Stephanie Coontz's Essay 'We Always Stood On Our Own'

In the United States, having the willingness to work and being able to rely on your own resources and capabilities without asking for help is seen as the ideal American way. This mentality is part of the belief of self-reliance; the ability to provide for your own needs without dependency on others. Stephanie Coontz (1992) talks in her essay We Always Stood on Our Own Two Feet about the importance of self-reliance within the American family. People saw this value as the standard for a family within our society, and any type of help needed was provided within the family itself. However, families have actually depended on outside resources since way before. In this paper I will argue the misconception that Americans have by believing self-reliance

is the ideal way for a family nowadays to survive, this ideology has influenced the shaping of social policies that make mothering unnecessarily difficult in American society.
The myth of self-reliance American began when the eastern colonists claimed to have built a land out of nothing.

As Coontz (2011) mentions, these settlers could have not been able to survive without the abundant resources of game, plants and berries that were already on this land thanks to the agriculture abilities of Native Americans. These resources gave settlers the opportunity to survive and begin their journey on this land, however this did not mean families were self-reliant. The simple fact that from the moment the settlers came to America and began their lives with resources from the Native Americans can already rule out the characteristic of self-reliance from our past as Americans. From there on, many families depended on help from the community. Coontz (2011) points out that families depended on church institutions, neighbors, courts, and government officials for their survival. Without forgetting about the millions of dollars spent on acquiring land by the government and then being sold to private individuals, something families themselves did not accomplish. Regardless of all this aid, the mentality of self-reliance stuck with the settlers for many years to come. As this belief continued to resonate in American’s heads, the misconception of them doing everything on their own persisted; people could not help but implement this belief onto families and

society.
After industrialization began, home and work were not longer in the same place, forcing men to go out and work. During the 1950’s, the idea of self-reliance became reinforced within the American people. At this time, the Federal GI benefits, the implementation of The National Defense Education Act, production and employment increased helping families improve their living without realizing that this “family improvement” had came from government aid. You can say, families at this time erroneously thought to have the ability to fulfill their tasks and not need to depend on outside resources. Men and women were part of the breadwinning family ideal. The breadwinning family during the fifties was the type of family were men could afford to be the only provider, while the woman stayed at home and cared for the children. These families felt as if they did not need help. Beginning in the 1970’s men’s wages began to decline, putting both men and women in the labor force. It was at this time that the self-reliant mentality really took a hit. Men and women could no longer “handle their own tasks”, now they were forced to struggle. Both parents now were faced with the challenge of caring for a family and working at the same time. Before the “self-reliant family” was able to survive on their own, but now the financial instability did not allow them. Whether it was a money or time, parents could no longer do equal labor for the family and work. Since men had been the ones to initially work, and women stayed home to focus on the family, jobs did not feel the need to accommodate employees and their families. When women joined the labor force, jobs were not suited for a full-time employee and parent yet these jobs had no intentions to change.
The lack of family recognition and the importance of parents fulfilling their dual roles as employees and parents; has caused strains within American families. Depending on the family’s financial stability would determine the magnitude of the strain the family will face, therefore the less money available the bigger the strain.
Since poor women have more financial instability it is clear that outside help would be ideal, unfortunately the “self-reliant family” mentality prevents mothers and families like these of receiving the adequate help and/or feeling guilty for receiving it.

According to Sharon Hays in her book Flat Broke with Children (2013), she points the limited resources that exist for mothers and families like these. She mentions the various programs that currently do exist for these mothers such as SNAP, a program that aids in money for food as well as other helping with taxes such as the Earned Income Tax, TANF an aid for families in need, and Medicaid covers a limited amount of medical and dental expenses. Although such programs do exist, she emphasizes the requirements as well as the stereotype held for the recipient’s of these programs. These cash assistance programs aid a smaller amount of money than what realistically would be needed in order to feed or provide for a family. Now, to even be able to receive these scare resources requires mothers to have a low paying job or undergo many obstacles to obtain or maintain government help until the family is able to overcome their crisis. They are heavily criticized for receiving help and not being able to provide for their own and not fulfilling the American value of “self-reliance”. Women with these struggles are faced upon a situation where due to their circumstances, they cannot provide as much as the rest. If we were to

look at minimum wage and the unequal distribution of resources and lack of help from the government we could understand why within our own society some families simply cannot stay afloat. Coontz (2011) talks about the myths of being on welfare in We Always Stood On Our Two Feet; some of these stemmed from the ideology of self-reliance. For example, one common myth is that mothers on welfare lack a work ethic; therefore, they are responsible for their financial instability. That’s why programs like TANF emphasize a work-ethnic by having these poor mothers apply to a variety of low-paying jobs within a month. These jobs typically don’t accommodate to a mother’s schedule, but TANF doesn’t really care.
Middle class families do not stay far behind. We must look at the difference that exists within these two types of families; a low-income family is humiliated and scrutinized for the help being given. The help for a low-income family is more impactful for their survival unlike a middle class family where the help they receive is less impactful therefore they are less criticized. A middle class mother likely able to hold down a better paying job than low-income mothers, however, this doesn’t make raising children easier. As Schulte (2014) discusses in her book Overwhelmed, mothers suffer discrimination for pregnancy or miss out on promotions for their “lack of time” due to family responsibilities. She talks about this coming from a misinterpretation of an “ideal worker”, the employee that is always at work being busy and fulfilling his duties, therefore any flexible scheduling or time away from the office put parents in a bad situation where their work ethic is disvalued (Schulte 2014).
Whether mothers are low-income or middle class they definitely suffer in various ways when it comes to being an employee and a mother. Although the type and severity of injustice towards working mother differs mostly due to their income and resources available, these actions have taken a bigger toll. According to Hays (2003), such programs like TANF have actually contradicted the ultimate goal of helping mother’s succeeding in a near future. Many rules and sanctions placed on poor families have made their struggle only bigger, proving the lack of interest the government has placed on struggling families. According to Crittenden (2001), the number of successful women without children has been larger than women with children. This has caused mothers to see that inability of family and employment working out together. This lack of help pushes women further from motherhood; we must remember these children are part of our future human capital. As Crittenden (2011) mentions human capital constitutes 59% of economic growth, therefore people with or without children will depend on this. If as a country we do not help families and only take advantage of the human capital these children give us, then as a country we are “free riders”. This is the case for us Americans, within the 195 countries on this world the United States is one of the only two countries alongside Papa New Guinea that does not mandate paid maternity leave. In comparison to France who does value the importance of healthy children, we also stay far behind; they offer low cost childcare, paid maternity leave as well as a shorter work week. Therefore, still having a mentality of “self-reliance” only incentives the wrong idea of parents being able to do everything on their own. We must go back to the moment the European settlers got to this land and picked up berries that weren’t theirs and survived of others resource, we as Americans must understand we have never been self-reliant and help is needed and deserved.