Women’s independence from men, not state dependence, drove welfare backlash

Evidence

Public assistance benefits, however menial, were functioning like a social wage for unmarried women—a configuration that had not been envisaged in the Social Security Act, and one that many perceived as a perversion of its original intent. As Stephanie Coontz points out, it was not so much women’s dependence on the state that turned a generation of social reformers against the welfare state tout court; it was rather the growing realization that welfare was making women independent of individual men and freeing them from the obligations of the private family. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 227

Public assistance benefits, however menial, were functioning like a social wage for unmarried women—a configuration that had not been envisaged in the Social Security Act, and one that many perceived as a perversion of its original intent. As Stephanie Coontz points out, it was not so much women’s dependence on the state that turned a generation of social reformers against the welfare state tout court; it was rather the growing realization that welfare was making women independent of individual men and freeing them from the obligations of the private family. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 227

Categorization

• XREF: Fractures the standard narrative that welfare critics opposed state dependence; ties to the reader’s core goal of overturning the caricature of the anti-welfare position. — connects to: Chicago School economists blamed the welfare state, not feminism, for family breakdown — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 210; Court-era welfare made poor women’s dependence public rather than mediated by men — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 226; Neoliberals gendered welfare dependency as emasculating female domestic servitude — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 177 (+4 more)
• CANDY: A counterintuitive, compact insight worth dropping in conversation: the anti-welfare revolt was about women escaping dependence on individual men.
• QUESTION: Curious whether the chapter next ties this anti-welfare impulse to a specific strand of neoliberal family policy.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 227

Broader Connections

• Court-era welfare made poor women’s dependence public rather than mediated by men #corroborates (0.85) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 226
• Neoliberals attacked welfare as a threat to family, race, and dignity #expands (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 178
• Women’s emancipation increased male hostility rather than reducing it. #corroborates (0.82) — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 298
• Neoliberals gendered welfare dependency as emasculating female domestic servitude #expands (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 177
• The 1951 election mobilized middle-class women against the egalitarian welfare state #exemplifies (0.75) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 202
• Neoliberal welfare attacks racialized dependency and framed the family as women’s natural sphere #qualifies (0.72) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 175