low income. Thus, women in Appalachia, the
Mississippi Delta, and in rural New Hampshire and urban Chicago live many
different lives ( Duncan, 1999) as do young and old and ethnically, racially and
sexually diverse individuals. The development of Black Womanism ( Walker,
1983, Mojica, 2011, Turman, 2012) highlights the reality that traditional feminism
often ignores or fails to accurately reflect the lives and experiences of black
women; and special attention to the unique characteristics of black women is
needed. Because gender identity and characteristics don’t fit neatly into
3
predetermined categories, it might be expected that if mistaken generalizations
are applied, inappropriate and ineffective outcomes will occur.
Why are the concepts of feminism or identity politics often criticized? Is it
because feminism is considered self-serving and there are other issues in the
world that are more important? Is it because feminism has so often been
associated with women as sexual victims, as in rape, pornography and domestic
violence? Is it because feminism is too radical - often considered anti-men, antifeminine and dismissive of traditional family values? We believe it is true that
low-income women in the workplace have not received sufficient attention; or the
attention they have received is inaccurate. But that is all the more reason that
feminism, more broadly defined, is needed. We support the need to highlight
important gender differences and the concepts of feminism and identity politics
because equality is a societal strength; and the differences among many different
groups of women within a cultural, social, economic and global perspective is
more needed than ever.
Trickle-Down Feminism
The notion of “trickle down feminism” is no more accurate than “trickledown economics” in explaining the benefits that accrue to less educated and less
affluent women from the achievements of the most powerful and wealthy among
us.
When Marissa Mayer recently became CEO of Yahoo she joined the
ranks of women who are 4 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs; she was also pregnant
at the time. Mayer could have pointed the way for other women, but she didn’t.
4
Bryce Covert (2012) of The Nation quotes Mayer as saying
I don’t think that I would consider myself a feminist. I think that
I certainly believe in equal rights. I believe that women are just
as capable, if not more so in a lot of different dimensions, but
I don’t, I think have, sort of, the militant drive and the sort of,
the chip on the shoulder that sometimes comes with that. And
I think it’s too bad, but I do think that feminism has become in
many ways a more negative word. You know, there are amazing
opportunities all over the world for women, and I think that there is
more good that comes out of positive energy around that than
comes out of negative energy.
More recently, Mayer has come out against flexibility in the workplace,
requiring more in-office work for employees instead of more flexible work-athome schedules. Covert doesn’t believe that Mayer cares about women’s
equality. Because she has achieved so much she believes that there are
boundless opportunities for all women, which they just have to take advantage of
like she did.
Of course, the views of high achieving women vary. For example, when
Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton University professor, who is also a wife and
mother, was nominated for s State Department position, she lamented her
inability to “have it all” (2012). But she also added “I am a proud card carrying
feminist. We’ve come a long way but that is precisely it – we have come so far
we have to keep going”.
There is a long history in the U.S. where women have benefited from
Affirmative Action policies; and programs such as Title IX have made an
enormous difference in women’s lives ( Buzuvis,2012). The presence of women
has grown extensively in the areas of management, government, law and
5
medicine and on the university level. While all of this has mainly benefited
middle-class women, it is still a struggle for many women and we continue to
lament the lack of educational opportunities for low-income women and the
absence of many women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
industries (IWPR, 2012).
The 2012 War on Women
The War on Women didn’t start in 2012 – it has been around for a long
time, with backlash accompanying most advances for women. Although it was
intended to generate opposition to liberal political sentiments around the 2012
Presidential election, the 2012 War on Women actually mobilized extensive
opposition to the conservative rhetoric. Women turned out in record numbers to
re-elect President Obama and repudiate the most egregious attacks.
The church and faith-based community are not alone in these attacks, but
their power and influence have major ramifications. When the Susan G.Komen
Foundation stopped funding Planned Parenthood, it was noted that the Komen
Foundation had made generous contributions to the Catholic hierarchy. Church
officials in numerous states urged parishioners to stop supporting Komen
because it funded Planned Parenthood (Baker, 2012). Defunding Planned
Parenthood resulted in skyrocketing support for that organization and Komen
experienced a major financial and marketing set-back. The publicity for Planned
Parenthood not only sparked support for the organization but also clarified the
limited amount of money Planned Parenthood actually spends on abortion
services and the extensive support for women’s preventive health services
6
provided by the organization. All of this has a marked effect on low-income
women who depend heavily on Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening
and other preventative health services.
Although it is reproductive health that has received the most attention,
reauthorization and increased coverage of the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) languished but finally passed in the U.S. Congress; and women’s
economic security has also come under fire. Attacks on public sector unions,
such as teachers, and other workplaces where low-income women are
overrepresented, such as in health care and hospitality industries are also
targeted. Here unions, grassroots organizations and advocacy groups such as
Jobs With Justice, Caring Across Generations and the National Domestic
Workers Alliance have mobilized and met with important successes, for
restaurant workers, health care and for domestic workers, for example, but it is
an ongoing struggle ( Eidelson, 2013). Domestic workers continue to be excluded
from the protections of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act ( Flanders, 2013) , but
a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights has passed in several states. Less visible, but
persistent, are racial stereotypes about low-income women which negatively
impact their educational and work opportunities.
An Historical Perspective
Three waves of feminism have addressed women’s issues in different
ways. In the first wave, it was at the Seneca Falls convention in 1848 where
women declared their right to vote. But it wasn’t until 1920, when the 19th
7
amendment to the U.S. constitution was ratified, that women were finally granted
the right to vote; with black men and women generally excluded from voting
until the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Even today, voting rights
are being challenged.
The Progressive era, from about the 1890s through the 1920s, was an
activist period in reaction to hardships and exploitation in the workplace in the
face of growing industrial and demographic changes. Issues of gender property
rights, voting rights and workers rights were addressed (Sage, 2010). Activist
women were involved in a myriad of problems created by industrialization,
urbanization,and immigration. The experiences of poor, urban immigrant women
tended to dominate the women’s agenda ( Kemp and Brandwein, 2010). For
some, the emphasis was on assimilation of migrant women and protection of the
maternal rights of women and safety for children; for others, social activism
focused on voting rights, industrial and labor concerns and issues of war and
peace around WWI. Women of color were largely separate and unequal. White,
middle-class women, usually unmarried and without children, such as Jane
Addams, were prominent as leaders in the Progressive era; and black women,
such as Sojourner Truth and Ida B. Welles, who pursued an activist agenda,
were generally separate from white women in their struggle for equal rights. In
President Roosevelt’s New Deal era, white women such as Frances Perkins
played an important role.
During the latter phases of the first wave of feminism, the New Deal of the
1930’s provided protections for some women, but other women continued to be
8
largely unprotected, particularly minority women. Public assistance (i.e. welfare)
for some poor women (mainly widows with children) and Old Age and Survivors
Insurance (i.e. social security) which assisted the elderly, were major federal
programs that changed the shape of poverty and women’s subsistence. During
WWII, women worked outside of the home to fill workplace vacancies. But this
was only a temporary change; after WWII women were once again expected to
return home and resume their primary roles as wives and caregivers. The
existing patriarchal system had not changed, and in fact, traditional family
structure was strengthened. It was in this context that the second wave of
feminism was launched.
Simone de Beauvoir, in The Second Sex, published in 1949, described the
world as defined by maleness, with women the “other” (and lesser) and outside
the norm. This approach, which emphasized the need for equality between men
and women, initiated second wave feminism. Beginning around the late 1950s
and 1960’s, the second wave of feminism mainly embraced equality of men and
women as a primary goal; and there was a binary approach to gender
differences. Often excluded from the civil rights and anti-war movements,
women established their own voice. The publication of Betty Friedan’s The
Feminine Mystique in 1963 was a lightning rod for many women to legitimize a
desire to fulfill activities, particularly work activities, outside the home. But the
book was criticized for having a middle-class, white perspective (Coontz,2011)
since poor women had always worked outside the home. In 1966, the National
Organization of Women (NOW) was founded. NOW focused on seven key areas:
9
employment opportunities, legal and political rights, education, women in poverty,
the family, the image of women, and women in religion (Kemp and Brandwein,
2010). The introduction of oral contraception in 1960 and the enactment of Roe
v. Wade in 1973, which legalized abortion, were landmark events. AfricanAmerican women continued to organize separately, often with strong influence
from the civil rights movement.
The progress of preceding decades notwithstanding, the 1980s were a
critical juncture for U.S. feminism. The decade marked a turning point in which
second wave feminism came under attack both from the emerging conservative
poitical climate, as well as from the movement itself.
On the national level, rejection of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982
was a setback for women; and with the election of Ronald Reagan as President
in 1980 and the growth of neoliberalism, the conservative tone in the U.S. also
grew. Under Reagan, family life education rejected birth control through
contraception and abstinence only was supported by funding from the federal
government. Faludi (1991) documents the strong backlash against women that
existed in the decade of the 1980s. Deindustrialization and the growth of the
service sector in employment had a major impact on women’s work outside the
home. This has persisted and become entrenched, with a more precarious and
insecure workplace for low-income women (Legal Momentum, 2012).
While the national political and economic climate became increasingly
hostile to working women, currents were emerging from within feminism that
challenged its structure, leadership and focus. Importantly, prominent feminists of
10
color began to articulate the incongruence between second wave feminism and
the needs and demands of non-white, working class women. In 1983, Alice
Walker famously coined the term”womanism” to signify this split. Her sentiments
were echoed the following year by bell hooks (1984) who wrote:
Most people in the U.S. think of feminism, or the more commonly used
term “women’s lib” as a movement that aims to make women the social
equals of men. …. Since men are not equals in white supremacist,
capitalist, patriarchal class structure, which men do women want to be
equal to? …… Women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those
who are non-white, would not have defined women’s liberation as women
gaining social equality with men since they are continually reminded
in their everyday lives that all women do not share a common social
status. Concurrently, they know that many males in their social groups are
exploited and oppressed……. (p.239)
At the same time, recognition of second wave feminism’s weaknesses in
serving non-white and working class women began to gain traction across a
broad swath of the movement, spawning the birth of the third wave. In addition to
the “womanist” perspective, grassroots organizations such as the Brooklynbased National Congress of Neighborhood Women (NCNW) began to make their
voices heard. Although NCNW had been founded a decade earlier, by the mid1980s it took two important steps: one on the domestic front and another
internationally. At home, the New York group expanded its grassroots training
and educational programs into Appalachia, the Pacific Northwest, Puerto Rico,
and the Dakota nation. Unlike its more traditional forebears, it focused
specifically on economic empowerment in urban and rural areas, working with
women with diverse backgrounds and experiences. Internationally, NCNW
gained consultative status at the United Nations in the 1980s, helping to
spearhead the U.N.-sponsored International Women’s Conference held in
11
Nairobi in 1985. It was at that meeting, recognizing the absence of grassroots
women at that and other agenda-setting meetings, that GROOTS (Grassroots
Organizations Operating Together in Sisterhood) was founded. (See
www.neighborhoodwomen.org).
Thus, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, a confluence of factors
came together to significantly alter the face of feminism. The backlash against
women – reinforced by a rise in conservative politics and structural economic
shifts – coupled with the previously ignored voices of non-white, working class,
urban and rural women, as well as the movement’s globalization through
conferences such as Nairobi (1985), Cairo (1994) and Beijing (1995) all gave rise
to new feminist approaches and strategies. Concepts such as intersectionality
within feminist thinking emerged as an attempt to address some of these issues.
(Ross-Sheriff, 2011; Gringeri and Roche, 2010).
Intersectionality precisely articulated the third wave feminists’ concern with
interconnectedness among diverse aspects of individuals and groups to deal with
issues of social justice, social change, power relations and oppression within a
patriarchal society and on a global level. A binary approach to differences
between men and women was rejected in favor of greater understanding of
differences between and among women and men and other aspects of society.
This approach acknowledges and celebrates gender differences and societal
issues that are important to understand if progressive social change is to occur.
How to incorporate intersectionality in feminism into meaningful social change
12
remains an unresolved challenge for the movement, but there is evidence that
some progress has been made.
In the third wave of feminism, issues of multiculturalism, diverse sexuality,
intersectionality and transnationalism take center stage. Issues of workplace
flexibility in the interest of employees (and not only employers) is a major theme
for poor women, as they present unique challenges to the dominant, traditional
workplace structures. In the current economy, low-income women have
increased their employment as single mothers or to supplement family income,
but low-wages and few safety net benefits have limited their economic wellbeing. As third wave feminism has made starkly clear, biases based on race,
gender, sexuality, religion and ethnicity are inextricably linked and overlapping.
Thus, many low-income women face multiple barriers in employment, which may
be simultaneously compounded by multi-faceted forms of discrimination.
As the nation becomes more diverse and some progress has been made
on immigration issues and same-sex marriage, there have been simultaneous
attacks on women’s reproductive rights and abortion which have important
consequences for the work experiences of low-income women. Today, feminism
continues, but with many different voices, not always speaking together. The
voices of low-income women are present advocating for Latina, AfricanAmerican and other minority women, often parallel to white, middle-class
concerns; and global issues, worker rights and human rights struggles continue.
Usually, the mainstream press gives most attention to middle-class women while
feminist literature is more likely to include low-income and global issues. It is
13
interesting, however, that although it is white, middle-class women whose voices
are the loudest at the present time in the U.S., and have met with the most
success, this group continues to struggle for recognition, equality, and dignity –
problems all women everywhere continue to experience.
A Theoretical Perspective
As a reaction to the perceived conservatism of second wave feminism
there are currently many efforts by feminists to redefine some of the more
traditional notions of feminism and the concerns of many women. Thus, the
concepts of postmodernism and postcolonialism are introduced to broaden new
approaches to feminist thinking. Postmodernism, with its emphasis on diversity,
espouses the belief that women’s issues go beyond a single identity to a
multifaceted identity with human rights and social justice as basic concerns.
Gender is viewed as a concept, constructed by language, attitudes, values and
beliefs, and not limited by biology or physical characteristics of gender similarities
or differences. In postcolonial thinking, women are not perceived only as victims
of sexual abuse needing preferential treatment, but rather as diverse individuals
with many different influences on their lives, including racism, homophobia,
classism and colonization – all of which are subject to change. Thus, we are
talking about a “paradigm shift” in thinking about the multifaceted influences on
women’s lives. Again, quoting bell hooks (1984)
By repudiating the popular notion that the focus of feminist
movement should be social equality of the sexes and emphasizing
eradicating the cultural bias of group oppression, our own analysis
would require an exploration of women’s political reality. This would
14
mean that race and class oppression would be recognized as
feminist issues with as much relevance as sexism” (p.240).
In documenting the decline in marriage, with special attention to lowincome women with children, Edin and Kefalas (2005) suggest three hypotheses
that may account for some of these changes. This includes: 1) “women’s
economic independence theory” where women who fail to find satisfactory male
partners no longer have to marry for economic survival; 2) the “welfare-state
hypothesis” where nonmarital births is considered a direct result of increased
state support for poor single mothers; and 3) “the male marriageable pool
hypothesis”, first espoused by Wilson (1987) writing about urban Chicago, this
hypothesis addresses the deindustrialization of manufacturing and the decline of
good jobs for black males within the inner city.
While Edin and Kefalas (2005) believe that economic forces are powerful,
the decline of marriage among poor and middle-class populations suggest that
other factors are also operating. These authors note that “now there are few
differences between the poor and the affluent in attitudes and values toward
marriage….. the poor have embraced a set of surprisingly mainstream norms
about marriage” and a “culture-wide redefinition of marriage is the primary reason
for changes in marriage rates over time”, with gigantic changes in family life.
The sexual revolution, the widespread availability of birth
control, the dramatic increase in the social acceptability of
cohabitation, and the growing rejection of the idea that a
couple should get and stay married just because there is a
child on the way, have all weakened the once nearly absolute
imperative to marry ( p.201).
15
Can we credit feminism for these changes? Clearly, a complex set of
factors co-exist in a society and globally, but feminism has been a theme for
many decades; often controversial, but nonetheless persistent. Changes in family
life and family structure have major implications for the work life of women, with
poor women working more to achieve personal and family self-sufficiency, but
often vulnerable to insecure and unpredictable working conditions.
Third wave feminism also differentiates liberal from radical feminism.
Liberal feminism not only tends to emphasize a binary approach to gender
differences but also generally views individual and social reform policies as
solutions to gender inequality. Thus, the approach of The Feminine Mystique,
with its emphasis on individual solutions, would be an example of liberal
feminism. In liberal feminism, society doesn’t achieve a major overhaul, but laws
may need to be changed; and it is believed that individual changes and changes
in social policy can achieve the goals that are desired.
Radical feminism defines inequality based on patriarchy as a system of
power that oppresses women; and that political activism leading to structural
change is needed. Thus, radical feminism requires a redefinition of gender roles,
with a belief that gender differences between men and women (the binary
approach) oversimplifies the issues; and that it is necessary to overcome issues
of domination by the patriarchal society. New definitions of work and family
structure and relationships are needed.
As applied to current working conditions for poor women, we can
understand how lack of differentiation among women and an emphasis on
16
individual solutions to problems of equality between men and women can
overlook important gender issues. Thus, more women may be working outside
the home, but if this seeming liberation creates more problems with unequal pay,
lack of paid sick days, non-standard work schedules, more insecure work, and
inadequate child care, then we really haven’t fulfilled the notion of freedom from
oppression and equality for women. Similarly, if the needs of low-income women
are not addressed, and we believe that a women’s agenda can be helpful, then
we need to challenge existing beliefs and practices using a feminist framework. It
does appear that the concept of intersectionality is still elusive in everyday life,
with many of its components – race, ethnicity, linguistic barriers, religion – often
considered either negatively or as separate issues. If the lens of intersectionality
were actually applied in society’s treatment of low-income women, then its many
facets (and their interactions) could be taken into account in solving many of their
problems.
Policy Perspectives on Work and Feminism
During the Progressive Era, women played an activist role in the
workplace around child labor laws, minimum wage laws, workplace hours, safety
standards and sanitation regulations. The Children’s Bureau within the federal
Department of Labor was founded under women’s advocacy in 1912; and the
famous Bread and Roses strike of textile workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts
also occurred in 1912. Women’s suffrage work continued and finally culminated
in the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. The Women’s Temperance
17
League also played an important role in the temperance movement. The activism
of African-American women involved movement of black populations from the
south to the north and from rural to urban environments with factory and
domestic work replacing agricultural work. African-American women also
addressed racial issues, such as segregation and Jim Crow practices.
The New Deal, with the Social Security Act of 1935 as an entitlement
mainly for the elderly, welfare as means-tested (not an entitlement) mainly for
low-income widows with children, and the National Labor Relations Act which
was designed to protect worker rights, are examples of legislation that impacted
low-income women in different ways. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
which included many workers, excluded coverage for domestic worker (Flanders,
2013). Although the New Deal, under President Roosevelt, enacted legislation
that helped to reverse the economic depression and provided some protection for
the unemployed and low-income individuals, there has never been a permanent
comfort zone for unions and worker rights in the U.S. Designed to protect worker
rights, the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1934, has not had an
unblemished record of advocating for and supporting unions and protesting
worker abuse. By 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act was passed which limited worker
and union power greatly. This led the way for states to pass right-to-work laws
which severely limit collective bargaining and the ability of unions to organize
workers. Today, right-to-work laws in states continue to expand and disempower
unions nationwide. But there have also been union successes and grass-roots
efforts that particularly benefit low-income women.
18
Beginning in 1954 with the desegregation of schools by federal mandate,
the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty, while not directly addressing
women’s issues, began to address issues of poverty, not only in relation to race,
but much more broadly defined. Interest in local control of federally-funded nonprofit community action agencies, and parental involvement and leadership in
Head Start, had an empowering effect on low-income women. The Welfare
Rights Movement activated poor women to protest against inadequate safety net
services to achieve economic well-being (Cloward and Piven, 1971).
As a backlash against the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War
movement and women’s rights, the New Economy, beginning with the election of
President Reagan in 1980, strengthened neoliberalism and the growth of
conservative politics. Most important for low-income women was the attack on
safety net programs, unions and worker protections. Issues of privatization and
deregulation became an important part of the erosion of equal opportunities and
movements for economic equality in the U.S., culminating in major change in
public assistance (welfare reform) in the enactment of Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) in 1996.
Welfare reform of 1996, with its emphasis on time limits and mandated
work, has reduced welfare rolls but has not been an anti-poverty policy for lowincome women. Being forced to take any job or forfeit welfare benefits, especially
at a time of economic recession and decline in worker protections with lack of job
security, poor wages, inadequate safety net services, and limited educational
opportunities, has created working poor moms without a promising future. Many
19
eligible low-income women do not receive welfare benefits because of
bureaucratic obstacles and cut-backs in funding. In 2005, the Women’s
Committee of 100 advocated for unsuccessfully, among other concerns, a
Caregiver’s Allowance with a guaranteed income for caregivers of minor children
and other dependent family members requiring sustained care.
Revisiting welfare reform has few champions on the state or national
levels. There is lingering conservative belief that welfare is an anti-work policy
(similar to unemployment insurance) and that marriage is a major anti-poverty
measure (Legal Momentum, 2012). Policies related to work, such as the federal
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is targeted to low-income individuals
working outside the home, has been enacted on the state level in some states,
as has legislation regarding paid sick days. But changes in increasing the
minimum wage, for example, have failed to be passed in many cases. Changes
in work and welfare supportive of women’s self-sufficiency efforts, such as
educational opportunities and career ladders, are often not addressed or not
supported. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, enacted early In Obama’s
presidency, which extends the time limits for filing grievances based on pay
discrimination, is an example of a positive step in protecting women’s rights; but
subsequent requests for hearings around pay discrimination by Walmart have
been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although women, including low-income women, have become somewhat
more empowered in the family and at work, society has not fully supported
women’s efforts towards independence and self-sufficiency through social
20
policies. This is particularly apparent in relation to work outside the home for poor
women with children. In the current sluggish economy, Individuals with less
education tend to be most stagnant, economically ( IWPR, 2012). With job
growth most prominent in the service sector where women dominate, low wages
and an insecure work environment have important consequences. With the
enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2008, many low-income women are
helped, but non-eligibility for part-time workers would have a major impact on
low-income women. As unemployment decreases, we need to continue to be
concerned about the quality of work experiences of low-income women,
particularly women with children.
Commonalities and Diversity
Third wave feminism has built critical links among issues facing global and
U.S. women. This international perspective strengthens the women’s movement
on the domestic level, as commonalities and diversity among the world’s women
are identified and addressed. The emergence of feminist issues on the
international stage – ranging from international conferences to global institutions
and grassroots networks – all would seem to bode well for the future of feminism
in the United States.
Clearly, women’s economic and social ills are no longer territorially bound.
One has only to glance at the rise of migratory transnationalism, with its push
and pull of women from poor to more affluent countries, without change in
economic and political conditions, to recognize the universality of feminist issues.
21
(Ehrenreich and Hochschild, 2002). Women are increasingly working outside the
home, often outside their country, for many years, but often without protections
and without effecting change in either their birth country or the receiving country.
Here again, intersectional radical feminism calls for an overhaul of the
relationships of economic inequality and poverty within and among poorer and
more affluent societies, along with the concurrent macro-level changes needed to
define and assign more equitable gender roles.
Ross-Sheriff (2011) suggests that this “re-conception” of gender roles in
transnational migration may already be taking place. She observes that the
feminization of migration – patterns of movement in which more than half of
migrants are women – need not always be perceived as detrimental She notes
ways in which migration can be empowering to women, not only in terms of
remittances to birth countries which enhance the well-being of families and
society, but also in terms of businesses and entrepreneurship and in other
economic successes and independence. The need for protections and
comprehensive immigration reform would enhance all of these opportunities.
Migration is just one way that the interconnectedness of third wave
feminism can benefit low income women. In the same way that the movement of
large groups of women can significantly alter both a sending and receiving
society, so can it create solidarity and empowerment within and among global
movements. Communications, social media, and access to resources and
information all contribute to the creation of feminist networks capable of radical
social change.
22
Conclusions
Historically, women have had an ambivalent relationship to the workplace,
which reflects larger societal ambivalence toward women and feminism. This
includes middle-class and poor women. For middle-class women, patriarchal
societal attitudes have restricted women’s choice in the type of work performed;
and the ongoing belief that women’s place is in the home often limits women’s
work opportunities. This includes upward economic mobility, as well as creating
ongoing problems of gender pay inequities, lack of paid family leave, inadequate
child care and many problems associated with work-family balance issues
(IWPR, 2011).
Middle-class women often buy into the views of the dominant culture and
observe “how lucky they are not to have to work”; and middle-class women are at
times considered victims of feminism, as well (Faludi, 1991). These women may
be torn between working part-time or not working outside the home at all; being
criticized for working outside the home or for wanting such a life-style; and
feeling uncertain about the desire for increased upward economic mobility and
status and the persistent frustration of glass ceilings. Often, choices that women
feel they have to make have negative consequences at home and at work. But
third wave feminism provides middle class women the tools to challenge the
historical paradigm that assigns value to their activities based on traditionally
gendered roles. Both they, and their economically disadvantaged counterparts,
23
can deploy feminism as a means for enacting not only political and economic
change, but also for transforming semiotic and normative conceptions of society.
There is an even more urgent need to change societal attitudes toward
low income women, who are generally blamed for their economic situation -- i.e.
that their alleged lack a work ethic, personal irresponsibility and immoral behavior
cause them to be poor (Handler and Hasenfeld, 2007). The push for marriage
reflects these beliefs (Legal Momentum, 2012; Marcotte, 2012). Poor women
have always worked outside the home and usually have little choice between
care-giving functions and paid work. From a race and class perspective, it is
often African-American and other minority and immigrant women who work for
white, middle-class women as domestic help and in care-giving roles, thus
reflecting traditional norms. (Ehrenreich and Hochschild, 2002).
Historically, in two-parent homes where women didn’t generally work
outside the home, and there was usually one breadwinner (i.e. the male spouse)
we did not blame poverty on single income households – and we did not
associate these single provider households with poverty conditions. Although
more women with children are working outside the home, this has not generally
resulted in greater self-sufficiency for these households. Thus, in more current
households with one provider (often a single mother) there is likely to be a higher
level of poverty which we often blame on being unmarried. Marriage is thus often
recommended as an anti-poverty measure, rather than economic and workplace
changes, as remedies for poor families. These societal attitudes and realities
24
reflect deep-seated structural economic issues, as well as gender and racial bias.
( Legal Momentum,2012; Fremstad, 2012).
Although feminism historically has had a rocky relationship with low
income women, there are signs that their lot is improving. U.S. women in all
social strata have become more independent and self-sufficient and less
dependent on male dominance. More women are remaining unmarried or
marrying later (Edin and Kefalas, 2005); and married couples now account for
less than half of American households. No longer do most women feel that they
need to stay in abusive or unhappy relationships nor marry for financial reasons.
Women now constitute more than half of the workforce. Feminism can be
credited with some important transformative changes in the society – some of
which have benefitted all women in all walks of life.
In discussing safety net programs, such as welfare, the association
between gender and race is a continuing controversial combination for poor
women. How to turn this around is a major challenge. Poor women must have
their own voice to tell their stories and to correct stereotypes and misinformation
about their situations. The mainstream media has to pay attention to these voices
and not continue to repeat inaccurate and outdated patriarchal values and
attitudes. It is ironic that the most conservative individuals who espouse women’s
place is in the home for middle-class women are the most vocal and insistent that
poor women with children must work outside the home to prove their worthiness.
Economic inequality is an ongoing problem in the U.S. and gender
inequality is persistent. Progressive economists, such as Krugman (2012) and
25
Stiglitz (2012), believe that when low-income and middle-class individuals regain
economic opportunity and stability, the nation prospers. In the U.S., we have not
had a comprehensive anti-poverty program since the 1960s. What can a feminist
approach contribute here? Again, it is the unique women’s voice that is needed
with unified voices of diverse women that need to be heard, along with other
supporters, as well. We know that education and career ladders, non-traditional
work, gender pay equity, paid sick days, paid family leave, child care and health
care are some policy issues that need attention. We also know that broader
societal changes need to occur to reduce the oppression of women. We need
more feminism, not less. As the U.S. becomes more diverse, demographically,
we need social action – from all corners of the global community – to close the
gap between the status quo and changing reality. While it is increasingly clear
that women’s perceptions of themselves at all social strata have changed, and
the notions of single parenthood, autonomous breadwinner, and head-ofhousehold are more universal than ever, there is an urgent need for societies to
catch up with – and support – that very ubiquitous and hard-earned self-image.
References
Baker, Beth (Spring/Summer, 2012). Fighting the War on Women, Ms. Magazine,
22. 2. 26-31.
Brandwein, Ruth (Feb. 2012). Remember the Women: Inequality is a Women’s
Issue. Affilia. 27.1. 5-7.
Buzuvis, Erin (Spring/Summer, 2012). Game Changer, Ms. Magazine. 22. 2. 3235.
Cloward, Richard and F. Piven (1971). Regulating the Poor: The Functions of
Public Welfare, Vintage.
26
Coontz, Stephanie (2011). A Strange Stirrings: The Feminine Mystique and the
American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s. Basic Books.
Covert, Bryce (July, 2012). Marissa Mayer as CEO: Don’t Expect Trickle Down.
The Nation. @ brycecouvert blog.
de Beauvoir, Simone (1949). The Second Sex. Random House.
Duncan, Cynthia (1999). Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America.
Yale U. Press.
Edin, Kathryn and M. Kefalas (2005). Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women
Put Motherhood Before Marriage. U-California Press.
Eidelson, Josh (Jan/Feb.2013). Alt-Labor, The American Prospect, 24, 1. p.1518.
Ehrenreich, Barbara and Arlie R. Hochschild (2002). Global Woman: Nannies,
Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. Holt.
Faludi, Susan (1991). Backlash; The Undeclared War Against American Women.
Doubleday.
Flanders, Laura (Feb.18, 2013). Demanding Women. The Nation. 20-21; and A
Campaign About Caring: Will Organizing Caregivers Along with Care
Receivers Really Change the World? The Nation. (April 30, 2012).
Fremstad, Shawn (Aug. 2012). The NYT and the ‘Disorganized Single-Mother”
Meme. Center for Economic and Policy Research; and July, 2012. Family
Structure is Overrated as an Explanation of Inequality.
Friedan, Betty (1963). The Feminine Mystique. Norton.
Gringeri, Christina and S. Roche (Nov. 2010). Beyond the Binary: Critical
Feminisms in Social Work. Affilia. 25. 4. 337-340.
Handler, Joel and Yeheskel Hasenfeld ( 2007). Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty
and Inequality. Cambridge U. Press.
hooks, bell (1984) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. South End Press.
Institute for Women’s Policy Research ( Fall, 2011). IWPR Report Finds Women
Suffering in Economic Recovery. Recommendations for Improving
Women’s Employment in the Recovery. Sept. 2011.
27
Institute for Women’s Policy Research (2012). Increasing Opportunities for LowIncome Women and Student Parents in Science, Technology, Engineering
and Math at Community Colleges (written with Cynthia Costello).
Institute for Women’s Policy Research (2012). Women With Low Literacy Suffer
More than Men.
Kemp, Susan and R. Brandwiein (Nov. 2010). Feminisms and Social Work: An
Intertwined History. Affilia. 25. 4. 341-364.
Krugman, Paul (2012). End this Depression Now. Norton.
Legal Momentum (April, 2011). Welfare Reform at Age 15: A Vanishing Safety
Net for Women and Children. The Women’s Legal Defense and Education
Fund.
Legal Momentum ( Aug. 2012). Beyond the Myths of Single Motherhood.
WLDEF; and July, 2012. Low Wage Rates and Low Income Very
Common for Employed Single Mothers.
Marcotte, Amanda (Dec. 2012). Stop Blaming Single Mothers. The American
Prospect.
Mojica, Carmen (March 29, 2011). Feminism and Womanism, Gender Across the
Borders, monthly newsletter.
Ross-Sheriff, Fariyal ( August, 2011). Global Migration and Gender. Affilia. 26. 3.
p.233-238
Sage, Henry (2010). The Progressive Era: The Great Age of Reform.
www.academicamerican.com
Slaughter, Anne-Marie (July/Aug. 2012). Why Women Still Can’t Have it All. The
Atlantic Magazine.
Stiglitz, Joseph (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society
Endangers Our Future. Norton.
Turman, Eboni (Oct. 25, 2012) On the Obama Question: A Black Womanist
Response. Tikkun Magazine.
Walker, Alice (1983). In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose. New
York: Harcourt Press.
Wilson, William J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged. U-Chicago Press.
28
Authors: Marcia Bok is Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut, School of
Social Work; Jane Marcus-Delgado is Associate Professor and Director,
International Studies Program, College of Staten Island, City University of
New York.
29