We cannot verify your location
Browse Book and Journal Content on Project MUSE
The Thorny Relationship between Philanthropic Women and Feminists over Child Welfare

From: Journal of Women's History
Volume 21, Number 1, Spring 2009
pp. 185-191 | 10.1353/jowh.0.0068

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Thorny Relationship between Philanthropic Women and Feminists over Child Welfare
Magda Fahrni. Montreal Families and Postwar Reconstruction. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. xii + 279 pp.; ill. ISBN 0-8020-4888-9 (pb).
Judith Fingard and Jane Guildford, eds. Mothers of the Municipality: Women, Work, and Social Policy in Post–1945 Halifax. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. vii + 318 pp.; ill. ISBN 0-8020-8693-4 (pb); 0-8020-3922-7 (cl).
Maureen Fitzgerald. Habits of Compassion: Irish Catholic Nuns and the Origins of New York's Welfare System, 1830–1920. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006. x + 298 pp. ISBN 0-252-07282-0 (pb).
Daniel M. Giménez. Gender, Pensions and Social Citizenship in Latin America. Serie Mujer y Desarrollo, 46. Santiago, Chile: United Nations, 2005. 76 pp. ISBN 92-1-121533-1 (pb).
Steven King. Women, Welfare and Local Politics 1880–1920: 'We Might be Trusted.'Brighton, U.K.: University of Sussex Academic Press, 2006. 364 pp. ISBN 1-854519-087-4 (cl).
S. J. Kleinberg. Widows and Orphans First: The Family Economy and Social Welfare Policy, 1880–1939. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006. xiv + 230 pp. ISBN 0-2525-3020-6 (cl).
Bernadette McCauley. Who Shall Take Care of our Sick? Roman Catholic Sisters and the Development of Catholic Hospitals in New York City. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. xi + 146 pp.; ill. ISBN 0-8018-8216-8 (cl).

These books represent different approaches to the history of women, children, and the welfare state, and draw upon sources that span the Americas as well as Great Britain. Together they challenge assumptions that philanthropic women sought only to impose class values on the poor. They also question the findings of Theda Skocpol's 1992 work, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States, [End Page 185] in which she explicitly excluded philanthropy and philanthropists who specialized in mother and child welfare from having a direct influence on the formation of the welfare state. While other works have also challenged Skocpol, the books reviewed here offer new ways to refute the view that the United States had the foundations of an equitable "maternalist" welfare state. They also shed light on the formation of the welfare state internationally. Earlier critiques focused on the feminist battle to promote equality in the discriminatory welfare state and exposed the racism and class consciousness of those who practiced charity. They also focused on the ways that feminist women have shaped concepts of maternalism and the welfare state, particularly since the 1930s. Within this genre, women who engaged in or supported religious institutions that provided welfare, or who failed to express feminist consciousness, have either been criticized or labeled as conservative. Several works under review directly challenge this perspective.

S. J. Kleinberg examines the welfare state in several U.S. cities from 1880 until the implementation of Social Security in 1939. Rather than dismiss charity as unimportant, she links widow and child welfare with the birth of the welfare state by examining these policies at the municipal, state, and national levels. In so doing, she becomes one of the first New Deal historians to link charity work with progressive reforms on the local level and with national policy making. The new welfare state, according to Kleinberg, unfortunately perpetuated the racism, stigmatization of the single mother, and distrust of the immigrant population seen at the state and local levels.

Prior to the implementation of widows' and dependent children pensions, charities provided the bulk of welfare for the poor. Maternalist politics did not change the discrimination and disparities usually attributed to philanthropy. The distribution of funds varied tremendously in the three states studied, despite the belief that "Maternalism—the belief that women's presumed virtues of caring and nurturing—endow them with needs and perspectives that transcend class, racial and ethnic differences" (69). Kleinberg's comparison of Fall River, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore revealed that contrary to the previous belief in maternalist politics in the United States, the success of maternalism proved to be very uneven and particularly stigmatized African American widows who more frequently worked than their white counterparts. Nevertheless, the...