My essay 3 explores the way that the current economic state has impacted religion in the US.

On the last page of the “Evaluation”, Ehrenreich asks, “Isn’t [guilt] what we’re supposed to feel? But guilt doesn’t go anywhere near far enough; the appropriate emotion is shame–shame at our own dependency, in this case, on the underpaid labor of others”(221). This passage struck me as it is one in which Ehrenreich directly addresses the audience. One key part of her statement here is that the audience, because they feel shame or guilt regarding the inequalities of poverty, is not itself impoverished. This is a large supposition. Although Ehrenreich acknowledges several working class people’s opinions regarding her novel in the afterword, she seems to navigate the majority of the novel with the assumption that the reader is more like less as she is. How might this assumption affect the novel? Would she have been less comical/offensive had she understood her audience differently?

Ehrenreich is certainly very critical of modern Christianity in the United States. She discredits the sermon she hears in Portland because she feels the church does not actually help the poor in the way Jesus did and are therefore not the caring organization they make themselves out to be. It seems only later does Ehrenreich realize the importance of God to some of the poor people she meets. Caroline believes the lord is responsible for her luck turning around, but Ehrenreich, as shown through her sarcastic commentary, is skeptical. Moreover, Melissa, a coworker at Wal-Mart, views that the “disorganized patches” in her past are over because she has accepted Christ in her life. Since Ehrenreich has not spent a great deal of time working as a low wage worker, perhaps she cannot criticize the tendency to cling to God. Clearly, this is a tendency among some of the people she meets.

Throughout the book, I have been very critical of Ehrenreich. However, as I finished the book, I must say that at the very least I applaud her for going out and doing the work in order to acquire a better understanding of low wage workers. While it does seem as though Ehrenreich went into her task with the answers she wanted (and therefore highlighting things that align with her prior preconceptions), I do think that what she found and looked at is very important. In particular, I liked reading her evaluation at the end of the book. I believe that it offers a plethora of information that Ehrenreich gathered on her journey. It also provides further insight into the problem she analyzed.

There are so many passages that I’ve highlighted as I finished the book that point to really uncomfortable statements made by Ehrenreich. I think comments like the following one point to her incapability to really grasp the full meaning of the work that she is doing. As we have found with the comment she made about prisoners of war, she likes to go straight for the gutter.

On page 100 she states:

“True, I don’t look so good by the end of the day and probably smell like eau de toilet and sweat, but it’s the brilliant green-and-yellow uniform that gives me away, like prison clothes on a fugitive. Maybe, it occurs to me, I’m getting a tiny glimpse of what it would be like to be black.”

Obviously I get her meaning, but the way she categorizes a group of people is poorly founded. For one she assumes that all black people must either feel like prisoners where ever they go or that many black people are indeed prisoners. Either way you look at it, it is wrong. Especially given her position, even in the low wage community as a white woman, she is not experiencing the worst of the worst which many black and latino/a populations are exposed to. So no, she is definitely not getting “a tiny glimpse of what it would be like to be black.”

I found the passage about her alter-ego Barb on page 169 particularly interesting. Here, she claims that the Barbara from her normal life and the Barb who works at Walmart are completely different people. Barb, she explains, is “meaner and slyer” than she is. While this passage stands out to me, I am having trouble deciding what exactly I think of it. On the one hand, it seems quite honest and understandable. On the other hand, it seems almost like she is claiming that minimum-wage workers are inferior (personality wise) to those with a higher income. What do you all think of this part?

While exploring the possibility of migrating to California’s Central Valley, Ehrenreich mentions her worry that, “…Latinos might be hogging the crap jobs and substandard housing for themselves, as they so often do”(121). For me, this passage was startling as it denotes yet another instance in which Ehrenreich does not clearly show her intentions. With a such a rash generalization, I first thought this statement was satire. She is thus illuminating the flaws in such generalizations regarding “Latinos” and minimum wage labor. However, Ehrenreich later uses this statement as reasoning for her choice to live in Minnesota, not California. If this is not a satire, why then has she not provided stats to backup such a generalized, potentially hurtful and untrue statement?