46 pages • 1 hour read
Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Good Mothering and “Being There”
Interviewees throughout Promises I Can Keep define what it means to be a good mother in terms that differ from the middle-class definition. Middle-class Americans define good mothering based on children’s successes, like academic excellence and achievements in sports or other extracurriculars. Low-income mothers, alternatively, define good mothers as those who are “there” for their children. This distills motherhood down to its core elements and presents an egalitarian idea of parenting, one that asserts that low-income mothers can be good parents.
“Being there” for one’s children takes many forms and does not center on children’s achievements or providing luxuries. By contrast, they believe it essential that a mother provides care for her children, not regularly leaving them with others to pursue her own fun or priorities. Study participant Corinda, for example, reports that a successful mother “never leaves her kids with nobody. A good mother is someone who’s always there with them, takes good care of them” (145). This creates a distinction between low-income mothers and their wealthier counterparts, who might pay for childcare and subverts the standard idea of what it means to provide for one’s child.
According to the study participants, motherhood is about self-sacrifice. This self-sacrifice extends to resources, and mothers who spend money on themselves while their children are poorly dressed, malnourished, or dirty are viewed with disdain. Participant Aleena says that she wears shoes from the discount chain Payless so that she can afford name-brand sneakers for her child. Edin and Kefalas assert that this perspective contrasts with middle-class motherhood, where there is more money to go around: “Middle-class mothers can indulge in a manicure or a night out with friends without trading off their children’s well-being to do so. Not so for poor mothers” (147). Good mothers sacrifice to make sure their children and fed, clothed, clean, and supervised.
This supervision is another important element of self-sacrifice, as Edin and Kefalas note that “[s]pending time with their children is one of the most powerful tools women like Dominique feel they can use to shield their children from the dangers of their neighborhood’s streets” (139). With this, different standards of dialogue are maintained between upper- and lower-income families. Dominique, for example, says her children can ask her anything and can discuss topics like sex with her. In contrast, Edin and Kefalas note that middle-class parents “isolate their children from the real world in a sort of cocoon where no hurtful words or harmful deeds can touch them” (140). In communities where drugs and violence are serious problems, maintaining openness with one’s children is a necessary survival tool that can help children make good decisions.
Indeed, good mothering as presented in Promises I Can Keep is about surviving under difficult circumstances. Mothers who manage to overcome obstacles like having little money but successfully rearing children are viewed as admirable figures. Good mothering is thus a way for low-income women to achieve something they can be proud of despite having fewer resources and opportunities. Good fathers should also “be there” for their children, but men who deny paternity, abandon, or abuse their partners destroy their relationships with women who strive to be good mothers. These mothers may not give their babies the father’s surname when they are born as a result. Mahkiya Washington, for instance, did not give her daughter her boyfriend’s last name because he initially denied paternity and encouraged her to terminate the pregnancy. Carrying the mother’s last name signifies that she is the one who is “there” for her child.
Socioeconomic Determinants of Family Formation
Edin and Kefalas’s study centers on the social and economic forces that shape family formation in low-income neighborhoods. Their work counters misconceptions about low-income individuals’ attitudes toward marriage and childbearing; the researchers note that “[t]he high rates of nonmarital childbearing in low-income neighborhoods like PennsPort have led some observers to charge that marriage has lost all meaning in impoverished communities” (109). They show, in contrast, that children are an essential part of life for many poor women, and these mothers highly prize marriage, much like their middle-class counterparts. However, marriage is often an unattainable goal for them because of their socioeconomic circumstances.
The body of marriageable men is slim across the eight neighborhoods Edin and Kefalas study. Their research shows that though many men want to have children with their partners, they often struggle to meet the demands of fatherhood and have difficulty coping with the changes in their relationships when their partners become pregnant. Fatherhood forces men to confront new challenges, like leaving behind drugs and alcohol, crime, and getting a steady job with wages that can support a family. Unfortunately, these are challenges that are difficult to overcome. Low-paying jobs may be available but are not always enough to provide necessities: “Though a man with a steady low-wage job might be good boyfriend material, or even worthy of a long-term commitment, such a job doesn’t usually render him ‘marriageable’” (111). With this, low-income women believe marriage is a privilege reserved for those who are financially established and have some security; they and their partner should be able to afford a small home, a car, furniture, and a modest wedding.
As such, these women refuse to depend on men for financial security. They hold that a woman’s economic independence is critical, and unwed mothers thus work to establish financial security independently before they consider marriage. This provides them and their children with protection if a marriage fails and can ensure a man acts as a good husband:
Women like Deena reason that if they have a reliable income and hold title, or partial title, to assets such as a house and car, they can control their mate’s behavior with the threat—spoken or not—that they’ll end the marriage and remove the children if their husband cheats, beats them, fails to stay working, or tries to make all the decisions (112).
The social context in which these women live thus shapes their approach to marriage. Relational poverty is rife in these neighborhoods, and women particularly express distrust of men: “[T]he hard times that often come with pregnancy and birth can transform hopeful naivete into cynicism. Thus a young mother often feels a powerful need to guard her heart” (126). The study recounts stories of men’s proposals of marriage being refused because of women’s negative experiences with their partners or other men.
Edin and Kefalas find that women are drawn to motherhood because of this very relational poverty that makes them resist marriage. Marriage is a luxury, while motherhood is a necessity. This belief, combined with the relatively low opportunity cost of having children, explains why there are so many unwed mothers in low-income neighborhoods. The mothers interviewed repeatedly state their children provide them with love and comfort they do not get from other sources. Indeed, many report having few close friends. Motherhood also gives these women purpose and a chance to prove they are good at something when other opportunities to do so are limited, creating new ways to earn respect and friendship in their communities. Young mother Aliya, for example, explains she gained respect from her neighbors and family members after becoming a mother. Children who are well-loved and cared for serve as “tangible evidence of a young mother’s importance. She is the one raising the happy, healthy, carefully dressed child. She is the one who is teacher and guide” (178). Being a good mother thus generates social capital in these neighborhoods.
The Challenges for and Resilience of Low-Income Mothers
Edin and Kefalas emphasize that the mothers they studied show great resilience in the face of challenges. The researchers note that many middle-class Americans see unwed, low-income mothers who have not completed their education as “victims” of poor conditions or “proof that American society is coming apart at the seams” (6). However, when these women’s perspectives are heard, the findings show the opposite; they see children as redemptive and essential to motherhood and serve as an important achievement. They hold it is better to have children before marriage instead of getting married at a young age and ending up divorced. They are not tragic figures. Instead, for low-income women, the true “tragedy” is childlessness, and they view divorce as a failure. By contrast, their children give them the strength to overcome systemic challenges like drug addiction, domestic violence, and poverty.
Pregnancy tests a young woman’s relationship with her partner, presenting another challenge of becoming a mother. Sometimes, pregnancy proves a relationship is unsustainable when the father cannot gain steady employment and resorts to crime, or when they turn to unhealthy behaviors like drug use, abuse, or abandonment. In the face of challenges presented by partners, these mothers persist and pursue financial independence, which guarantees freedom from a partner’s control. They revel in their ability to provide emotional support for their children and do not rely on others for regular childcare.
Another challenge faced by low-income mothers is stigma and the policies created in response. Most adults on welfare in the United States are single mothers. The conservative “welfare-state hypothesis” holds that “during the 1970s, both nonmarital childbearing and the value of the welfare check grew dramatically” (198), which means rising welfare support for single mothers discouraged marriage. The stereotype of the “welfare queen” arose out of Ronald Reagan’s speech in a 1976 campaign speech, in which he called for cuts to public assistance. This stereotype denigrates low-income women and foments a moral panic about the abuse of the welfare system. While these stereotypes about welfare queens are not borne out by data, welfare reform drastically reduced welfare benefits, and states (apart from California) “stopped adjusting their cash welfare benefits for inflation” by the middle of the decade (199). Edin and Kefalas conclude that the welfare-state hypothesis does not hold, not only because low-income women’s values run counter to the welfare queen stereotype but also because welfare programs no longer provide sufficient funds for childrearing.
Some feminist thinkers have criticized the lack of financial support for mothering labor. Policy experts suggest that families are critical to a functioning state, yet attach no monetary value to the work mothers do bringing up children. They also emphasize mothers as ideal caregivers, simultaneously instrumentalizing and devaluing women’s domestic labor. Poor mothers are thus in a bind; if they work long hours or pursue education, someone else must care for their children. Standards of good mothering, however, frown upon absent mothers. Low-income women who receive welfare benefits thus become trapped in the cycle of poverty. Some scholars and advocates propose compensating mothers for the unpaid labor of rearing children to combat this situation.
Unlock all 46 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
