<p> Linda Gordon, “State Caretakers,” Pitied but Not Entitled (1994)</p><p>Begin by taking the list of questions that Gordon says on the bottom of p. 37 that Americans asked as they debated aiding poor mothers and children in the Progressive Era. Writing shortly before TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) replaced AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), she said these questions (below) “still dominate welfare policy discussions today.” Decide how she thinks they were answered then. </p><p>How can society help single mothers without encouraging single motherhood. What is the proper role of women? What entitles a person to help? Who is “deserving?” Who should be required to work for wages? What if wages are too low? Does the state have an obligation to police the behavior of those who receive public funds? What is an entitlement? What is charity?</p><p>In addition, think about these aspects of her historical account of the origins and meaning of mothers’ pensions:</p><p>Who—which kinds of people and groups—made the case for public pensions to support single mothers and their children in this period? Mention the different and at times conflicting motives of those involved—including the poor single mothers themselves? Did men and women differ in their reasons for supporting this reform?</p><p>Did it win support mainly to help mothers? Or children? Was this movement in part a criticism of the “putting out” system in which poor children by thousands had ended up in fosterage? Was a need identified that was new and therefore not able to be met by traditional charities? Was the case made on the grounds that poor women had a right to support? Or that society had an interest in keeping families together? If the latter, why? </p><p>Why did so many poor women need pensions? What form of relief did they ask for? How did what they wanted differ from what they new mothers’ pensions provided?</p><p>What controls did the pension programs impose on recipients? Whose values determined what was a “suitable home?” Who was ineligible? Was social control in these forms an aspect of the progressive drive for Americanization? How would that work? </p><p>How adequate was the pension system? Why? How was the need for it justified (or not) in different ways by maternalists, labor reformers, ERA supporters, and by those who believed in “family wage?” What was the defense of mothers’ pensions as an entitlement? Why was this defense weaker in the US than in Britain? </p><p>Do you see any similarities between these programs and “affirmative action for whites?”</p>