While I love this article, fathers and low class men are named as the sufferers of child support payment in attempts to shirk federal responsibility, but women are not named, but as “people” when often women in particular are the primary bearers of reproductive coercion. In an attempt for inclusive language, men remain an unchanging, unified class but there is not the same recognition of a class of women?
hi Niyah, i was drawing on Melinda Cooper’s book and existing welfare terminology for that section which names “men” and “women” or “fathers” and “mothers” which is why i used those terms. i would prefer to use inclusive language throughout but when drawing on specific policies or other writers, it’s complicated to change their categories. i hope readers will assume that these categories are fluid and artificial. thank you for reading!
brilliant essay
While I love this article, fathers and low class men are named as the sufferers of child support payment in attempts to shirk federal responsibility, but women are not named, but as “people” when often women in particular are the primary bearers of reproductive coercion. In an attempt for inclusive language, men remain an unchanging, unified class but there is not the same recognition of a class of women?
hi Niyah, i was drawing on Melinda Cooper’s book and existing welfare terminology for that section which names “men” and “women” or “fathers” and “mothers” which is why i used those terms. i would prefer to use inclusive language throughout but when drawing on specific policies or other writers, it’s complicated to change their categories. i hope readers will assume that these categories are fluid and artificial. thank you for reading!
This is very thorough & illuminating!!