Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States

Rating:
Summary: Explores the changing language and evolving law
Review: How do the politics of choice shape issues and laws surrounding adoption, abortion and welfare in this country? Rickie Solinger's Beggars And Choosers explores the changing language and evolving law since Roe V. Wade, examining historical distinctions between ethnic and social classes and how new politics and issues influence concepts of choice. An eye-opening presentation of how one woman's choice is another's burden.

Rating:
Summary: a real eye opener
Review: I consider myself pretty aware when it comes to reprodcutive rights issues, but after reading "Begger & Chooser" I realized that there was a lot I didn't know.

I think Solinger does an amazing job of presenting a historical account of how the the politics of choice have moved from a rights based issue to a consumer issue. But, I was a bit frustrated and disappointed that she didn't offer any ideas of how these problem can and should be addressed.

Rating:
Summary: Ambitious project but falls short in some places
Review: Impressed by her earlier work in "Wake Up Little Susie" I purchased Ms. Solinger's reccent work with anticipation of equally dynamic thought. In this work, she suggests herself and other feminists have failed to permanently secure public policy victories previously gained because of replacement of "rights" with choice in the name of political expidiency.

Within the context of "choice" freedom is merited out to those groups of women that meet the dominant society's preferences. Race and ecconomic status have been used by politicians and political pundits to divide women from eachother---and most importantly, from being recognized as full citizens under the law.

The book's interweaving of abortion access, adequate welfare provisions, and ethical adoption is admirable, but it stands to be overshaddowed by critical ommissions and simplifications.

Identifying herself as a pro-choice woman of the baby boom generation, Solinger then audaciously claims the "Back Alley Butcher" was a PR creation, since conditions without legal abortion were never as bad as fellow feminists had suggested. Charging the phrase was rooted in political expediency, she somehow overlooks that a nation allowing women to be slaughtered and maimed wholesale in lieu of competent medical care can be easily seen to wage war on the very right of women to be treated as human beings and citizens.

This text gives the impression Solinger did not actually bother to test her political theory (adopted for whatever reason) against the gargantuan presence of illegal-abortion related injury and fatality statistics. Even though she has repeatedly reminded the reader of her staunchly pro-choice credentials, the information in this portion of the book sounds like an anti-reproductive rights broad side and therefore actually undercuts her own argument.

It is profoundly difficult to heed Solinger's call for a radical feminist overhaul of public policy when misinformation from the very classist and racist forces she opposes are held as sound historical research. Prior to the legalization of abortion, poor women of color were more likely to die from illegal procedures than their white affluent sisters.

In conclusion, this book would be acceptable when used in conjunction with a medium-sized reading list, but should never be studied as a single text on reproductive public policy.

Rating:
Summary: Is Choice a Misnomer?
Review: Rickie Solinger has written several books that deal with the reproductive rights of women. "Wake Up Little Susie" which dealt with unwed pregnancy and the cultural climate which promoted adoption prior to the legalization of abortion in the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade was a particularly insightful book. She has also written about women who obtained illegal abortions prior to 1973 in her book "The Abortionist".

Those who have read her earlier books will recognize some of her sources and conclusions. Although, the research she did years ago is very valuable. Those familiar with Rickie's work realize that her greatest asset as a writer is her ability to review and analyze recent history and use it to demonstrate the truth of certain hypotheses she has developed about the treatment of women.

The central premise of "Beggar and Choosers" is that society has developed a dynamic about discussing the reproductive rights of women that focuses on the word "choice". In Rickie's view, this is flawed reasoning because women and particularly poor and minority women, don't really have the "choices" we believe that they do when it comes to preventing pregnancies, obtaining abortions, or raising children when they lack the resources to do so in a manner that is culturally acceptable in America today.

Instead of focusing on "choice", Rickie believes society should focus instead on "rights". The right to decide how many children one wants, the right to decide upon an abortion, etc. Such a "rights-based model" would work far more in the interests of women than this "choice" model which only benefits those who, in her estimation, can afford the respective choices.

The problem is that while Rickie is quick to talk about what rights ought to be, she doesn't explore or discuss what the cost or consequences of granting what these rights might be. If all women are going to have the right to have as many children as they--regardless of whether they can afford to support them--someone is going to have pay for it. Presumably, these are the taxpayers who will pay through higher costs for AFDC, federal child care programs, food stamps, medicaid etc.

Rickie deals with the discrimination, stigmatization, and abuse which unwed and single mothers have faced in our society. Its not a pretty picture and attempts by political figures to assert that all people on public assistance were "welfare queens" or cheats is some of the worst demagoguery that has occurred by politicians. Nevertheless, Rickie never stops to ask about the legitimate negative social consequences that arise from phenomenon of single parenthood: increased poverty; increased crime and delinquency; and higher school drop out rates among the children. Perhaps,in light of this, society does have some interest in trying to maintain the viability of a two-parent household.

Finally, Solinger presents poor and working class women as having no choices. In reality, I don't think this is exactly correct. Choices often do exist, its simply that they aren't "good choices". What must be factored into it as well, is that all individuals have some responsibility for their choices, or lack of good choices. If we deny this, we deny the very notion of freedom and liberty. Although, such reasoning should never become an excuse to ignore the plight of the poor and underprivileged in society.

The book is well-researched and Solinger presents us, again, with an interesting point and reaches conclusions about that point. The problem is that she doesn't present the whole picture and as a result there are flaws in her conclusions. It is stimulating and should serve as a focus for discussion and questions, rather than being treated as an end itself.

Mark

Rating:
Summary: Preliminarily thought-provoking but downhill from there
Review: To my mind, a book (whether fiction or non-fiction) deserves 1 star if it is just garbage, with no redeeming qualities at all. By that standard, this book is clearly not garbage. It is serious and scholarly, it is thought-provoking and it is well written by someone who clearly has expertise in the field. Beyond that however, I had some major problems both with her premise and her remedy (or, perhaps more accurately, her absence of a remedy).

Her central premise is that by phrasing the issue of childbirth in terms of choice, we do a disservice to poor women, because when they have children, we can then accuse them of having made a bad "choice"; whereas if we think of childbirth as a "right" as we did in the 60's, then, presumably, no negative stigma would attach to poor women having babies, since they were simply exercising "rights" rather than exercising "choice".

I disagree with this analysis on a number of levels. The problem is not "choice" vs. "rights", as if it were simply an issue of nomenclature; the problem is that we happen to live in a society and in a governmental system which is simply too democratic and too capitalist (read: too unsocialist) to ever be able to solve the problem she bemoans. And frankly, I'm not sure that I even agree that it's a "problem" in the first place.

My family and friends are not close to the socioeconomic class which Ms. Solinger is concerned with. Some of our friends have no children, some have 1, 2, 3, or 4 or more. And yet, whenever I hear them discussing whether or not to have another child, the issue ALWAYS arises: Can we afford to have another child? The couple in question may decide that they can afford to, but the point is the the discussion always comes up, and reasonably so. If we felt that we couldn't afford another child--or even one child--then we wouldn't have one. And what's the matter with that?

And yet, why should that issue be any different for poor people than for middle or upper class people? At one point near the end, the author says "it seems most Americans embrace a proposition that is profoundly problematic in a democratic society, that motherhood should be a class privilege." The problem with this lament--and indeed the problem with most of the book on this point--is that the supposed solution to this "problem" is nowhere to be found.

In the first part of the book, it seemed that Ms. Solinger was primarily unhappy with societal attitudes towards poor women who have children, which explains her dissatisfaction with the term "choice" over the concept of "rights". On that score, it is my view that even if the nomenclature changed, societal attitudes would not change one iota. However, by the end of the book, she seems to be saying that it is not fair, not right, not democratic, that economic stumbling blocks should get in the way of poor people's ability to have children. In other words, there was a shift from an argument about attitude towards an argument about economics. (See in particuar the final chapter about "motherhood as a class privilege" which is more or less the guts of the book.)

But where is she going with this argument? Though she never comes right out and says so in so many words, the implicit answer is obvious--she wants the government to subsidize the poor woman's "right" to bear children. But this is simply unworkable in America at least to the degree she would like. And where does it end? As I understand her preference, it is that every poor woman should be given a "livable" stipend by the government for each child, and then presumably we should multiply that stipend by the number of children, without limit. After all, it would be completely inconsistent with her argument to advocate some kind of arbitrary cutoff as to how many children a woman can have. After all, it childbirth is a "right", it goes without saying that you cannot impose an arbitrary cutoff as to how often that "right" can be exercised.

Last year, Ann Critenden wrote "The Price of Motherhood", which is subtitled "Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued." In that book, she presents a whole smorgasbord of proposals which would put more money in the pockets of women and more specifically, mothers. On the last page of the book, she acknowledges that if even a few of the proposals were enacted, the result would be, in her words, "a massive shift of income to women". Nearly all of her proposals would be paid for by the government in the form of enormous tax increases. Throughout much of the book, she waxes rhapsodically about Sweden and their "enlightened" system.

I mention this because I feel that Ms. Solinger's book falls into the exact same category. While not being quite as blunt as Ms. Crittenden, she is in essence saying the same thing--the government should pay for the costs of bearing and raising children of poor women and pay them alot more than it does now. The problem is that we do not live in a quasi-socialist society like Sweden with its crushing tax burdens. Nor is that bad thing. In any society as free and laissez-faire and democratic as America, it is a guarantee that people will fall on all ends of the spectrum. But if she really wants the government to step in to the massive degree which is implicit in her argument, then perhaps she simply doesn't like our form of government. And perhaps that is her real complaint-not whether we speak in terms of "choice" versus "rights."

Rating:
Summary: Preliminarily thought-provoking but downhill from there
Review: To my mind, a book (whether fiction or non-fiction) deserves 1 star if it is just garbage, with no redeeming qualities at all. By that standard, this book is clearly not garbage. It is serious and scholarly, it is thought-provoking and it is well written by someone who clearly has expertise in the field. Beyond that however, I had some major problems both with her premise and her remedy (or, perhaps more accurately, her absence of a remedy).

Her central premise is that by phrasing the issue of childbirth in terms of choice, we do a disservice to poor women, because when they have children, we can then accuse them of having made a bad "choice"; whereas if we think of childbirth as a "right" as we did in the 60's, then, presumably, no negative stigma would attach to poor women having babies, since they were simply exercising "rights" rather than exercising "choice".

I disagree with this analysis on a number of levels. The problem is not "choice" vs. "rights", as if it were simply an issue of nomenclature; the problem is that we happen to live in a society and in a governmental system which is simply too democratic and too capitalist (read: too unsocialist) to ever be able to solve the problem she bemoans. And frankly, I'm not sure that I even agree that it's a "problem" in the first place.

My family and friends are not close to the socioeconomic class which Ms. Solinger is concerned with. Some of our friends have no children, some have 1, 2, 3, or 4 or more. And yet, whenever I hear them discussing whether or not to have another child, the issue ALWAYS arises: Can we afford to have another child? The couple in question may decide that they can afford to, but the point is the the discussion always comes up, and reasonably so. If we felt that we couldn't afford another child--or even one child--then we wouldn't have one. And what's the matter with that?

And yet, why should that issue be any different for poor people than for middle or upper class people? At one point near the end, the author says "it seems most Americans embrace a proposition that is profoundly problematic in a democratic society, that motherhood should be a class privilege." The problem with this lament--and indeed the problem with most of the book on this point--is that the supposed solution to this "problem" is nowhere to be found.

In the first part of the book, it seemed that Ms. Solinger was primarily unhappy with societal attitudes towards poor women who have children, which explains her dissatisfaction with the term "choice" over the concept of "rights". On that score, it is my view that even if the nomenclature changed, societal attitudes would not change one iota. However, by the end of the book, she seems to be saying that it is not fair, not right, not democratic, that economic stumbling blocks should get in the way of poor people's ability to have children. In other words, there was a shift from an argument about attitude towards an argument about economics. (See in particuar the final chapter about "motherhood as a class privilege" which is more or less the guts of the book.)

But where is she going with this argument? Though she never comes right out and says so in so many words, the implicit answer is obvious--she wants the government to subsidize the poor woman's "right" to bear children. But this is simply unworkable in America at least to the degree she would like. And where does it end? As I understand her preference, it is that every poor woman should be given a "livable" stipend by the government for each child, and then presumably we should multiply that stipend by the number of children, without limit. After all, it would be completely inconsistent with her argument to advocate some kind of arbitrary cutoff as to how many children a woman can have. After all, it childbirth is a "right", it goes without saying that you cannot impose an arbitrary cutoff as to how often that "right" can be exercised.

Last year, Ann Critenden wrote "The Price of Motherhood", which is subtitled "Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued." In that book, she presents a whole smorgasbord of proposals which would put more money in the pockets of women and more specifically, mothers. On the last page of the book, she acknowledges that if even a few of the proposals were enacted, the result would be, in her words, "a massive shift of income to women". Nearly all of her proposals would be paid for by the government in the form of enormous tax increases. Throughout much of the book, she waxes rhapsodically about Sweden and their "enlightened" system.

I mention this because I feel that Ms. Solinger's book falls into the exact same category. While not being quite as blunt as Ms. Crittenden, she is in essence saying the same thing--the government should pay for the costs of bearing and raising children of poor women and pay them alot more than it does now. The problem is that we do not live in a quasi-socialist society like Sweden with its crushing tax burdens. Nor is that bad thing. In any society as free and laissez-faire and democratic as America, it is a guarantee that people will fall on all ends of the spectrum. But if she really wants the government to step in to the massive degree which is implicit in her argument, then perhaps she simply doesn't like our form of government. And perhaps that is her real complaint-not whether we speak in terms of "choice" versus "rights."