The globalization of household labor is a familiar notion to many across the world: we think of household maids from the Philippines and nannies from Sri Lanka. Almost no one questions their presence in our homes, but rarely does anyone seriously consider the functions they serve in replacing what society now lacks: people to do emotional and physical tasks associated with “women’s work.” Ehrenreich and Hochschild’s “Introduction” brings up what they coin as the “care deficit” of wealthy countries, which they explain is what centrally pulled migrant women from their countries - away from family, homes, and children - to wealthy countries to fill in for the roles commonly attributed to women: caretaker, spouse, and homebody.
The authors frame the care deficit as a three part problem: it’s not only the fact that more women in developed countries are taking on more hours to work outside the home, it’s also that men do not want to take over “women’s work,” and in doing so leave both parents outside the home and unable to care for home and family. It is the powerful societal traditions, Ehrenreich and Hochschild say, that discourage men from taking over responsibilities socially dictated for their wives. In doing so, the role of migrant workers is purposely shifted by society to “not enable affluent women to enter the workforce; it enables affluent men to continue avoiding the second shift” (9). By societal interference, there's little leeway in covering at-home care with family.
From what I gathered, the authors regard the care deficit as an issue created by a focally patriarchal government; so without anyone at home to watch over children or elderly relatives, the emotional and domestic work is pushed off onto someone else. It's mentioned elsewhere in the introduction how wealthy countries have found themselves lacking in emotional companionship with the increased focus on work. If I understand this correctly, this issue is mainly due to the increased importance of superiority in work ethic and for quick progress in a capitalist world, mainly ruled by patriarchal prejudices. The priority of work combined with a lack of concern with one's emotional well-being or home life has created a necessity out of these women; it's a destructive cycle forcing foreign women into devalued work while also preventing any at-home improvements in family work policies in the USA or other developed countries. If it's still "working," it isn't broken, so to speak.
Often our class has framed the globalization of foreign domestics as a oppressive evil; and indeed there’s truth in that, considering how it is shaped by patriarchal notions of what counts as “women’s work” and its following setbacks against women, among other factors. However, there have been efforts made by a notable organization to reshape how domestic workers are regarded in society. An article by Premilla Nadesen talks about the HTA efforts to gain protections and respect for domestic workers, relabeling themselves as professional "household technicians"...The HTA presents a new mindset for those fighting for the recognition and rights of migrant workers in domestics: Could it be possible to reshape how domestic work is considered in wealthy countries like the United States, thereby allowing more workers - men and women alike - to take up the work that is currently covered by migrants?
As we further explore feminized globalization and its impact on women, especially women from developing countries, it may be beneficial to discuss the mindset drilled into these women by their home countries: how does it affect how they view their work before and after they’re sent off, and what efforts are likely necessary to reverse this mindset within their home countries?
No comments:
Post a Comment