Poor and Proud: How Does Being Poor Affect a Family?

I recently read an article that made my blood boil. It was your average every day article based solely on a stereotype often handed down from one generation to another. This particular stereotype portrays all people living below the poverty level as stupid creatures not intelligent enough to help themselves, or even raise their young so that they will have the intelligence to better themselves as adults. The reason this article offended me so deeply is that I myself grew up in a home well below the poverty level, and my parents still live daily on an income that is below poverty level. Yet somehow, in all of their stupidity my parents managed to raise three children who not only do not now fit the stereotypes portrayed in the article that I read, but that never have. In fact, I cannot recall one single stereotype in the article that fit my family. But, then again who knows, maybe we were only typical of all of the other families in my mostly poor neighborhood, and not the country at large.

The first stereotype portrayed by the article was that procreation in poor families is simply a matter left to chance, that the inaccessibility of medical care makes it impossible for them to control this in any fashion. Well, let me start by saying a person living below the poverty level is going to be well aware of any social or governmental programs, which will help provide them with the things that they need in their day to day existence. Being poor also does not eliminate the chance that they were born with a mind. So, I will tell you that as someone who grew up in poverty the combination of the two was enough to enable most of us to figure out that the local health department offered yearly female examinations and birth control pills on a sliding income scale based on income and family size. They also offered this for no cost to any girls who were sexually active and wanted a means of birth control without letting their parents know. So, I guess there really are means for the poor to control their procreation without expensive doctor visits.

The author goes on to state how different socialization is in families living below the poverty line due to the demands of work on the family. Citing the necessity of parents working different shifts, or odd shifts in the fast food industry as a reason that the families never get to spend time together. I would disagree with this view of the differences in socialization on two different points. The first being that regardless of the shifts worked by the parents in a poor family, when they are not at work a lack of funds to do anything else would almost guarantee that they would be home with their family. Creating a scenario where there is actually more time spent as a family than when people had more money, simply based on the fact that there was no money to do anything other than be with your family which costs nothing. The second reason I disagree with the idea that the socialization of the family is severely affected by the poverty level is this spending time with a person's family is a matter of their personal priorities not a reflection of their income level. How many corporate executives only see their families when they are traveling to some exotic location for vacation, or come home when they have already gone to bed because of long hours spent at the office? I guess this is a reflection of their poverty level, too.

The economic cooperation issue that the author brings to light in the article that I was reading basically says that because of divorce many women are forced into poverty. She attributes that to the fact that a lot of men do not pay child support. I would honestly say this is not a problem created by the poverty level of a family, but rather a cause of poverty in some families. I really do not see how the financial responsibility issues of some men could be a reflection of effect on the poverty level of a family.

She goes on to state that families living in poverty never learn how to show love or intimacy because of high stress jobs with low pay, or shift work. I would think this could be an issue regardless of a person's income level. High stress positions are not exclusive to low paying jobs, in fact often the higher up a person goes within any corporation the greater their stress level becomes. The author also discusses the fact that parents are often forced to work multiple jobs, or do not have the money for the extras in life such as going out to movies or theme parks. While this can be true does the author really believe that the fact that their parent is working multiple jobs because they love them and want them to have the things they need is completely lost on children simply because they are poor? Is it really possible that someone believes that the purchase of a movie pass or theme park ticket is the only possible way to show love? Stressed out parents can arise at any income level, so the inability to love or show intimacy cannot simply be laid on a person's income level. But, rather it would take a deeper social review to what actually went on in the person's individual life, and what parenting styles were seen there, not what their income level was.

She goes on to blame the problems in social role development on the fact that there is often an absent father in low-income families. Going on to say it leaves male children unable to identify how to be adequate providers for their families or with no knowledge of what is required to be the protector of their families. I would say that the opposite of this is true. Male children brought up by their mothers often instinctually develop a sense of being a provider and protector to their family, simply because they assume the role set out as by our society as being a male role earlier in their life than those who have a readily available older male in the home. She also says that girls in these single parent homes yearn so bad for male attention due to the lack of a father figure that they make poor decisions when choosing who to be with. I would be of a mind to think, that the example that is set by the woman in these families in succeeding to keep her family together and get the things they need (even if it is just the bare necessities) would just serve to show her that a woman can do it alone. The life decisions she makes about who to mate with or marry are no more a reflection of the income level she was raised at than the decision of a socialite to marry a construction worker.

Also blamed on the poverty level was an unacceptable regulation of sexual behavior. It was blamed on poor communication from parent to child because of stress or a lack of time due to work. It was also laid to the fact that children living below poverty level aren't as well supervised as their wealthier peers. Honestly, all anyone has to do is look around to see that poverty level has nothing to do with teenagers having sex, or teenage girls getting pregnant. Even the most affluent families deal with these issues. Teenage sex and teenage pregnancy can both be blamed on the same exact thing, teenage hormones. And just so everyone is clear on this, poor and rich kids alike have hormones.

Does poverty have an effect on a family? Of course it does. However, the effect that poverty has on families is as diverse as the families themselves. Their level of poverty will drive some families closer, and will drive some apart. The determination of some people to squarely lay to rest the short comings of people on their income level is a theory that is flawed from the start, simply because an income does not make a person, or a family, better or worse it simply in this case a measure for society to determine their worth. When one-day people can look at someone and determine what they are based on the individuals actions and beliefs, I guess we will be able to say that this system of social prejudice and stereotyping has been laid to rest. Until then, I will probably be doomed to occasionally stumbling upon articles that make my blood boil.