I feel like this raises the question if federal and government agencies should even consider giving benefits based on how well one performs as a mother in her family. I believe that the mother should be provided with resources, and that her personal life shouldn't be a factor that could influence her personal case. The government should not base decisions around personal lives. Also, there seems to be an extreme focus on a woman's sexual liberties.

The welfare policies were built to support men and center around men. It seems as if women can never in the eyes of the law be the head of a household without a man, reinforcing the need to marry in order to be economically independent while caring for children.

In a way, marriage seems to be protective of a woman's autonomy and sexual well-being. It's interesting to think about how even though marriage protected black women in the economy of slavery, marriage in itself can be seen as a sort of oppression even after one became a "freedman," as the head of household was still a man. It appears that during that time, a woman is never truly free and safe whether they are married or not. I do think it's quite interesting to see how marriage played such a large role in recognizing people as equal, and how that may have extended to gay marriage in more recent times.

It seems as if dependency is shaped by misogyny, classism, and racism. With a general overview and misconception that someone dependent on welfare is the fruition of their actions, it's no wonder that people look down on those supported by state welfare. This perception drives the idea that those supported by welfare are deserving and a consequence of their actions influenced by their racial, gender, and social background. We can still see this today by a large proportion of people in American viewing those on welfare negatively and sometimes even in disgust.

One of my classes actually incorporated ChatGPT into our curriculum. We created our own original content and used ChatGPT to edit for our grammar and syntax, which I think was the best use of it instead of it generating unoriginal summary-like ideas. I also think that ChatGPT can be obvious when it's used to generate content since it's formatted in a very specific way with specific and oddly wordly terms.

It would be nice to see how grading works better qualitatively or quantitatively, and how actually learning is affected.

Even though I agree grading is consistent across all classes, is it true that this formula should be used to measure learning and success? Some students don't do well in certain types of test taking. I think learning should be reflected from both teachers AND students so that students can talk about what they gained from the course and how they learned instead of just taking tests.