> In a message dated 98-08-24 20:24:34 EDT, Alec asks Max to explain:
>
> << Max Sawicky writes:
>
> >There are issues, for instance, pertaining
> >to the 'gendered' nature of the program that
> >are more pressing, in my view.
>
> Could you elaborate on this?
>
Maggie responds:
>
> The majority of the current generation of women receiving social security
> receive either wive's or widows allotments, rather than their own allotments
> from work, WHETHER THEY WORKED OR NOT. F'rinstance, my mother who worked all
> her life, married four years ago (age 71) and she now receives social security
> as a wife -- an amount less than she received prior to marriage in her own
> right. As more and more women arrive at social security age with higher
> incomes than in previous generations, and receive lesser amounts of social
> security than men because they are wives, there is a strong discriminatory
> factor built into the system.
Maggie is right. I want to add to it. One should also look at the gendered aspects of different social insurance programs. Social security is money that one gets after one retires (or ismarried// a widow of someone who worked.) Because of the realities of who has worked in the US until recently, this is pretty much a male social insurance program. Getting social security after retirement is an easy process, no big hassle, check comes in the mail. No social workers are involved and there is no stigma attached.
Now, let's compare that to a social insurance program that primarily benefited women, AFDC. One did not get enough money to live with dignity; it was just enough to keep from dying, pretty much. Applying for such funds was difficult, time consuming and humiliating. There was tremendous stigma involved. One had to deal with social workers & c. AFDC pathologized poverty. I haven't looked into this, but it seems that the replacement program, (TAF something or other) is even more humiliating and difficult.
frances