What do you think?
Rate this book
Holding It Together: How Women Became America's Safety Net
Other countries have social safety nets. The U.S. has women. Holding It Together chronicles the causes and dire consequences.
America runs on women—women who are tasked with holding society together at the seams and fixing it when things fall apart. In this tour de force , acclaimed Sociologist Jessica Calarco lays bare the devastating consequences of our status quo.
Holding It Together draws on five years of research in which Calarco surveyed over 4000 parents and conducted more than 400 hours of interviews with women who bear the brunt of our broken system. A widowed single mother struggles to patch together meager public benefits while working three jobs; an aunt is pushed into caring for her niece and nephew at age fifteen once their family is shattered by the opioid epidemic; a daughter becomes the backstop caregiver for her mother, her husband, and her child because of the perceived flexibility of her job; a well-to-do couple grapples with the moral dilemma of leaning on overworked, underpaid childcare providers to achieve their egalitarian ideals. Stories of grief and guilt abound. Yet, they are more than individual tragedies.
Tracing present-day policies back to their roots, Calarco reveals a systematic agreement to dismantle our country’s social safety net and persuade citizens to accept precarity while women bear the brunt. She leads us to see women's labor as the reason we've gone so long without the support systems that our peer nations take for granted, and how women’s work maintains the illusion that we don't need a net.
Weaving eye-opening original research with revelatory sociological narrative, Holding It Together is a bold call to demand the institutional change that each of us deserves, and a warning about the perils of living without it.
America runs on women—women who are tasked with holding society together at the seams and fixing it when things fall apart. In this tour de force , acclaimed Sociologist Jessica Calarco lays bare the devastating consequences of our status quo.
Holding It Together draws on five years of research in which Calarco surveyed over 4000 parents and conducted more than 400 hours of interviews with women who bear the brunt of our broken system. A widowed single mother struggles to patch together meager public benefits while working three jobs; an aunt is pushed into caring for her niece and nephew at age fifteen once their family is shattered by the opioid epidemic; a daughter becomes the backstop caregiver for her mother, her husband, and her child because of the perceived flexibility of her job; a well-to-do couple grapples with the moral dilemma of leaning on overworked, underpaid childcare providers to achieve their egalitarian ideals. Stories of grief and guilt abound. Yet, they are more than individual tragedies.
Tracing present-day policies back to their roots, Calarco reveals a systematic agreement to dismantle our country’s social safety net and persuade citizens to accept precarity while women bear the brunt. She leads us to see women's labor as the reason we've gone so long without the support systems that our peer nations take for granted, and how women’s work maintains the illusion that we don't need a net.
Weaving eye-opening original research with revelatory sociological narrative, Holding It Together is a bold call to demand the institutional change that each of us deserves, and a warning about the perils of living without it.
Audiobook
First published June 4, 2024
206 people are currently reading
4973 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 183 reviews
June 14, 2024
This is a pretty searing indictment of how the US lets women and families down, leaving us to do all the hard work of care with no money or support. The basic outline was familiar to me, having read a lot on the subject (there's only so many ways to say that we dump everything on women because we don't want to pay, we want to penalize women for "doing it wrong," and we don't value care work), but the details and data are great. Men get hit hard and justifiably so: either the husbands and partners profiled explicitly gender caring roles, or profess to believe in equality in theory while justifying arrangements that dump everything on mothers, even when those mothers out-earn them. Women are further penalized in the workplace for having caring responsibilities they can't forgo, and government fails to help because of a pervasive social belief that if we all made the right choices we wouldn't need it.
My one biggest criticism comes towards the end, when she blames political failure to change things on votes being bought. Maybe that's true for Joe Manchin, but even for him I don't think so, and it's definitely not true for the Republican Party, and it goes against all the evidence she's presented. They genuinely believe in this state of affairs, because they want women to be staying home and doing domestic work, regardless of the consequences. They believe that changes that would be positive for women would be negative for men, or at the very least require them to change, and they don't want to. It's become a too-easy accusation on the left to say that when politicians don't want to do the right thing, they've been bought. It feels true, in a world where money talks. But it's wrong. They accept money from big business that doesn't want labor protections and women's rights because it's what they already believe. Money alone doesn't create misogynistic policy.
My one biggest criticism comes towards the end, when she blames political failure to change things on votes being bought. Maybe that's true for Joe Manchin, but even for him I don't think so, and it's definitely not true for the Republican Party, and it goes against all the evidence she's presented. They genuinely believe in this state of affairs, because they want women to be staying home and doing domestic work, regardless of the consequences. They believe that changes that would be positive for women would be negative for men, or at the very least require them to change, and they don't want to. It's become a too-easy accusation on the left to say that when politicians don't want to do the right thing, they've been bought. It feels true, in a world where money talks. But it's wrong. They accept money from big business that doesn't want labor protections and women's rights because it's what they already believe. Money alone doesn't create misogynistic policy.
![Profile Image for laurel [the suspected bibliophile].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1645808644i%2F7494844._UX200_CR0%2C6%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
March 12, 2025
Reading this, what the current 45/7 admin is doing is even more heinous.
Basically: the more people are living on the edge of poverty or in poverty, the more money corporations make through selling cheap goods that need to be replaced often and the more they can exploit their workforce and make people need them. And the more this happens, the more women will be oppressed. This actively harms women and other historically oppressed genders and communities more than more privileged people, because those with privilege are able to pass on the requirement of care to other groups.
So: removing social safety nets like Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, unemployment, etc., causes active harm while increasing corporate profits, worker exploitation, and community isolation.
And the concept of meritocracy is another form of white supremacy, with the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" idea of individualism that again, isolates people from each other and prevents the formation of community and union. Likewise, the idea of the "super mom" and mommy wars also play into this idea, furthering the weight of responsibility onto women.
Anywho, feminism helps lift everyone up.
Basically: the more people are living on the edge of poverty or in poverty, the more money corporations make through selling cheap goods that need to be replaced often and the more they can exploit their workforce and make people need them. And the more this happens, the more women will be oppressed. This actively harms women and other historically oppressed genders and communities more than more privileged people, because those with privilege are able to pass on the requirement of care to other groups.
So: removing social safety nets like Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, unemployment, etc., causes active harm while increasing corporate profits, worker exploitation, and community isolation.
And the concept of meritocracy is another form of white supremacy, with the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" idea of individualism that again, isolates people from each other and prevents the formation of community and union. Likewise, the idea of the "super mom" and mommy wars also play into this idea, furthering the weight of responsibility onto women.
Anywho, feminism helps lift everyone up.
September 26, 2024
If you can get past the (near constant) use of academic terms like, "DIY society", "Engineers", "Profiteers", this book will hit you a lot more powerfully. I am guessing this is a dissertation that was converted into a book- to which I say, congrats to the author! That's hard to do, after approaching your work from a solely "publish for academia/policy" kind of place.
That being said, as a former instructor, this would be a *great* addition to a college course related to the topics of gender, sociology, economics, public policy, reproductive rights, etc. in compliment to academic texts.
My favorite contributions included the beautiful (if sometimes dense and repetitive) side by side analyses of policies, systemic structures, and cultural trends that have contributed to the reasons women in the US seem structurally "stuck" in many ways, like they were in the 50's or 60's, despite the fact that many of our (and our male counterparts') mindsets have changes eons ago.
This book serves as a wise reminder that although cultural perspectives and opinions can change in an instant- the policies and systems we have in place as a country, religious system, family generational expectation, etc.- takes so much longer to catch up.
I also enjoyed references to Ben Franklin (as I would!), but not in the context I would have expected. She points out, that despite rags to riches experiences of many who have paved the way (or not...) for women's rights over the years, tend to buy into the very cultural opinions that tried to hold them back (once they "make it").
Last comment: I feel this was a bit unfair to the rising demographic of men, for instance, who would gladly be caregivers, or stay at home, if the current dynamic for pay/salary, expectations, etc. weren't what they were. In many cases, guys seem to get "slammed" because they feel the perks of a masculine run society. I don't feel many men under the age of 40 or so, default feel this way anymore, but that could be me...
Not an enjoyable, cozy, or vacation read. Important? You Betcha. For men, women, kids, anyone who generally benefits from, or lives in, a society with women in it.
Also, I agree with the author of this Twitter chain re: every argument she presents on this thread: https://x.com/jessicacalarco/status/1...
Worth a read! Affluence matters when it comes to finding joy in parenting anymore….
That being said, as a former instructor, this would be a *great* addition to a college course related to the topics of gender, sociology, economics, public policy, reproductive rights, etc. in compliment to academic texts.
My favorite contributions included the beautiful (if sometimes dense and repetitive) side by side analyses of policies, systemic structures, and cultural trends that have contributed to the reasons women in the US seem structurally "stuck" in many ways, like they were in the 50's or 60's, despite the fact that many of our (and our male counterparts') mindsets have changes eons ago.
This book serves as a wise reminder that although cultural perspectives and opinions can change in an instant- the policies and systems we have in place as a country, religious system, family generational expectation, etc.- takes so much longer to catch up.
I also enjoyed references to Ben Franklin (as I would!), but not in the context I would have expected. She points out, that despite rags to riches experiences of many who have paved the way (or not...) for women's rights over the years, tend to buy into the very cultural opinions that tried to hold them back (once they "make it").
Last comment: I feel this was a bit unfair to the rising demographic of men, for instance, who would gladly be caregivers, or stay at home, if the current dynamic for pay/salary, expectations, etc. weren't what they were. In many cases, guys seem to get "slammed" because they feel the perks of a masculine run society. I don't feel many men under the age of 40 or so, default feel this way anymore, but that could be me...
Not an enjoyable, cozy, or vacation read. Important? You Betcha. For men, women, kids, anyone who generally benefits from, or lives in, a society with women in it.
Also, I agree with the author of this Twitter chain re: every argument she presents on this thread: https://x.com/jessicacalarco/status/1...
Worth a read! Affluence matters when it comes to finding joy in parenting anymore….
June 8, 2024
You probably want to read about a well-reasoned explanation of how women in America became the social safety net. In your mind, a safety net has a meaning. It is what stops a thing from crashing when all other well-laid plans have failed. But this is not what you will find in this book. When you finish this book, you might think that women do almost everything in American society. They are the only ones exploited, underpaid (the zombie wage gap statistics lumbers forward in this one), and performing thankless jobs. Why? Because if you do not pay careful attention, you might not notice when the argument shifts. From the stated aim, the book is supposed to be an ode to the women who do the work of holding it together and an effort to show how their underpaid but essential labor keeps our society—and our economy—from falling apart. . But when you put it this way, it becomes an almost meaningless proposition. Because men and women are essential in keeping society from falling apart.
But my problem is not that the book fails in this. It is that it ends up making a different point. This book is about another problem, about women who, through different life circumstances, found themselves in positions of financial precarity.
By rating this book low, I do not intend to signal that I do not sympathize with these women. I do. My low rating merely signals the fact that this book does not fulfill its aim.
In the end, what you will notice with this book is that it is not an argument or an explanation of how women became the social safety net, but how PARTICULAR WOMEN are in need of a social safety net. It’s not about how women are holding society together but about how some women are barely holding it (their finances) together.
A well-written book about how women are America’s safety net would explore how women provide the invisible work that keeps the visible economy humming. In such a book we will see that both men and women are holding the economy together but that the ECONOMICALLY INVISIBLE aspects are mostly provided by women. Such a book, if well-argued, would be true whether the women are wealthy or poor. It would be true both for those who are forced into being stay at home mothers and those who eagerly choose it because they are wealthy enough to afford it. And most importantly, it would be true not just for mothers but for grandmothers and aunts. In other words, it would be true regardless of financial precariousness.
But such a book should not just be filled with stories of women suffering under the heavy financial burden caused by low minimum wage and insufficient welfare. Poverty is an equal opportunity problem. In fact, I bet that if you ask many of the women represented in this book what their problem is they won’t say it is the invisible work they do; they will most probably say it is low wage. They will most probably ask for more safety net rather than ask to have their safety net status removed. If this book were about poverty and low wages, and the author’s suggestion for ameliorating it, it would have been true to its aim. But this is most assuredly not a book about how women (in particular) are America's safety net.
But my problem is not that the book fails in this. It is that it ends up making a different point. This book is about another problem, about women who, through different life circumstances, found themselves in positions of financial precarity.
By rating this book low, I do not intend to signal that I do not sympathize with these women. I do. My low rating merely signals the fact that this book does not fulfill its aim.
In the end, what you will notice with this book is that it is not an argument or an explanation of how women became the social safety net, but how PARTICULAR WOMEN are in need of a social safety net. It’s not about how women are holding society together but about how some women are barely holding it (their finances) together.
A well-written book about how women are America’s safety net would explore how women provide the invisible work that keeps the visible economy humming. In such a book we will see that both men and women are holding the economy together but that the ECONOMICALLY INVISIBLE aspects are mostly provided by women. Such a book, if well-argued, would be true whether the women are wealthy or poor. It would be true both for those who are forced into being stay at home mothers and those who eagerly choose it because they are wealthy enough to afford it. And most importantly, it would be true not just for mothers but for grandmothers and aunts. In other words, it would be true regardless of financial precariousness.
But such a book should not just be filled with stories of women suffering under the heavy financial burden caused by low minimum wage and insufficient welfare. Poverty is an equal opportunity problem. In fact, I bet that if you ask many of the women represented in this book what their problem is they won’t say it is the invisible work they do; they will most probably say it is low wage. They will most probably ask for more safety net rather than ask to have their safety net status removed. If this book were about poverty and low wages, and the author’s suggestion for ameliorating it, it would have been true to its aim. But this is most assuredly not a book about how women (in particular) are America's safety net.
January 1, 2025
Fueling my female rage reading list for 2025
July 27, 2024
A solid collection of case studies and ethnographic research, although aimed at a popular audience, arguing that the US does not have the social safety nets of other Western nations because the entire social and labor structure of the country is designed to shift that burden onto women doing underpaid labor. The lack of funding or support for education, healthcare, elder care, childcare, living wages, and abortion access results in almost entirely women (educators, nurses, caretakers, servers, daycare providers, stay-at-home moms, etc.) doing the underpaid work that would otherwise be provided by such societal safety nets. Even if women can manage to rise from this trap into the middle class, they must necessarily do so on the backs of other women, often immigrants and minorities. And so the burden is ever-present and always shifted to women. In "holding it (the nation) together," women are finding it impossible to hold it together in their personal, professional, and social lives.
It’s a compelling argument, although I’m not sure the final chapter on the potential solutions, including a “union of care,” was fully fleshed out. While the idea of a care-centered society – one that replaces achievement with care as the primary goal or virtue of citizens – is a wonderful concept, it also sounds a bit too much like a utopian dream (reminiscent of the one in Gilman’s classic Herland , which I would recommend reading alongside this book) more than an achievable possibility. Still, this is recommended for a unique perspective on the fact that the US’s lack of a social safety net is not a bug, but a feature.
It’s a compelling argument, although I’m not sure the final chapter on the potential solutions, including a “union of care,” was fully fleshed out. While the idea of a care-centered society – one that replaces achievement with care as the primary goal or virtue of citizens – is a wonderful concept, it also sounds a bit too much like a utopian dream (reminiscent of the one in Gilman’s classic Herland , which I would recommend reading alongside this book) more than an achievable possibility. Still, this is recommended for a unique perspective on the fact that the US’s lack of a social safety net is not a bug, but a feature.
July 25, 2024
I really wanted to like this because I loved her initial viral interview with Anne Helen Petersen, but ironically the book irritated me in the same way a lot of AHP’s current work does. There were several very obvious factual errors which made me skeptical of the quality of her research, and the solutions she throws out in the very last chapter with little explication of how they would actually be attainable made me want to roll my eyes (shades of AHP). Ultimately I think I would have liked this a million times better if it was from an academic press, because the qualitative research she did on the lives of mothers sounded impressive and very valuable.
July 29, 2024
A must-read for any American. If you are already anticapitalist/socialist, a mother, or a default caregiver, it will be both validating and infuriating.
February 20, 2025
This was okay. If you're paying attention, you probably know a lot of this already.
Without a decent social safety net, women are charged with the majority of unpaid domestic duties, and the only way to wriggle out of it is to earn enough money to underpay other people, mostly women, to provide services for you. Calarco profiles a couple who spent a long time looking for high quality daycare provided by educated professionals only for the wife to decide to stay home because such a thing doesn't exist at the rates daycare providers are paid; and another mother Calarco profiles is one of the women who needs to work but can't afford daycare and is forced into the Faustian bargain where she works at the daycare center for abysmal wages because they will provide care for her son. We could solve all this easily, with public housing, paid family leave, flexible work schedules, free universal childcare, etc. but we haven't because of rank misogyny and a weird distrust of social care and the government that has Americans voting against their own interests.
One point that Calarco made well is that in the absence of a safe society, mothers are responsible for all aspects of their children’s safety. Your kid might get shot to death at school? Homeschool! Your kid might eat unhealthy food? Start researching food additives! We could fix these problems societally.
Calarco has some annoying phrases, "the engineers and profiteers," "DIY society," that she uses too much. The profiles of women and how the compromises they've been forced to make form an interesting narrative, but when Calarco really gets into her own opinions, things slow down. The chapter about a reemerging narrative of gender essentialism was a mess because she had to say "Mars and Venus society" in every sentence. The last chapter, on forming a "union of care," should have been edited out. As Calarco says, we need government programs, not individual solutions, and we shouldn’t all spend our evenings and weekends forming a union comprised of everyone who gives and receives paid and unpaid care to lobby the government to provide these services, we should just vote for them.
Without a decent social safety net, women are charged with the majority of unpaid domestic duties, and the only way to wriggle out of it is to earn enough money to underpay other people, mostly women, to provide services for you. Calarco profiles a couple who spent a long time looking for high quality daycare provided by educated professionals only for the wife to decide to stay home because such a thing doesn't exist at the rates daycare providers are paid; and another mother Calarco profiles is one of the women who needs to work but can't afford daycare and is forced into the Faustian bargain where she works at the daycare center for abysmal wages because they will provide care for her son. We could solve all this easily, with public housing, paid family leave, flexible work schedules, free universal childcare, etc. but we haven't because of rank misogyny and a weird distrust of social care and the government that has Americans voting against their own interests.
One point that Calarco made well is that in the absence of a safe society, mothers are responsible for all aspects of their children’s safety. Your kid might get shot to death at school? Homeschool! Your kid might eat unhealthy food? Start researching food additives! We could fix these problems societally.
Calarco has some annoying phrases, "the engineers and profiteers," "DIY society," that she uses too much. The profiles of women and how the compromises they've been forced to make form an interesting narrative, but when Calarco really gets into her own opinions, things slow down. The chapter about a reemerging narrative of gender essentialism was a mess because she had to say "Mars and Venus society" in every sentence. The last chapter, on forming a "union of care," should have been edited out. As Calarco says, we need government programs, not individual solutions, and we shouldn’t all spend our evenings and weekends forming a union comprised of everyone who gives and receives paid and unpaid care to lobby the government to provide these services, we should just vote for them.
May 25, 2025
this book gave me lots more reasons for me to be mad at our government and republicans!!!!!!!!
October 3, 2024
I struggled with the large quantity of repetitive personal narratives. I get that they're meant to build identification with the people in the book and a critical mass of experiences but somewhere around hour 7 (trying to binge the audiobook was possibly a mistake) I had such an empathy burn out that I was just annoyed with more people falling into the same traps.
It might be easier to digest in smaller chunks or if the ideas had been more abstract.
It might be easier to digest in smaller chunks or if the ideas had been more abstract.
December 20, 2024
Me, listening to the chapter about women rearranging their work schedules to make up for the gap caused by the lack of affordable childcare, as I drive to my job, where I work every weekend because of the lack of affordable childcare: 👁️👄👁️
January 14, 2025
This book is about all the many ways that women are expected to be the glue of our society in that we're the caregivers - of children and the elderly and the ways in which our social network lets us down. Women perform so many "invisible" duties such as remembering the details of a family life - purchasing all the gifts, remembering birthdays, buying groceries, etc. often on top of working at paying jobs. And if there are difficulties like getting pregnant unexpectedly or if the father leaves and the financial burden falls on the woman, it's often impossible to make it without help. Our system of "help," the "social network" is fragmented, difficult to get into a program, limits and work requirements also contribute to the uncertainty of it all. The stories of the women studied in the book are so sad, it was heart wrenching. This book made me angry and frustrated that the lower socio-economic echelons of our society pay such a dear price for our "capitalistic" society that just allows the rich to get richer while the lower ends struggle. And the systemic mysogynism in our society contributes to all of these problems.
April 20, 2025
This book will make you angry. It should.
December 1, 2025
Bullet Review:
+ Depressing.
+ Even if I had wanted kids before this, this would make me absolutely not want kids.
+ How do all my friends with kids manage????
+ Depressing.
+ Even if I had wanted kids before this, this would make me absolutely not want kids.
+ How do all my friends with kids manage????
April 24, 2025
Calarco suggests that in the US, women fulfill the role of our social safety net rather than safety nets provided by government programs in other countries. This is because women are convinced to have children and then are forced to engage in low-paying labor that often does not provide benefits or opportunities for advancement. She fills the pages with example after example of mothers from a study she did primarily in Indiana and several East Coast cities.
The main issue with this argument is that it ignores the 46.9% of American women (in 2022) who do not have children. Perhaps, it can be argued, many of those women are performing unpaid labor and care work that would have similar repercussions to childrearing such as elder care--but Calarco does not goes this route.
The best chapter in the book is buried halfway through, "The Meritocracy Myth."
What makes the meritocracy myth appealing to so many Americans? One reason is that precarity and inequality make it psychologically soothing to believe in a definite and self-determined path to success.
Calarco points to research that reveals, "exposing people to subtle meritocratic messages--like The Little Engine That Could--made them more inclined to accept social inequalities, even when those inequalities negatively impact people like them." Relatedly, as the inequality gap widens in a society, the psychological payoff of thinking "well, I'm still better off than X" becomes more significant. This is essentially last place aversion theory, although unnamed in Holding It Together.
If you believe that you can achieve health and wealth through prayer and positivity, then it's easy to assume that others should be able to do the same. In essence, the meritocracy myth encourages its believers to assume that people who are struggling simply haven't tried hard enough.
Protestant Christianity had an ideological shift in the 1800s which created a distinction between types of poor people. There were now the "deserving poor" who were worthy of receiving aid and sympathy vs the "undeserving poor" who were not. These designations led naturally to an abuse of the poor in general and continue to inform the way that we view social programs today.
Why do we drug test people who are receiving government aid? Why do we tell the poor what they are allowed to spend their food stamps on? We don't make anyone else jump through these paternalistic hoops to prove they are "worthy" of what they receive. Yet it seems commonsense for us to judge the disenfranchised; we don't question it and in fact decide to cut their support whenever and wherever we can.
Calarco skillfully weaves economics in to explain why other countries are able to finance their safety nets while we say we cannot:
In the 1960s, the highest earners had to pay a tax rate of 90 percent on every dollar they made over $300,000. Today, the highest earners pay only between 32 and 37 percent on every dollar they make over $329,850 a year... The number of American billionaires has increased from only 13 [in the 1980s] to more than 700.
You might be thinking, "Well, 37 percent is still a lot." It would be, except for the fact that there are now so many loopholes in the tax code that billionaires often pay less than the 14 percent federal income tax rate paid by the median American.
Elon Musk paid $0 in federal income tax in 2018. And in the four years prior, Musk paid only $455 million in total taxes, despite reporting an income of $1.52 billion and despite growing his wealth by $13.9 billion on top of what he already had in the bank. That works out to a true tax rate of only 3.27 percent. She goes on to point out that Warren Buffet paid 0.10 percent and Jeff Bezos paid 0.98 percent in taxes.
An obvious solution would be to return to the 90 percent rate of the 1960s. This is unlikely to happen, however, because most Americans buy into the meritocracy myth. "Poor people are undeserving, and they just need to try harder." Even if you, yourself are "the poor."
I wish the entire book had been as smart as this chapter, but unfortunately it was not.
Recommended Reading:
Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado-Perez
Feminism for the 99% by Cinzia Arruzza
The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together by Heather McGhee
Emotional Labor: The Invisible Work Shaping Our Lives by Rose Hackman
Advanced Recommended Reading:
The Old Is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born by Nancy Fraser
Ejaculate Responsibly: A Whole New Way to Think About Abortion by Gabrielle Stanley Blair
The main issue with this argument is that it ignores the 46.9% of American women (in 2022) who do not have children. Perhaps, it can be argued, many of those women are performing unpaid labor and care work that would have similar repercussions to childrearing such as elder care--but Calarco does not goes this route.
The best chapter in the book is buried halfway through, "The Meritocracy Myth."
What makes the meritocracy myth appealing to so many Americans? One reason is that precarity and inequality make it psychologically soothing to believe in a definite and self-determined path to success.
Calarco points to research that reveals, "exposing people to subtle meritocratic messages--like The Little Engine That Could--made them more inclined to accept social inequalities, even when those inequalities negatively impact people like them." Relatedly, as the inequality gap widens in a society, the psychological payoff of thinking "well, I'm still better off than X" becomes more significant. This is essentially last place aversion theory, although unnamed in Holding It Together.
If you believe that you can achieve health and wealth through prayer and positivity, then it's easy to assume that others should be able to do the same. In essence, the meritocracy myth encourages its believers to assume that people who are struggling simply haven't tried hard enough.
Protestant Christianity had an ideological shift in the 1800s which created a distinction between types of poor people. There were now the "deserving poor" who were worthy of receiving aid and sympathy vs the "undeserving poor" who were not. These designations led naturally to an abuse of the poor in general and continue to inform the way that we view social programs today.
Why do we drug test people who are receiving government aid? Why do we tell the poor what they are allowed to spend their food stamps on? We don't make anyone else jump through these paternalistic hoops to prove they are "worthy" of what they receive. Yet it seems commonsense for us to judge the disenfranchised; we don't question it and in fact decide to cut their support whenever and wherever we can.
Calarco skillfully weaves economics in to explain why other countries are able to finance their safety nets while we say we cannot:
In the 1960s, the highest earners had to pay a tax rate of 90 percent on every dollar they made over $300,000. Today, the highest earners pay only between 32 and 37 percent on every dollar they make over $329,850 a year... The number of American billionaires has increased from only 13 [in the 1980s] to more than 700.
You might be thinking, "Well, 37 percent is still a lot." It would be, except for the fact that there are now so many loopholes in the tax code that billionaires often pay less than the 14 percent federal income tax rate paid by the median American.
Elon Musk paid $0 in federal income tax in 2018. And in the four years prior, Musk paid only $455 million in total taxes, despite reporting an income of $1.52 billion and despite growing his wealth by $13.9 billion on top of what he already had in the bank. That works out to a true tax rate of only 3.27 percent. She goes on to point out that Warren Buffet paid 0.10 percent and Jeff Bezos paid 0.98 percent in taxes.
An obvious solution would be to return to the 90 percent rate of the 1960s. This is unlikely to happen, however, because most Americans buy into the meritocracy myth. "Poor people are undeserving, and they just need to try harder." Even if you, yourself are "the poor."
I wish the entire book had been as smart as this chapter, but unfortunately it was not.
Recommended Reading:
Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado-Perez
Feminism for the 99% by Cinzia Arruzza
The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together by Heather McGhee
Emotional Labor: The Invisible Work Shaping Our Lives by Rose Hackman
Advanced Recommended Reading:
The Old Is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born by Nancy Fraser
Ejaculate Responsibly: A Whole New Way to Think About Abortion by Gabrielle Stanley Blair
October 12, 2024
This book was so very validating. Most women will see themselves somewhere in these pages.
July 23, 2024
Audio. Must read for all women and also our policy makers. Underlying this book is poverty and how our public policy strives to keep women in poverty. Marriage shouldn’t be a public policy solution.
June 9, 2024
Fantastic book that should be required reading in the US. Full of facts intertwined with individual stories giving a face to the data. A masterpiece.
January 15, 2025
Would’ve rated it a 5 because it is genuinely well researched and well presented. It just got a difficult to get though as the author presented more and more aspects of society that work against women/caregivers - just made me sad :/ . Nothing against the actual book though so take that as you will.
I wouldn’t say anything in here was surprising for me, but it was all told so clearly and the author connects all the research together really well. That paired with the interviews makes it a hard hitter. Lots to get from this book
I wouldn’t say anything in here was surprising for me, but it was all told so clearly and the author connects all the research together really well. That paired with the interviews makes it a hard hitter. Lots to get from this book
January 27, 2025
I thought it was a good read to think about a variety of things.
-poverty
-being a mother
-women in the workforce
-women in the US vs the rest of the world
-poverty
-being a mother
-women in the workforce
-women in the US vs the rest of the world
March 14, 2025
So much solid content (also utilized for some class discussions I’m cultivating) but as a friend said, didn’t really explore beyond motherhood and there are so many other ways the pressure falls and stays (caregiving, care-focused careers, etc).
February 2, 2025
First Pi Phi bookclub book of 2025! This one was far from my typical read so I’m thankful for Pi Phi for pushing me outside my comfort zone to read it. The book was well researched for the most part (except for the conclusion chapter which felt very opinion based). The book was basically about how women are the reason the United States is as successful as they are because of all the extra unpaid work that women do in the US so that the men can succeed. There was not a false word in the book and for that it was truly saddening and disappointing that that’s the world that women live in. The book covered different interviews and stories of women throughout Indiana and the US that made the book interesting and break up the research and facts of it. The book explain gender stereotypes, where it came to be that male is the superior gender, and how much women are at a disadvantage in the workforce. Overall this was an infuriating read that made me angry and sad to be a woman living in the US.
Read
August 30, 2024Another one that I wish could be required reading.
September 23, 2024
While other books have covered similar terrain either regarding poverty and the working poor in America (“Poverty, By America”; “Nickel and Dimed”), I’ve never read a book that illuminated feminist theory in relation to these issues quite so effectively as Jessica Calarco’s “Holding it Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net”. Going into it, I anticipated the anecdotal stories she so effectively showcases—drawn from ongoing conversations over time with women from all walks of life facing economic pressures and the ill effects of bad policies. I hoped for examples of not just how we got to this point, but suggested practical actions women and allies can take beyond just the ballot, suggestions on how to work alongside, befriend, partner and engage with women better and more impactfully, when to lend a hand and when to get out of the way. What I didn’t quite expect (and perhaps should have, pardon the blinders) was the light-bulb moment of realization Calarco’s work evoked: oh…we’re here because this was intentional. I’ve read about the farce that is trickle-down economics numerous times, how wealthy libertarian men purposefully crafted policies and political partnerships to convince poor and middle-class people to vote against their own self-interests whether through the false promise of future wealth or the exploitation of their prejudices. I’ve read how religion was used in this (un)holy war, of Falwell and the “Moral Majority”, how racism was the silent partner in this plan. Yet, I never fully understood the role patriarchy, nee outright misogyny, played in forming the modern economic landscape. Calarco reveals the dirty little secret Friedman and Reagan’s other policy wonks (and their predecessors) held—that the entire US economy as it stands today and has stood for decades depends entirely on undervaluing women and intentionally blocking their potential.
When the US found itself with a boom economy in the wake of WWII, the nation could have followed the UK and most of Europe in crafting a robust, social safety net consisting of a national healthcare system, government funded universal childcare, and continually affordable/accessible higher education for all. Instead, the libertarians mentioned above sold the American people and its government the snake oil of trickle-down economics. They convinced (enough) of us and our leaders that the best path to full prosperity in this nation was to slash taxes on the wealthiest individuals, cut regulations for businesses, and (ultimately) personify corporations. If the rich are doing really, really well, they’ll spend more, create more jobs, and we’ll all benefit. We all (should) know that this did not work out as such. But the missing piece of this bullshit puzzle is that by slashing taxes which in turn slashed the social safety net those taxes paid for, the American economy had to come up with something to fill the gap that government no longer could—and that gap was filled by women. Calarco highlights how this resulted in not only the need for women to “pick up the slack” in childcare, education, elder care, and domestic labor but to also consistently fill the low-paying jobs that keep the new economy afloat. Jobs in retail, fast food, factories, etc.—the drive to the bottom that incentivized employers to pay as little as possible and offer as few benefits as possible to maximize profits for shareholders and upper management relies on lots of low-paying entry level jobs. The new right-wing economy that did its best to undo the New Deal thus killed two birds with one stone: have women fill the gaps that exist due to the removal of a social safety net but leave the majority of them still in need of money to make ends meet with schedules that allow only the worst of jobs for whatever pay such jobs will offer. To reinforce all of the above, sell poor and working-class women on the idea that accepting help of any kind is “lazy”, make them loathe “handouts” so they’re not too upset that what meager benefits they may qualify for are so little or so that they avoid even applying for them in the first place. Do this through brainwashing them into supporting conservative political and religious ideologies. Perhaps the most damning (and inflammatory to some) charge made by Calarco is that all of the above is best accomplished by ensnaring as many women as possible in “the baby trap”—in contrast to every single other wealthy country in the world, make abortion controversial and “sinful”, make access to it and any other family-planning methods as inaccessible as possible, bolster communities in which any choice other than to have as many children as possible is judged harshly.
Suddenly, it seems clear that the war against Roe v. Wade was not what we thought it was all along. I always thought given how evangelicals and non-Catholic religious conservatives traditionally had no negative (often no opinion, period) opinion on abortion, that Jerry Falwell only made abortion a central issue as a way of combining Catholics and Evangelicals into one solid voting bloc. I thought it was just a casualty of friendly fire in the culture wars. But no…the entire economy depends on making abortion difficult to obtain and discouraged as much as possible. Trickle down economics do not work, period, but the illusion that they work even slightly is entirely dependent on limiting the vocational and earning potential of as many women as possible and the best way to do this is to keep them perpetually in poverty through unplanned pregnancy and (lack of) family planning.
Ultimately for me, “Holding it Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net” reframes gender and economic discourse as drastically as Isabel Wilkerson’s “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent” reframed modern discourse on race and racial oppression. Her work showed how racism against black folks in America is comparable to the antisemitism in Europe that culminated in nazi Germany and to the caste system in India which continues to oppress those designated as Dalits. In tracing these overlaps, Wilkerson found that race was incidental as a reason to oppress, that white supremacy behaves as it does despite awareness that black folks are not inferior—just as nazis designated those of the same skin color as inferior arbitrarily to their religion. Supremacy depends on an oppressed class—the United States developed to the extent that it did only because of slavery and oppression. Its modern economic framework functions only because of misogyny and oppression. Racism is the dirty secret that negates our claims to liberty and justice for all and misogyny is the dirty secret that allows our capitalism to function as it does, generating wealth for a continual line of (mostly) wealthy white men. None of which is to say these sins completely describe our national identity, but to truly live up to the best of our proclaimed ideals as a country we must first recognize and admit these sins then address them fully as the glaring negations of those ideals that they are.
When the US found itself with a boom economy in the wake of WWII, the nation could have followed the UK and most of Europe in crafting a robust, social safety net consisting of a national healthcare system, government funded universal childcare, and continually affordable/accessible higher education for all. Instead, the libertarians mentioned above sold the American people and its government the snake oil of trickle-down economics. They convinced (enough) of us and our leaders that the best path to full prosperity in this nation was to slash taxes on the wealthiest individuals, cut regulations for businesses, and (ultimately) personify corporations. If the rich are doing really, really well, they’ll spend more, create more jobs, and we’ll all benefit. We all (should) know that this did not work out as such. But the missing piece of this bullshit puzzle is that by slashing taxes which in turn slashed the social safety net those taxes paid for, the American economy had to come up with something to fill the gap that government no longer could—and that gap was filled by women. Calarco highlights how this resulted in not only the need for women to “pick up the slack” in childcare, education, elder care, and domestic labor but to also consistently fill the low-paying jobs that keep the new economy afloat. Jobs in retail, fast food, factories, etc.—the drive to the bottom that incentivized employers to pay as little as possible and offer as few benefits as possible to maximize profits for shareholders and upper management relies on lots of low-paying entry level jobs. The new right-wing economy that did its best to undo the New Deal thus killed two birds with one stone: have women fill the gaps that exist due to the removal of a social safety net but leave the majority of them still in need of money to make ends meet with schedules that allow only the worst of jobs for whatever pay such jobs will offer. To reinforce all of the above, sell poor and working-class women on the idea that accepting help of any kind is “lazy”, make them loathe “handouts” so they’re not too upset that what meager benefits they may qualify for are so little or so that they avoid even applying for them in the first place. Do this through brainwashing them into supporting conservative political and religious ideologies. Perhaps the most damning (and inflammatory to some) charge made by Calarco is that all of the above is best accomplished by ensnaring as many women as possible in “the baby trap”—in contrast to every single other wealthy country in the world, make abortion controversial and “sinful”, make access to it and any other family-planning methods as inaccessible as possible, bolster communities in which any choice other than to have as many children as possible is judged harshly.
Suddenly, it seems clear that the war against Roe v. Wade was not what we thought it was all along. I always thought given how evangelicals and non-Catholic religious conservatives traditionally had no negative (often no opinion, period) opinion on abortion, that Jerry Falwell only made abortion a central issue as a way of combining Catholics and Evangelicals into one solid voting bloc. I thought it was just a casualty of friendly fire in the culture wars. But no…the entire economy depends on making abortion difficult to obtain and discouraged as much as possible. Trickle down economics do not work, period, but the illusion that they work even slightly is entirely dependent on limiting the vocational and earning potential of as many women as possible and the best way to do this is to keep them perpetually in poverty through unplanned pregnancy and (lack of) family planning.
Ultimately for me, “Holding it Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net” reframes gender and economic discourse as drastically as Isabel Wilkerson’s “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent” reframed modern discourse on race and racial oppression. Her work showed how racism against black folks in America is comparable to the antisemitism in Europe that culminated in nazi Germany and to the caste system in India which continues to oppress those designated as Dalits. In tracing these overlaps, Wilkerson found that race was incidental as a reason to oppress, that white supremacy behaves as it does despite awareness that black folks are not inferior—just as nazis designated those of the same skin color as inferior arbitrarily to their religion. Supremacy depends on an oppressed class—the United States developed to the extent that it did only because of slavery and oppression. Its modern economic framework functions only because of misogyny and oppression. Racism is the dirty secret that negates our claims to liberty and justice for all and misogyny is the dirty secret that allows our capitalism to function as it does, generating wealth for a continual line of (mostly) wealthy white men. None of which is to say these sins completely describe our national identity, but to truly live up to the best of our proclaimed ideals as a country we must first recognize and admit these sins then address them fully as the glaring negations of those ideals that they are.
life-is-too-short
March 16, 2025This may sound a bit harsh, but who am I if not that
Calaraco makes excellent points in short form and I have been on the waiting list for the book for MONTHS. But here lies the double -edged problem. Her short form points (and background in sociological research that informs those) just didn't translate into long form narrative that had any new information for this woman, mother, and poli/sci/ social epi grad. It takes very few conversations with mothers or living in this society to get what you want from this book. You may know it already, and you definitely know it already if you pay any kind of attention. There is a reason my long walks with another mother during early motherhood resulted in a few simple policy suggestions (UBI, extended child care subsidies, paying caregivers).
A scan ahead suggests I've already thought of most of these things, and the novel way to explain it all is right there in the title: women are and have been the US's social safety net. This goes more broadly into community than I see in the pieces of this book, which seem heavily focused on childcare and career.
That was more than I intended to write. I would pay attention to calaraco, but I started this book thinking "I'm going to rec this to my friend," and then as I read for that it was all stuff we live daily? But it's also stuff I see in my spouse - caregiving for parents takes a toll and is not well supported by US policy. People who teach, nurse etc are equally poorly supported by society. (I'm not what abouting men, but this is true. Solidarity in lack of social support across the board)
End rant I guess.
Calaraco makes excellent points in short form and I have been on the waiting list for the book for MONTHS. But here lies the double -edged problem. Her short form points (and background in sociological research that informs those) just didn't translate into long form narrative that had any new information for this woman, mother, and poli/sci/ social epi grad. It takes very few conversations with mothers or living in this society to get what you want from this book. You may know it already, and you definitely know it already if you pay any kind of attention. There is a reason my long walks with another mother during early motherhood resulted in a few simple policy suggestions (UBI, extended child care subsidies, paying caregivers).
A scan ahead suggests I've already thought of most of these things, and the novel way to explain it all is right there in the title: women are and have been the US's social safety net. This goes more broadly into community than I see in the pieces of this book, which seem heavily focused on childcare and career.
That was more than I intended to write. I would pay attention to calaraco, but I started this book thinking "I'm going to rec this to my friend," and then as I read for that it was all stuff we live daily? But it's also stuff I see in my spouse - caregiving for parents takes a toll and is not well supported by US policy. People who teach, nurse etc are equally poorly supported by society. (I'm not what abouting men, but this is true. Solidarity in lack of social support across the board)
End rant I guess.
April 2, 2025
I forget where I saw this book mentioned - but I’m glad I discovered it! I felt as if I knew many of the women in this book - and probably do considering most of the data came from women in Indiana. I can honestly say that I am not as connected to religious women who do not work, but the amount of money some of these couples make was astounding to me. Wages in Indiana are ridiculously low, but these wages are truly astounding!
The truth is, women are fed the fantasy to be a wife and a mother and of course, troubles ensue.
There are data points of working women who have families and support systems in the book, but the majority of women have a hard up-hill battle.
I could not relate as much to many of the women since my husband and I both have college degrees, work full time, own a home, and were able send our children to a day care center when they were young. We waited to have kids. We already had jobs and a home before considering having children. Once the kids happened, life was expensive, and we made it work since we had to. The question is why do women feel so obligated to raise their children to make society happy? Why must they feel bad about their choices to work rather than stay home? Who is putting this pressure on them? Their family? Society? Themselves? In truth, all of my friends who have children work full time other than two. Am I the outlier?
This book definitely shows how family dynamics can affect how women are consistently the safety net. If the grandmother or another female relative doesn’t help you —- you’re probably out of luck. Also, the book details how recent politics have made it harder for women to get out of this way of thinking that they have to absolutely do everything or else are a complete failure. So many women struggle with this, and there is no easy answer to make life work. The author does a good job by showing how men in these relationships DO help and have empathy, but there is no real easy answer. Unless you’re super rich and have family nearby who will help you for free, nobody is going to have it all.
I’m definitely glad I read this book, but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know. If anything, this increased some inner female rage. I’m just glad my “young children rearing” section of life is over. It truly is a hard time for any mother and family to endure.
Give it a read if you dare!
The truth is, women are fed the fantasy to be a wife and a mother and of course, troubles ensue.
There are data points of working women who have families and support systems in the book, but the majority of women have a hard up-hill battle.
I could not relate as much to many of the women since my husband and I both have college degrees, work full time, own a home, and were able send our children to a day care center when they were young. We waited to have kids. We already had jobs and a home before considering having children. Once the kids happened, life was expensive, and we made it work since we had to. The question is why do women feel so obligated to raise their children to make society happy? Why must they feel bad about their choices to work rather than stay home? Who is putting this pressure on them? Their family? Society? Themselves? In truth, all of my friends who have children work full time other than two. Am I the outlier?
This book definitely shows how family dynamics can affect how women are consistently the safety net. If the grandmother or another female relative doesn’t help you —- you’re probably out of luck. Also, the book details how recent politics have made it harder for women to get out of this way of thinking that they have to absolutely do everything or else are a complete failure. So many women struggle with this, and there is no easy answer to make life work. The author does a good job by showing how men in these relationships DO help and have empathy, but there is no real easy answer. Unless you’re super rich and have family nearby who will help you for free, nobody is going to have it all.
I’m definitely glad I read this book, but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know. If anything, this increased some inner female rage. I’m just glad my “young children rearing” section of life is over. It truly is a hard time for any mother and family to endure.
Give it a read if you dare!
May 29, 2025
Overall I really liked this. I wish it had taken a closer look at the other ways US women provide a safety net outside of motherhood and staying at home. I'm thinking as full-time caregivers for parents or spouses/family members with special needs, or even emotional/moral support to others in their communities and self-built villages. I would have loved to see a closer look at the pay gap between women and men in certain fields (teaching, therapy, nursing, etc.) and how women in those fields often end up pulling double- or triple-duty due to their professional careers and personal lives intertwining.
If you are *at all* right leaning, you'll probably hate this, but I enjoyed it. I felt like it was a solid mix of hard facts mixed in with anecdotal evidence. Overall, it is a pretty scathing indictment of how this nation and our society repeatedly fails women and families. US women are by far doing all the heavy lifting of care without money, programs, or support.
If you are *at all* right leaning, you'll probably hate this, but I enjoyed it. I felt like it was a solid mix of hard facts mixed in with anecdotal evidence. Overall, it is a pretty scathing indictment of how this nation and our society repeatedly fails women and families. US women are by far doing all the heavy lifting of care without money, programs, or support.
July 11, 2025
Read this right after a book club where my friend said “I love how this book really just highlights how women hold communities together” (about The Bean Trees by Barbara Kingsolver). And this book demonstrated how, looking not just at personal stories but at statistics and survey data, women really do hold communities together, and then sometimes it breaks those women down. The study was very thorough and thought provoking. My only complaint was that at times the tone seemed to lack a nuanced view to specific situations, which could be alienating to some readers who should know this about the US’s systems. That being said, there was nuance as a whole in how the study looked at stories from a wide variety of families.
September 22, 2025
This is a great book. I purchased it specifically for my thesis, and read the first half in its entirety very quickly. However, I can't lie -- I only skimmed the last part of the book (though I did read the conclusion) as it became less relevant for my research. Calarco's writing is very accessible. Although I'm used to reading academic and sociological texts, I feel like someone who likes reading but not academic stuff could also pick this up. Calarco's research is extensive, and I've spent lots of time in her endnotes to help me in my research. I can't quite remember who recommended this to me, but I'm glad that they did!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 183 reviews