A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the United States to describe women who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation. Sensational reporting on welfare fraud began during the early-1960s, appearing in general interest magazines such as Readers Digest. The term entered the American lexicon during Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign when he described a "welfare queen" from Chicago's South Side.^[1] Since then, it has become a stigmatizing label placed on recidivist poor mothers, with studies showing that it often carries gendered and racial connotations.^[2][3] Although American women can no longer stay on welfare indefinitely, the term continues to shape American dialogue on poverty.^[3]

Contents 1 Origin 2 Gendered and racial stereotypes 3 See also 4 References

[edit] Origin

The idea of welfare fraud goes back to the early-1960s; although the offenders in those stories were typically male or faceless.^[1] There were, however, journalistic exposés on what would become known as welfare queens. Readers Digest and Look magazine published sensational stories about mothers abusing the system.^[1] These stories, like those that followed into the 1990s, focused on female welfare recipients engaged in "unacceptable" behavior such as having illegitimate children, using AFDC money to buy drugs, or showing little desire to work. These women were understood to be social pariahs, draining society of valuable resources while engaging in immoral behavior.^[1] Despite these early examples, stories about able-bodied men collecting welfare continued until the 1970s, at which point women became the main focus of welfare fraud stories.^[1]

The term "welfare queen" is most often associated with Ronald Reagan who brought the idea to a national audience. During his 1976 presidential campaign, Reagan would tell the story of a woman from Chicago's South Side who was arrested for welfare fraud:

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."^[4]

Since Reagan never named a particular woman, the description can be viewed as an example of dramatic hyperbole. Despite claims that the woman never existed,^[5][6] the story seems to have been drawn from newspaper reports at the time. In 1976, the New York Times reported that a woman from Chicago was charged with using four aliases and of cheating the government out of $8,000. She appeared again in the newspaper while the Illinois Attorney General continued investigating her case.^[7] The woman was ultimately found guilty of "welfare fraud and perjury" in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.^[8] In addition, the Associated Press reported on March 8, 1977^[9] that "Joel Edelman, executive director of the Illinois Legislative Advisory Committee on Public Aid, has said his committee found that from early 1973 until mid-1974, [the woman] 'used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 for medical assistance, cash assistance and bonus cash food stamps.' Edelman said, 'She went from district to district. She had a collection of wigs and was a master of disguise. She organized people and upwards of 100 aliases were used.'"

Reagan’s use of the term was related to a growing unease among New Right politicians about the perceived expansion of the welfare apparatus. Touching on the cornerstones of American political philosophy (i.e., individualism and egalitarianism), the New Right sought to form a top-down coalition with big business and white working-class voters to undo the popular Great Society programs of the 1960s.^[3]

In response to Reagan's use of the term, Susan Douglas, a professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan, writes:

"He specialized in the exaggerated, outrageous tale that was almost always unsubstantiated, usually false, yet so sensational that it merited repeated recounting… And because his ‘examples’ of welfare queens drew on existing stereotypes of welfare cheats and resonated with news stories about welfare fraud, they did indeed gain real traction."^[1]

The term "welfare queen" became a catchphrase during anti-welfare dialogue and eventually became a permanent feature of American folklore. Media hype from the 1980s to the 1990s also aided in perpetuating the idea.^[1] The term came under criticism for its supposed use as a political tool and for its derogatory connotations. Criticism focused on the fact that individuals committing welfare fraud were, in reality, a very small percentage of those legitimately receiving welfare.^[1] Use of the term was also seen as an attempt to stereotype recipients in order to undermine public support for AFDC.^[3]

The welfare queen idea became an integral part of a larger discourse on welfare reform, especially during the bipartisan effort to reform the welfare system under Bill Clinton.^[2] Anti-welfare advocates ended AFDC in 1996 and overhauled the system with the introduction of TANF. Despite the new system’s time-limits, the welfare queen legacy has endured and continues to shape public perception.^[3]

[edit] Gendered and racial stereotypes

Studies show that the welfare queen idea has roots in both race and gender. Franklin Gilliam, the author of a public perception experiment on welfare, concludes that:

"While poor women of all races get blamed for their impoverished condition, African-American women commit the most egregious violations of American values. This story line taps into stereotypes about both women (uncontrolled sexuality) and African-Americans (laziness)."

Studies show that the public dramatically overestimates the number of African-Americans in poverty, with the cause of this attributed to media trends and its portrayal of poverty.^[10] Political scientist Martin Gilens found that the media shifted its focus on poverty from white Appalachian farmers and factory closings during the 1960s, to a very darker image following civil unrest in major US cities.^[10] By 1973, 75% of magazine pictures featured African Americans as the face of welfare, despite African Americans making up only 35% of welfare recipients.^[10] This darkening of welfare recipients was accompanied by a feminization of poverty during the same time, where from the 1970s onwards, women became the predominant face of poverty.^[3][1]

Franklin Gilliam’s study examined the intersection of people’s attitudes on race, gender, and the media. The experiment showed an 11-minute news clip, with a welfare story embedded at some point in the clip, to two groups of participants. Each welfare clip had a different recipient -- one with a white woman and the other with a black woman. The results showed that people were extremely accurate in their recall of the race and gender of the black female welfare recipient, confirming that the gendered and racial narrative had entered common knowledge and that implicit associations were often made.^[3]

[edit] See also

• Welfare fraud
• Stereotypes of blacks
• Feminization of poverty
• Media hype
• Poverty pimp

[edit] References

[11] Welfare Is a Cancer New York Times Apr 1, 1971; pg. 41

[12] Guess Who's in Charge The Washington Post November 27, 1981, Friday, Final Edition

[13] Ronald Reagan, 1980 Presidential Inaugural address