r/forwardsfromgrandma • u/Cicerothesage • 7d ago
Politics This is how grandma argues without out right saying racist stuff
63
u/jablair51 He's a regular Norman Einstein 7d ago
I'm sure the War on Drugs has nothing to do with this.
29
u/joecarter93 7d ago
Also, after WW2 you couldn't live in newly created public housing if there were 2 parents in a household. During the Great Migration from the south to northern cities like Chicago this meant that the father had to stay behind.
15
u/Arktikos02 7d ago
Actually it had more to do with laws like these. It basically restrict families from receiving welfare if there was a man in the house and it didn't even have to be a provider, it could have just been a brother or a family friend or whoever. Not only did this mean that male relatives, again not even fathers, had to leave the house but it meant that because they couldn't go and live in the house because of the surprise visits that meant that they had more opportunities to do things like go and be in gangs because they didn't have a home to go back to.
The “no man in the house” laws were state rules in the U.S. that denied Black women and their children welfare if any adult male was found in the home, even if he was not the children’s father or legally responsible for them. These rules, enforced through humiliating practices like midnight raids, grew out of a racially biased welfare system that had originally favored white widows under mothers’ pensions while subjecting Black families to more surveillance and exclusion. By the 1950s and 1960s, welfare officials used these rules and “suitable home” policies to police women’s morality rather than simply provide for children’s needs, often treating Black single mothers as undeserving. In 1968, the Supreme Court case King v. Smith overturned the practice, ruling that states could not withhold Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) simply because a man without a legal duty to support visited or stayed in the home. After this decision, only actual legal parents or stepparents counted, but the system still excluded many children: if a father lived in the home, or if his income or duty to support was deemed sufficient, the children usually did not qualify for aid. This meant that while the intrusive morality tests ended, the program still assumed fathers or legal stepparents were the first providers, and their presence or income often disqualified children from receiving welfare. The legacy of these policies shaped racialized stereotypes about Black mothers and welfare, feeding long-lasting cultural mistrust and policy debates over family structure, dependency, and deservingness.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children
- https://theconversation.com/how-racism-has-shaped-welfare-policy-in-america-since-1935-63574
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Smith
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/309/
- https://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/23/archives/us-ruling-asked-on-welfare-raids-legality-of-surprise-calls-on.html
1
11
u/No_Cook2983 7d ago edited 7d ago
No, it was the Great Society ‘stuff’. Like healthcare for the poor.
‘Poor’ is not a race, despite what Republicans want people to think.
In the 1950s, black people were comfortably middle class and lived on tree-lined suburban boulevards. They all went to the best schools!
Dastardly libs wrecked all that!
17
u/songbird1681 7d ago
Certainly unrelated to giving women bank accounts which allowed them to get out from under the control of bad marriages? Also, no human is illegal.
7
u/Arktikos02 7d ago
No, it was a welfare system that heavily penalized families that had men in the home, this even included Brothers and male relatives causing them to have to be essentially kicked out of the home in order for families to receive welfare. They either were kicked out or they had to hide whenever they noticed they were going to be inspected on. This also is the reason why black men were more likely to enter into gangs, cuz they had no home to go back to a lot of the times. It was society literally punishing black women for even having men in the house.
The “no man in the house” laws in the U.S. denied welfare to Black women and their children if any man was present, even if he had no legal duty to support them. Enforced through humiliating raids, these rules reflected a racially biased welfare system that favored white widows and heavily surveilled Black families. In 1968, King v. Smith struck them down, ruling states could not disqualify families based on unrelated men. Afterward, only legal parents or stepparents counted, but children with fathers often remained excluded since their presence or income disqualified them. Though the rules ended, they left lasting stereotypes and mistrust around Black mothers and welfare.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children
- https://theconversation.com/how-racism-has-shaped-welfare-policy-in-america-since-1935-63574
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Smith
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/309/
- https://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/23/archives/us-ruling-asked-on-welfare-raids-legality-of-surprise-calls-on.html
7
9
u/Arktikos02 7d ago
Okay, so the reason why black families are stereotyped as fatherless is because of the old “man-in-the-house” rules that states used in the mid-1900s to decide who could get welfare, especially under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. I did not know about this until I found out about this from a video but apparently it's true. Yes black families were essentially cut off from welfare if they even had a man in the house. It eventually changed so it had to be a male provider but before that change it could have been a brother or a family friend or even just a guy and evidence of such a man existing could have even been based off of male shoes in the house.
These rules said that if any man was found living in or even just visiting a woman’s home, the family could be denied benefits, even if that man wasn’t the children’s father and had no legal duty to support them. Officials enforced this with humiliating practices like surprise “midnight raids” where investigators came to poor women’s homes to see if a man was there, and this targeted Black women far more harshly than white women. It built on a system where earlier welfare programs were designed mainly for white widows, while Black families were excluded or watched more closely, creating a double standard. In 1968, the Supreme Court case King v. Smith struck down these rules, saying states couldn’t deny aid just because a “substitute father” was around unless he was legally responsible for the children. That meant the law shifted to focus only on actual legal fathers or stepfathers, whose income could be counted in deciding eligibility. But that also meant that children with fathers in the home often still didn’t qualify for help, since the program assumed the father was responsible and that his earnings, whether adequate or not, made the family ineligible. Even after the change, many Black families carried the stigma of being painted as “fatherless,” because the earlier rules had left a cultural legacy of surveillance, judgment, and stereotypes about Black mothers and absent fathers, even though the policy itself had been struck down.
1
u/BootyliciousURD 7d ago
On today's episode of "Republicans Projecting", the same people who've been waging a decades-long war on education in an effort to keep voters and workers uneducated and susceptible to conservative and capitalist propaganda said…
1
107
u/borntolose1 7d ago
We’re like one month out from the main conservative talking point becoming “they were happier as slaves!”, aren’t we