What is the relationship between first world career-oriented women and third world migrants?
Response to the text:
Ehrenreich and Hochschild see the career-oriented women and third-world immigrant relationship as an employer and employee on a great divide of privileges and opportunities. According to them, “women in western countries have increasingly taken on paid work, and hence need other-paid domestics and caretakers for children and elderly people-to replace them" (193). Ehrenreich and Hochschild seem to find that immigrant women, particularly those employed in areas of domestic work, are not typically viewed as equals to the upper-class working women in richer societies. Another example of this claim is that the “ 'care deficit' that has emerged in the wealthier countries as women enter the workforce pulls migrants from the third world and postcommunist nations; poverty pushes them" (193). So the women who migrated from their homes are working for the career-oriented women, who are in-turn juggling two roles: career women and housewives.
Ehrenreich and Hochschild. “Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy” in Globalization: The Transformation of Social Worlds, eds. D. Stanley Eitzen and Mazine Baca Zinn, 188-196.
One point of view:
I think from what we read Ehrenreich and Hochschild are somewhat correct in describing their relationship; however, it seems they are comparing two opposite poles in that the women mentioned in the readings all seem pretty wealthy (upper class or upper-middle class). What about the career-oriented women in the middle class or working class?
From a different perspective:
What I find interesting is the interconnectivity of the two classes or professions. Without these hired helpers, the more "sophisticated" or privileged areas of work for women may not be possible. Women who believe themselves to be of a higher rank neglect the reality that they have actually entered into a relationship much like that of a marriage--in which the domestic servant fills the stereotypical "feminine" duties and the now liberalized women can move out into the workforce, a more "masculine" area. What these women ought to consider is not their fortune, but rather, their equally as a restricted lot in life. Giving women servants is not giving them freedom--it's exchanging one problematic situation for another, and all at the expense of women.
If working women were perhaps provided with better employment opportunities, reduced-cost childcare, more flexible hours for childcare providers, or any other recognition for responsibilities outside of the traditional "workplace," then perhaps domestic servitude would not be the booming industry that it is. Once societies recognize that parenthood (whether motherhood, fatherhood, or caregiver-hood) and domestic work are just as valuable and strenuous as other occupations, then the push and pull factors for immigration will be cut in half. The expectation that this burden of parenthood and domestic duty should largely fall on the woman is another directly related issue.
So, career-oriented women and third-world immigrants? One in the same in my eyes. These restricting jobs may be at different stages in the game, but they are both playing by sexist rules and are thereby inherently connected.
A video on the perceptions of what "duties" working women neglect:
I would have to disagree with the first response. In my perspective, the relationship between the First World career-oriented women and the Third World migrants can be described as “sisters and allies struggling to achieve common goals” (195). The women on both sides of the argument are struggling to climb up the workforce ladder and at the same time care for their families. However, the only difference is the career opportunities available to these women. On one hand, the First World career-oriented women are more “privileged” in terms of living conditions, education, race, experiences, etc. Therefore, they have the opportunity to work for well-known companies achieving high paying positions. On the other hand, migrant workers most likely grew up with rudimentary education background, if any. These women are able to secure jobs like (but not limited to) housemaids, baby sitters, cook, etc. Many of the housemaids, like those shown in “Maid in America,” are minorities coming from poor countries. White supremacy comes into play when discussing house maids. We rarely see “white” maids employed by First World career-oriented women. Instead, minorities like Latinas, Asians and African Americans make up most of the house maid population. To prove: type in “housemaids” in Google images and see how many non-white maids pictures emerge. Google even suggested a related search: Indian housemaid. Keep in mind, though, that some of the pictures are for photographic purposes (staged maids in photographs).
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between house maids and their employers can also be described as one woman providing another with work. Now, this may seem like it is an employer and employee relationship instead. However, I am choosing to see the relationship using a different lens (a feminist lens perhaps?), where I see employer/employee relationship as two separate women with different abilities. One woman (First World career-oriented) is merely giving another woman the opportunity to work and make enough money to financially provide for her family. At the same time, the career-oriented woman depends on the migrant woman to help take care of the children while she goes to earn a living in the office. These two women are simultaneously working to make ends meet. Though the job choices for migrant workers are low paying positions, they ultimately have a similar goal to the First World career-oriented women and that is to earn money to financially support their families.
I agree with the thought of the push and pull factors. I believed that if women and men as well were offered better options to help out and contribute to their family their option of migrating to a whole different country would not be their first choice. Women who work should be offered more help by their government regardless of the amount they contribute! They are obviously working to sustain and support their families. Why should they be denied any help!
ReplyDeleteAs it was stated that any typr of job is still a job. Unfortunately in our society it is not view equally for males and females. Not only does the work force show it but so do sports. Women and men are still not fully eqaully treated nor payed even thought they might do the same job the man is always earning more than the women, and in sports its the same either.