Getting By on the Minimum

By Jennifer Johnson

Book Overview

First published in 2002. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company. This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 041592801X
• ISBN13: 9780415928014
• Release Date: October 2002
• Publisher: Routledge
• Length: 278 Pages
• Weight: 1.03 lbs.
• Dimensions: 9.0" x 0.6" x 6.0"

Customer Reviews

Good Analysis by Reduction

This book, "Getting By on the Minimum: The Lives of Working Class Women" is excellent. It adds significantly to the body of knowledge on the topic of the interaction of gender, education, employment and the cost of living in the USA. I agree with the reviewer who notes that the author limited her research to apparently Caucasian, hetero-sexual women. I disagree that this is bad for two reasons: (1) In any analysis it helps to reduce the number of variables so that what is being measured becomes clearer. This is true in social issues as well as physical science. (2) Many legislators seem to think that the problems of poverty and lack of opportunity apply only to minority groups. This causes much 'group thinking' with regards to the polity of poverty. By showing that it is possible to do an entire study on working-class poverty and never leave the straight Caucasian population, the author has presented the status-quo thinkers with quite a dilemma. Caveat: Like most such books, this one is strong on diagnosis and weak on plausible corrections and fixes. Inherent in the analysis is the assumption that Government can and should do more for working class persons (a position with which I agree somewhat).

(Straight white) women, class matters

In this sociological study, Professor Johnson compares the job availability, work satisfaction, financial oppression, and (lack of) educational options between working-class and middle-class women in the Baltimore area. This book successfully helps to shatter the myths that America has no class, that everyone is "middle-class," and that any American can make it out of poverty. The Horatio Alger and Betty Boop myths are just that: most working-class women grew up working-class, marry working-class men, and never leave that class.This book was a sharp example of sociology at its best. In the book, theory and real life compliment each other. Thinkers often forget everyday folk and everyday folk don't read theory. Still, Johnson is able to explain how academic theories apply to real women and real women often think the same things about their lives that academics conclude. Johnson has the ability to be critical of her subjects' thoughts at the same time that she lets their voices come through respectfully and clearly. I am not sure if the subjects would be able to read this book. However, this book would be pretty accessible to many, if not most, readers.All feminist activists, anti-classist activists, progressive thinkers and human resources wonks must read this book. This was an incredible addition to the burgeoning collection of intersectional studies of women. Too, this was an interesting look at Baltimore and important for people who want to think critically about labor matters.Though I'm giving this book five stars, I do have criticisms of the text. For example, Johnson introduces a term "gray-collar" which is meant differ from white-, blue-, or pink-collar, yet the term is not well-defined. While Johnson quotes from many other women's statistical works, for the most part, she resorts to classic male theorists (Marx, Weber, Bourdieu, etc.) for most of her support. I found this odd coming from someone who seems so feminist. Further, she sometimes introduces topics that upon which I wish she would have expanded (how racial intergration made some class-disadvantaged white females not want to finish high school and how unions have a masculinist, exclusive vibe, for examples).Most importantly, I am displeased about Johnson's rigidly narrow interview pool. The title of this book says "working-class women," yet in the first chapter, Johnson clearly states that she only means white women. Moreover, she adds insult to injury by stating that she is only interviewing whites because there's already enough research about black women and Latinas out there. Further, she only interviews women with "partners." Though she uses this gender-neutral term for subjects and herself, no one here has a female partner or identifies as lesbian or bisexual. Johnson implies that she comes from the relatively-homogenous Australia and that her partner is male, so I wonder if she only wanted to interview women of the same race and sexual orientation as hers