Mothering Forum banner

Staying at Home "On Welfare"

47K views 1K replies 124 participants last post by  sandra063 
#1 ·
Maybe someone can clue me in. I've sometimes heard people speak disdainfully of sahm's who choose to apply for, and receive, taxpayer-supported benefits such as WIC, Foodstamps, and Medicaid for their families. I've heard this referred to as "staying home on welfare."

Yet I've never heard anyone refer to public-school families as "welfare-recipients." There also seems to be little or no negativity expressed when low-income parents receive government subsidies for childcare costs.

Why this distinction? My dh works and pays taxes into all the various assistance programs -- and I did, too, until we started our own family. So if we choose to apply for Foodstamps when we're short money, how are we "on welfare" any more than our neighbors who send their children to public school?

Please note: I'm not criticizing public-school parents -- just honestly questioning why some taxpayer-supported programs are "welfare" and others aren't.

Edited to add: my purpose for starting this thread actually goes beyond just wanting answers to the above question. I want to hear from people on both sides of the issue -- and to each side I think there are many different facets: I'd like to hear from everyone.

This means, for people who frown on SAHM's who use public assistance -- I should prepare you that some of us will try to persuade you to look at things differently.

At the same time, I want to be open to changing my perspectives, too -- so I'm not asking anyone to be more flexible in their thinking than I am.
 
See less See more
#579 ·
Well, you know what they say about us "gifted ones" - we lack common sense...
Oh, I don't know - I think I have common sense; I'm just too caught up in my own head half the time to see the road signs. I regularly get lost driving in my own frickin' town
:

Now Pets - I was trying to use common sense and thought - surely nothing could go wrong in "pets"
Guess I need to aquire the fine art of lurking first.
 
#580 ·
I would just like to state for the record that I don't have any problem with anyone's posts/tone/intentions/behavior or anything else on this thread. It has pretty much progressed in a way that is to be expected. I don't really understand why anyone is apologising, but I will join in just in case. Sorry, all.
 
#581 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Thanks for that! It's true that my point was to open a discussion -- not just hear answers, from the anti-welfare camp, to my original question. Yes, I wanted those answers but I also wanted to go a lot further.

I'm glad this was clear to you, and hopefully to some others -- but obviously I made some people feel they'd been duped, when they gave their honest answer to my OP question, and it wasn't just quietly accepted.

I think I needed to be more clear in my OP -- so I've gone back and changed it ... I hope the clarification will help to sweeten up the "bad taste" some are getting from this thread.

I totally got that this was a discussion thread.
I actually appreciate a lot of what is being said.
 
#582 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by Lady Lilya
View Post

PrennaMama, I can understand the confusion about the idea of shame. I think those who use public assistance as an excuse to be lazy and negligent with their lives and to be parasitic because it is less work than being self-sufficient should be ashamed. But, those who have legitimately fallen on hard times should not be ashamed to use public assistance. Those are the people it exists for, and they could have more resources dedicated to them if there weren't so many people who are taking from others for bad reasons.

I have no confusion about the position you hold on whether the women you have spoken of should be ashamed of themselves... It is clear that you (and you are not alone, many share this viewpoint) delineate between those deserving of the gov't assistance programs we all pay into at some point and those not deserving of these programs, based on a some kind of moral score-board. Are you aware of how you sound? I respect the open-forum sharing of opinions, I do. Your opinions (as bolded and highlighted above) are formed by your paradigm. That paradigm is fixed by your perception of a select group of women who seem to be really under your skin because their moral compass is not the same as yours. The fact that you then justify your descriptions by admitting that you don't say these things to their faces, just here, to others who don't know them, makes it all the more unpleasant to witness... If you can see that it wouldn't be good to say things like this to their faces, then maybe your paradigm needs a second look. My family has a few members who'd start a Welfare Queen Lynch Mob if they could, standing on that moral high-ground, handing out judgements, saying, "Look at those losers... look at their children! What monsters." and it makes me sad, because there is just NOT this black/white line between deserving and not deserving. I have even been guilty of looking down at low-income families with whom I've little in common, philosophically, but after being on assistance, and interacting on a different level with many of these same kinds of families... I don't see them the same way anymore.

As for winners versus losers, this is exactly the kind of dogma I was referring to... as if life is a game and the people who play it right will be big ol' winners, and the folks that make the baaad choices are losers...
:

Quote:


Re: Strength of character or moral focus:
I don't think that is an excuse. I can understand a desire to have everyone in society contribute to helping those who have bad luck. But, I can't approve of forcing my fellow citizens to dedicate a portion of their hard-earned income to support people who have weak characters.

Again, what is it about the bad luck or hard-times thing? Is that really a qualifier? Is there some morality paperwork I missed out on that states that in order to avoid the eye-rolls and downward looks a family has to be humbly meek and truly without to draw on these benefits?

Quote:


They don't want help to be on their feet. They don't want to be self-sufficient members of society. That is what I meant by them not wanting help. They don't want the fishing rod -- they want someone else to provide them with fish for all eternity.

What would happen if you opened a dialogue with one of these women? What would happen to your perception if, in that dialogue, you saw just a woman, just a mother?... and she told you as a woman and as a mother, she is miserable, she feels like a loser, that she hates feeling weak... like the system and her community failed her... If she were to open herself to you, like that, and show her vulnerability, describe herself using the same verbage you have used here... would she then be deserving of the help she receives... again, from a gov't assistance program that we all have had to pay into at some point?

Quote:


I DO give to them, more than by just taxes. But, the more I give, the more they want from me, and the more dependent they get on me. I have learned, very recently, to stop enabling them. They would take from me until I had nothing left for my own family.

I think you're right, unfortunately... it sounds like nothing will help this mother to better parent her children, short of severe, legal intervention... Neglect of the type you described is horrendous and somebody needs to step in.

Quote:


You don't have to make excuses about your choices to me. Please don't feel insecure (
: ) about it so that you need external approval from any of us here. You KNOW you made your choices based on concern for what is best for your family. You KNOW you are at home taking care of your family, not selfishly goofing off and neglecting your dd all day. I don't need to know these things, you do, and that is what matters.

See, and this just tears it. Not only are you parceling out character judgements and morality labels, you assume that what I shared with you (in an effort to illustrate that we are an example of the types who use assistance and are not on hard-times, are not unlucky, and do not feel guilty) was done out of some misguided need for validation. Yes, I may know why we made our choices, and yes I do feel secure about what we do... but YOU don't know what my moral compass is. I could be sitting here with a bong for all you know, while dd runs naked into the driveway.... she's been known to! Lol.

My point is, and I apologize if you're feeling like I'm picking on you to make that point... We are all women, we are all mothers... That makes us in my eyes, sisters. We have a hard lot in this society anyway, without lording morality over one another. My point is that for those of you who can't stand behind another woman with support and tolerance despite your differences in styles or choices, that's fine; but don't stand over her, either. You have not walked in her shoes, and watching her walk some miles doesn't mean you have the wisdom to judge the path she walks.

Quote:


Originally Posted by mammal_mama
View Post

I really don't think the pp is trying to make excuses. I know I haven't been.

I think the reason many of us are sharing some specific things about our situations, is to provoke deeper thought in those expressing anger, or critical attitudes, toward (or about) stay-at-home-moms who draw public assistance.

We're (or at least I'm) not seeking (or needing) vindication from these people, who have no more right to judge us than we have to judge them.

I would just really like for people to respect one another, regardless of differences in income or lifestyle. Just as I should respect another mom enough to refrain from telling her, " You really COULD stay home if you'd just make some lifestyle changes, or if you were willing to go on assistance."

<snip>
I'm just sharing this as an example of how we're all capable of looking down on others. My judgment didn't help my friend, even though I felt my opinions were totally sound, in the same way that someone who's "angry about welfare moms" feels their opinions are sound.

The thing about being a low-income sah mom who uses assistance -- there are always some people who think you need their unsolicited advice. Just as working mamas aren't asking me to tell them what they could do to be able to stay home -- sah mamas on assistance aren't asking anyone to tell them how they could "just get a part-time job and get off welfare."

Respect. Respect. Respect: can ya' dig it?



Quote:


Originally Posted by thismama
View Post

I don't think this thread is passive aggressive in the slightest. It opened a conversation, as threads do. The point was not to provide an opportunity for everyone to voice their opinions, including anti-welfare opinions, with no response from the OP to those opinions, and no resulting discussion.

That would be ridiculous.



mammal_mama, I wanted to thank you for opening this thread... it has given me much to meditate upon, and I have shared the contents with friends and family that span the full scope of experience and perception, from sympathetic, to pitying, and angry to entitled.

I think it's extremely important to examine things like welfare from all the angles, and question policy and policy makers... I think it's important to understand where folks come from in their experience, even if we don't philosophically fall on the same side of an issue like this. You never know what you'll learn, what might cause a paradigm shift in yourself or what new perspective another might glean from you...

We have to talk.. we have to ask... we have to try to mutually understnad... if we don't, then the powers that be, the rusty machines, have won... and we are nothing but a quiet slave to the machine.

Thank you!

eta: I wouldn't want anyone to walk away from any of my posts feeling offended, but I'm not going to jump on any apologizing band-wagon... I stand by the ideal that we are moving forward to a new era, and that the best way to do that is to stand by eachother in support and tolerance.
 
#583 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by PrennaMama View Post
I have no confusion about the position you hold on whether the women you have spoken of should be ashamed of themselves... It is clear that you (and you are not alone, many share this viewpoint) delineate between those deserving of the gov't assistance programs we all pay into at some point and those not deserving of these programs, based on a some kind of moral score-board. Are you aware of how you sound? I respect the open-forum sharing of opinions, I do. Your opinions (as bolded and highlighted above) are formed by your paradigm. That paradigm is fixed by your perception of a select group of women who seem to be really under your skin because their moral compass is not the same as yours. The fact that you then justify your descriptions by admitting that you don't say these things to their faces, just here, to others who don't know them, makes it all the more unpleasant to witness... If you can see that it wouldn't be good to say things like this to their faces, then maybe your paradigm needs a second look. My family has a few members who'd start a Welfare Queen Lynch Mob if they could, standing on that moral high-ground, handing out judgements, saying, "Look at those losers... look at their children! What monsters." and it makes me sad, because there is just NOT this black/white line between deserving and not deserving. I have even been guilty of looking down at low-income families with whom I've little in common, philosophically, but after being on assistance, and interacting on a different level with many of these same kinds of families... I don't see them the same way anymore.

As for winners versus losers, this is exactly the kind of dogma I was referring to... as if life is a game and the people who play it right will be big ol' winners, and the folks that make the baaad choices are losers...
:

Again, what is it about the bad luck or hard-times thing? Is that really a qualifier? Is there some morality paperwork I missed out on that states that in order to avoid the eye-rolls and downward looks a family has to be humbly meek and truly without to draw on these benefits?

What would happen if you opened a dialogue with one of these women? What would happen to your perception if, in that dialogue, you saw just a woman, just a mother?... and she told you as a woman and as a mother, she is miserable, she feels like a loser, that she hates feeling weak... like the system and her community failed her... If she were to open herself to you, like that, and show her vulnerability, describe herself using the same verbage you have used here... would she then be deserving of the help she receives... again, from a gov't assistance program that we all have had to pay into at some point?

I think you're right, unfortunately... it sounds like nothing will help this mother to better parent her children, short of severe, legal intervention... Neglect of the type you described is horrendous and somebody needs to step in.

See, and this just tears it. Not only are you parceling out character judgements and morality labels, you assume that what I shared with you (in an effort to illustrate that we are an example of the types who use assistance and are not on hard-times, are not unlucky, and do not feel guilty) was done out of some misguided need for validation. Yes, I may know why we made our choices, and yes I do feel secure about what we do... but YOU don't know what my moral compass is. I could be sitting here with a bong for all you know, while dd runs naked into the driveway.... she's been known to! Lol.

My point is, and I apologize if you're feeling like I'm picking on you to make that point... We are all women, we are all mothers... That makes us in my eyes, sisters. We have a hard lot in this society anyway, without lording morality over one another. My point is that for those of you who can't stand behind another woman with support and tolerance despite your differences in styles or choices, that's fine; but don't stand over her, either. You have not walked in her shoes, and watching her walk some miles doesn't mean you have the wisdom to judge the path she walks.





mammal_mama, I wanted to thank you for opening this thread... it has given me much to meditate upon, and I have shared the contents with friends and family that span the full scope of experience and perception, from sympathetic, to pitying, and angry to entitled.

I think it's extremely important to examine things like welfare from all the angles, and question policy and policy makers... I think it's important to understand where folks come from in their experience, even if we don't philosophically fall on the same side of an issue like this. You never know what you'll learn, what might cause a paradigm shift in yourself or what new perspective another might glean from you...

We have to talk.. we have to ask... we have to try to mutually understnad... if we don't, then the powers that be, the rusty machines, have won... and we are nothing but a quiet slave to the machine.

Thank you!

eta: I wouldn't want anyone to walk away from any of my posts feeling offended, but I'm not going to jump on any apologizing band-wagon... I stand by the ideal that we are moving forward to a new era, and that the best way to do that is to stand by eachother in support and tolerance.
WOW!!! YES, YES, AND YES!!! You hit the nail on the head on every point. WOW!
Thank you for your posts.
Seriously made me cry...
 
#584 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by PrennaMama View Post
My point is that for those of you who can't stand behind another woman with support and tolerance despite your differences in styles or choices, that's fine; but don't stand over her, either. You have not walked in her shoes, and watching her walk some miles doesn't mean you have the wisdom to judge the path she walks.
And my point is that this goes both ways.
 
#586 ·
Actually, I have not judged those of you who rely on welfare to get by. What I expressed is that it is that "the *idea* of staying at home on welfare" is not consistant with my own value system - thus not something I would support. I did not say that I was morally better than someone who did this, only that it is not within my own framework of morality which determines how I live. Having not walked in *my* shoes, you are not in a position to judge whether or not my value system is appropriate for me. The judgement certainly has gone both ways throughout this thread. Calling a person "proud" and "self righteous" is a judgement if I have *ever* heard one.

ETA: And what about the comments about the "priviledged" and how they must view the world - and those darn rich people who don't want their tax dollars going those who do all the work, come on!... It's really hilarious, that you would suggest that the welfare side of the fence has been sympathetic and trying to see the world from another POV. That the only judgement has been toward those on welfare.
 
#587 ·
Riiight. And I have not judged *you* for being privileged and self righteous. I have only said that the idea of being privileged and self righteous does not fit within my value system and is not something I would support.

Anyways.

I'm not really sure what you are stabbing at here, 2bluefish, other than that I get a feeling you think you have been hard done by in this thread. Which... it's your prerogative to think that. But personally, I'm not feelin' it.
 
#588 ·
What I'm stabbing at is there is alot of preaching about being tolerant of each other throughout the thread, but the tolerance truly only goes one way. The whole pot calling the kettle black thing really gets my goat. It makes my skin crawl, even when it's not directed at me... :puke

I don't give a sh*t if people don't like the choices I make - they can go jump in a lake. The way to overcome judgement is not to beg people to support you or try to get people to change their thinking - it's to take away the power of the judgement by not letting it affect you. Come on, we are all judged - not one escapes judgement.
 
#589 ·
I never preach 'tolerance' as a generality. I don't believe in it. I think judgment is a very useful skill. However I think it should be wielded in an ethical manner, and that it is worth examining in specific instances where judgment is present, whether it is appropriate or not.

I happen to think judgment against welfare mamas is not appropriate, but judgment of welfare mama hatin' is. JMNSHO.
 
#590 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
And I have not judged *you* for being privileged and self righteous.
Uhm, you just did. If you are staying at home on welfare, that is a fact. Calling someone "priviledged" and "self righteous" is a judgement call.

"I have not judged *you* as being priviledged and self righteous." versus
"I have not judged *you* for being priviledged and self righteous."

That little preposition makes a world of difference.
 
#592 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I never preach 'tolerance' as a generality.
Then my comment is not directed at you.

As for *you* personally, you made it very clear that you believe in socialism. I do *not* - at all - period. So as far as I'm concerned, we just simply disagree. I judge your political belief system as harshly as you probably judge mine. But there are others with agendas that differ from yours, and I have different problems with those.
 
#593 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bluefish View Post
. I judge your political belief system as harshly as you probably judge mine.
Uh, probably not.
:

Quote:
But there are others with agendas that differ from yours, and I have different problems with those.
I haven't seen anyone preaching blind tolerance and non-judgment in this thread.

It's pretty common on MDC, this "You are judging me for judging!!!" line. I think it's an avoidance of responsibility, personally.
 
#594 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
And I have no idea what a preposition is.
"as" and "for" are prepositions and they have differing meanings - that is a fact not a judgement.

If you use "as" - it means "I did not say you were priviledged etc."
If you use "for" - it means "you are priviledge etc. but I didn't judge you for it"
 
#595 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
It's pretty common on MDC, this "You are judging me for judging!!!" line. I think it's an avoidance of responsibility, personally.
I am not saying "you are judging me for judging" - I am saying there are many instances throughout this thread where a person's life experience and interpretation of that is judged as invalid or unimportant to the issue - namely if one's life experiences and interpretation of those experiences do not lend that person toward supporting the idea of moms staying home on welfare. The experiences are systematically discounted, the interpretations are labeled immoral as "judgements", and then there is the sermon about tolerance. It's hypocritical. If you don't see it Thismama, then I guess it doesn't affect you. But I see it, and it bothers me.
 
#596 ·
Have you been on the dole, 2bluefish? Coz that is what we are discussing. If you have not, you are not being judged here for your life experience and your path as it relates to the subject of this thread.

What I hear you saying right now is, "You are judging me for my life experiences leading me to my judgment of welfare." Which is a crafty twist, but basically amounts IMO to judging for judging.
 
#597 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
Have you been on the dole, 2bluefish? Coz that is what we are discussing. If you have not, you are not being judged here for your life experience and your path as it relates to the subject of this thread.
You did it - my life experiences do not matter, because I have not had your life experiences. Beautiful example. So *your* feelings about welfare are valid, because you have used it. And *my* feelings about it are not, because I have not - even though it affects me every day....


Well, whatever - the fascinating thing is that it is *so* important to get this info out there so that *I* can change *my* paradigm. Who cares what I think? My feelings, thoughts and experiences are invalid! I do not matter when it comes to this subject - so why is anyone offended by what I think?!
 
#598 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bluefish View Post
You did it - my life experiences do not matter, because I have not had your life experiences. Beautiful example. So *your* feelings about welfare are valid, because you have used it. And *my* feelings about it are not, because I have not - even though it affects me every day....

I'm not saying your feelings about welfare are not valid. They are valid. I disagree with them, obviously.

You are saying you are being judged, as you are judging. I am saying no, you are not. You are being judged *for* judging. Disagreeing with your position is a judgment, so certainly you are being judged for your judgment.

Nothing more complicated than that is going on here.

Quote:
Well, whatever - the fascinating thing is that it is *so* important to get this info out there so that *I* can change *my* paradigm. Who cares what I think? My feelings, thoughts and experiences are invalid! I do not matter when it comes to this subject - so why is anyone offended by what I think?!
It is not my job to change your paradigm.

eta - Oooh, that would make a nice siggy.
 
#599 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
Nothing more complicated than that is going on here.
So why are we getting sermons on tolerance? (See the top of the page - not the first in the thread though.) If we are just all judging each others judgements - then who gives a rats a**? I judge the judgement to get on welfare in order to stay home as not something I would want to. You judge my judgement as not something you would think. Sooo.... what?
 
#600 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bluefish View Post
So why are we getting sermons on tolerance? (See the top of the page - not the first in the thread though.) If we are just all judging each others judgements - then who gives a rats a**? I judge the judgement to get on welfare in order to stay home as not something I would want to. You judge my judgement as not something you would think. Sooo.... what?

No. You are judging people's LIVES. This is not your life. This is only your judgment, the subject of this thread.

I think tolerance is kind of a low expectation, but we'll go with it. Wouldn't you say it is more important to focus on developing tolerance for people's *lives* than for their judgments of other people's lives?

Coz I surely do think that.
 
#601 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
No. You are judging people's LIVES.
There we go - exactly what has bothered me this whole time - I have been completely misunderstood. I am not judging people's lives. I am not saying my life is more valid, important, moral than somebody else's. I am not. That is a complete and utter mischaracterization of my viewpoint.

I have only judged that *one choice* is not the choice I would deem best overall. I believe the majority of women in the US would be better off having their babies at home - possibly unassisted. That does not mean I judge hospital birthers or their lives. Only that I have an opinion about a choice they have made (and my opinion has not changed after joining their ranks).

Choices are judgement calls. And we don't have to tolerate or support all the judgement calls of others - if we do, we are failing miserably here at MDC.
 
#603 ·
You would need to hang around the UC forum here - or elsewhere on the internet. UCers have always been known for being pretty vocal about their beliefs.

You could also go over to GD and listen to the mamas talk about spankers and how abusive they are.

Or the circ forum where we hear about how circ is genital mutilation.

Or Pets
to read about how I'm neglecting my dog.

Are we judging the lives of all those people? Or just the choices? It seems to me if we decide these discussion are about judging other's lives, we are going to have to shut up and make the forum support only.
:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top