Who benefits from "Laissez-faire"?

Women and poverty are two marginalized groups that are quickly spiraling out of control, especially when the two are paired together.  Not only are women in poverty denied many rights and opportunities by neoconservatist values, but they are blamed for being born into the environment they are now stuck in.  One of the neoconservatist values are "Laissez-faire", simply stating to leave things alone.  As Mullaly (2007,p.72) states in The New Structural Social Work, the "government's role should be reduced, [and] individual rights diminished" .  Therefore, everyone is left to fend for themselves because that is what seems to be fair in a race, even though women in poverty began way behind the starting line.  How is a women to reach the same opportunities as a white, middle class man when she is single, on welfare, has children, is poor, etc.?


In 2004, single parent women aged 65 and younger with children 18 and under made up for over 47% of all people in poverty in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2007).  Poor women usually do not have health care plans that cover the cost of birth control, which is usually around $50 per month, and they cannot afford to pay for it if they decide they want birth control.  But middle class women have that covered in their health care plan because they have enough money to pay for their birth control.  Middle class women can afford to have an abortion if they chose to, and it is free of charge with their health care plan.  I am assuming as any other procedure in Canada, abortions are costly when you do not have a health care plan.  Poor women who cannot afford to have an abortion or afford birth control to prevent pregnancy are the ones that need help to pay for it so the cycle can be broken.  Instead, they are stuck.  This is not to say that all women want to take birth control pills and have abortions, but the choice is there for middle class women, women in poverty lack this, among other choices because they are in poverty.


Does it make sense that the rich get things free and the poor have to pay more for the same things?  Sure they do not have health care plans or insurance because they are on welfare, which is because they are usually looking after their children and cannot keep a job because of this.  It is easy for neoconservatists, middle-, and upper-class people to "Laissez-faire" because they do not have to share the wealth; they are the ones that benefit from this.  But to leave alone women in poverty is not going to "teach them a lesson" so they can learn to take care of themselves next time.  They need to be treated appropriately and feel worthy, and have the same rights, benefits, and opportunities as anyone else; they cannot afford to leave things alone.


References:


Mullaly, B. (2007). The New Structural Social Work (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.


Statistics Canada. (2007). Income Trends in Canada 1980-2004, Table 2020804.  Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.ncwcnbes.net/documents/researchpublications/ResearchProjects/PovertyProfile/2004/PovertyRates-FamiliesENG.pdf




Avery F