• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

American women are 40 percent more likely than men to be poor. In fact, 90 percent of welfare recipients are women. But instead of spending money on things like education and job-training programs, the government is pouring all sorts of cash into—get this—marriage-promotion programs.

In March 2006, President Bush committed $100 million a year for the next five years to a “Healthy Marriage Initiative,” as part of a welfare bill. This money, which would have been used for education, childcare, and job training, is now allocated to religious-based programs that tell women that getting married is the best way out of poverty. (Who needs a job when you have a man?!)

Of course, the gov folks swear up and down that the programs are just common sense. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, says that marriage promotion helps “couples who choose marriage for themselves gain greater access, on a voluntary basis, to services where they can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage.”24

But what they really mean when they say a “healthy” marriage is a “traditional” one. And for the guys in power now, a traditional marriage is one in which women don’t work.

Just check out what these programs actually do. In 2004, one of the first marriage-promotion programs was charged with sex discrimination. The Family Formation and Development Project in Allentown, Pennsylvania, a twelve-week marriage education course for unmarried couples with children, offered employment services as part of the program—but only to men.25 Nice, huh? Another program, the biblically based Marriage Savers, makes the case for marriage using logic that sounds like it came from a 1950s home ec textbook: “The married man won’t go to work hungover, exhausted, or tardy because of fewer bachelor habits, and because he eats better and sees the doctor sooner, thanks to his wife. She is also a good adviser on career decisions, and relieves him of chores, so he can do a better job.”26

You got that, gals? Men should be the breadwinners, and women should be dependent on them. The government wants happy housewives. More than they want financially secure women.

Something kind of funny: When I was working with NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, a women’s legal rights organization, a lot of the work I did concerned women working in nontraditional jobs—like construction work, mechanics, and firefighting. These kinds of jobs have proven to be awesome ways for low-income women and women without a college education to make more money. The hours are flexible (a must for women with children), the money is great, and there’s amazing potential for career growth.

A study out of the U.K says that mothers who work outside the home have better health than stay-at-home moms.

And while any job training is preferable to pushing tired sexist stereotypes about poverty and marriage, nontraditional jobs are much better paying than “pink collar” professions (again, service industry stuff). In 1996, for example, the average weekly earnings for cashiers, waitresses, and hairdressers ranged from $200 to $300, whereas women rail workers and women electricians earned $700 and $800, respectively.27 But even though jobs like these have proven to be a good way to get women out of poverty, you won’t see the government funding any nontraditional employment programs—at least not significantly. Because god forbid a woman is in a hard hat with cash in her pocket, rather than at home, broke.

Making the Connections

I know this seems all over the place: money, kids, work. And there’s a lot more where that came from that I didn’t get into—god knows there’s a ton of stuff to cover. But the point I want to make is that all of these things are interrelated—in a scary way.

A great example: As I was finishing this chapter, Forbes magazine—supposedly a reputable business publication—put out an article called “Don’t Marry Career Women.”28 Yeah, I know.

The author, Michael Noer (who, incidentally,