Based on Mullaly (2007), Neo-Conservatives view that there are the "deserving poor and the undeserving poor" as to who should qualify to receive welfare benefits from the government. A recent article in the Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/lone-parent-poverty-canadian-social-policy-can-still-do-better/article1629287/print/ states that "in the mid-1990’s most provinces adopted "tough love" initiatives that rendered welfare access much more difficult for those classified as employable" this was applied to single parents. It is safe to say that the majority of single parents are young women. It goes on to state that "welfare was denied to some who should have received it". The goal of the policy was as the article states to "push" single parents considered "employable" regardless of circumstances to seek work. Therefore, it is okay as long as the overall rate of “lone-parents” employed rose.
What about the single mothers who did not qualify and what were they to do, it does not mention what those requirements are, but what about circumstances such as women with post-partum, or other mental health issues that may or may not be related to giving birth? Also with limited education and skills, they may not be able to find a job. What are these women to do if they do not have family or friends who can help them? As the neo-conservatives contend, they do according to Mullaly (2007). With no other means are they then to turn to more marginalized, dangerous avenues for income like the sex-trade, drugs Etc. I have driven by streets and have seen women standing there waiting to sell themselves for money, some of these women I take it are single parents, who feel they have no other choice. Do we just ignore these women? Moreover, what about the children involved. Not only should the well being of these women and children be a concern for society but by not thinking so contributes to a cycle of poverty and crime in our society and affects other areas such as healthcare.
Priscilla
I agree with your stance on how the Conservative government disadvantages single mothers. In particular I like how you brought up the point that it’s not just the single mothers who suffer but also their children. I believe the government should be somewhat responsible for the well-being the country’s children. They are our next generation, and an extremely vulnerable one at that. When mothers are denied the welfare they need to survive, it creates dire straits for the entire family. Poverty affects children in a variety of different ways. There have been several studies showing that children who grow up in poverty often do poorer at school, have decreased health, and have been shown to suffer from mental health problems such as depression. When you support a woman, you support her family. Therefore I agree with you that the Conservative government should reconsider it’s stance on who is deserving and who isn’t, for the benefit of all Canadians.
ReplyDeleteI think we need to move away from the notion of who's deserving and who's undeserving. Child poverty is family poverty and as a society we need to be concerned for all those living in poverty.
ReplyDeleteAngie
You both make valid points. I think the whole welfare system needs to be re-evaluated. The welfare benefit one could receive(based on British poor laws)was created to encourage people to seek work by making the benefit amount less than the minimum wage. I believe that the majority of people would not choose to be on welfare but are there because of need. The reality is the welfare benefit they receive is hardly much to subsist on let alone having children to provide for. Then when the system creates astringent means tests to qualify which prevents those that should get in not qualify says to them and I think to society that from a Neo-Coservative view it is survival of the fittest. This view does not help anyone but those who are in a privileged position. As you have commented the children are affected by poverty with poor health related to poor diets and living conditions as well as pscychologically. Unfortunately, there are people who are not in the position of privilege and need assistance and it is our resposibility as a nation to help those in need.
ReplyDelete-Priscilla
I agree with you Priscilla! As a nation we should be concerned about the well being of all our citizens. I believe if equality of conditions were created, instead of a game of survival of the fittest, we'd all come out winners. It's been proven again, and again that minimum wage is simply not enough to survive on. At the very least, minimum wage should be increased to allow workers to participate meaningfully in society.
ReplyDelete-Erin Roche
(PS- I the first comment made was mine, I'd forgotten to put my name on it)
Good post Priscilla!
ReplyDeleteI too agree with you. It is completely unfair what some women have to go through in order to provide for themselves and their children. The government should open their eyes more to this issue. There should never be a reason for women to have to turn to something such as drugs or the sex-trade in order to make enough income to survive on.
-Marina R