Blog entry #9

The Place of Caregiving Work in Contemporary Societies
Caregiving often does not get the time and attention paid to it that it once did. Men and women both share caregiving roles, although women alone have been responsible for the physical care and reproduction. This has never been viewed as work, instead as a loving and nurturing task. Women are responsible for four-fifths of unpaid work, as well as one-third of paid work, however only receive 105 of the world’s income (Bonnar). Both paid and unpaid work of women is often undervalued. The early feminist movement represented the desire of women to do paid work and be more valued. However, employment often added more stress to women’s lives, because they now faced work outside and inside the home. The literature on housework is varied. Many studies examined the economic value of housework, estimating that homemakers are worth about ten thousand to forty thousand a year (Bonnar). Other studies, instead, trivialized housework and devalued it.
Housework is composed of domestic tasks and child rearing. It also requires care of the worker. There is a distinction between housework and caregiving, but housework is usually done out of care. Caregiving, however, is the more important of the two. Many people do caregiving, but it is important to have some constant people. Employed mothers, in order to do their caregiving, have even more planning to do because they need to schedule out their time for caregiving. Mothers hold the purchasing power for household products and also what their children buy.
The author designates four reasons why the detailing the thought going into caregiving is important. These reasons include that the nature of the work is usually not completely understood, that it is not possible to outsource all the caregiving tasks, that the workplace is often not conducive to caregivers, and finally because the market sector and domestic sector are not compatible. Working mothers have a small range of jobs to pick from, because most are not flexible to caregiving chores. Because of the little value of caregiving, it is often “squeezed for many people to the edges of available time and energy (Bonnar 197).
Internationally, women remain the primary caregivers. Although more women work for wages now, they are still responsible for most of the domestic tasks. Also, the jobs usually held by women are not as high paying as those held by men. Socialist countries, such as Sweden, are one of the more gender-neutral countries today, and it is the stance of the government that “…every individual, regardless of sex, shall have the same responsibility for child upbringing and housework” (qtd. in Bonnar 198). However, there is still a significant wage difference between men and women, which makes it more fiscally responsible for the woman to do most childcare tasks. Women’s jobs also often require less skill and are socially undervalued.
Women often desire wage jobs, but tradition and policy have made carework unpaid. Therefore, the carework and parenting becomes undervalued and pushed secondary to paid work. Societies emphasis on material wealth makes unpaid work underappreciated. For women to be more productive in the workplace the hours a job demands must lessen and also be more flexible for family emergencies, since it is usually the mother responsible for those situations.
Another option, instead of making paid work more flexible, is to make domestic work paid work. The government would then pay wages for domestic labor on an hourly rate. Another option is to pay caregivers, those responsible for the physical well being of other humans. People would be paid depending on the age, physical conditions (mental illness, handicapped, etc), and number of people they are responsible for.
The prospect of waging caregivers is often met with opposition. Feminists often believe it will further force women back into the home. However, men could also choose to do caregiver work instead of getting a job outside the home. Others cite that caregiving should be done out of love, not for wages.

New World Domestic Order
Latino and Latina immigrants perform a large portion of the Los Angeles domestic work. The services they perform are widespread and inexpensive, even though they are labor-intensive and difficult tasks for the workers. Instead of domestic labor outsourcing decreasing lately, as predicted, it has instead expanded, especially Mexican and Central American women as housekeepers and nannies (Hondagneu-Sotelo).
Many of these women in performing paid domestic labor are married and with children. Therefore, these women are responsible for taking care of their own home and children as well as others. Nannies are perceived as more caring and nurturing then the daycares, when children can get lost in the crowd. Also, nannies can mold around parents’ schedules, unlike daycares. These nannies are also usually responsible for housekeeping tasks. These jobs are often underpaid, even though pay inequality was predicted to lessen after World War II (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Los Angeles is one of the cities with the most Mexican and Central American women employed in these domestic labor tasks. Domestic laborers are also a sign of prestige for the residents of Los Angeles. “… in Los Angeles’ suburban landscape, gardeners and domestic workers proliferate… twice as many gardeners and domestic workers were working in Los Angeles in 1990 as in 1980” (Hondagneu-Sotelo 7). While Mexicans have always had a large presence in Los Angeles, Central American immigrants have experienced a large influx lately. Domestic labor is often looked down upon by those who perform it and those who pay for it, “… this occupation is often not recognized as employment because it takes place in a private home” (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Also, domestic labor is traditionally preformed out of love, and because of its emotional component, not recognized as paid labor.
Perhaps more importantly than the domestic laborers themselves not seeing their work as legitimate, the employers often do not believe themselves to be employers (Hondagneu-Sotelo). They sometimes call their laborers “part of the family”, but there is still a tension because of being paid. Employers treating their domestic employees as workers “… encourage the domestic employees to work harder and longer, and simultaneously allow employers to experience personal recognition and validation of themselves as kind, superior, and altruistic. Maternalism is thus an important mechanism of employer power” (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Especially as nannies, the employers create emotional ties with the families they work for and therefore are more likely to let themselves be exploited by their employers.
However, lately this dual-sided emotional connection has become mostly the desire of the employees to be closer to their employers. “They want social recognition and appreciation for who they are and what they do…” (Hondagneu-Sotelo). The employers, however, are often reluctant to discuss their employees. It is a luxury that often goes unnoticed and is not discussed. The employees also devalue their work, admitting to not aspiring to it. However, “… they are extremely proud of what their earnings enable them to accomplish for their families” (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Also, labor regulations for domestic work are virtually unknown by anyone.
Primarily those of lower socioeconomic status have always done domestic work, however, both American-born white women and immigrants preformed it. However, lately solely immigrant workers or nonwhites have preformed it. Black women have predominantly preformed the domestic labor in the South, but now has shifted to Mexican or Central Americans, especially in the Southwest states, such as California. This is due to the high rates of immigration, as well as the rise of racialized xenophobia (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Mexican and Central American women are often forced into the dead end domestic labor jobs, and portrayed as lazy or unmotivated, but often they just have no other opportunities. The racialization of domestic work is present in most developed countries around the world. Globally, paid domestic work has led to three factors- paid domestic work is usually preformed by people who leave their own homes to do it, it draws women who were of high status in their own countries away, and international migration of women laborers. One thing that sets apart the United States from other countries is there is no official government policy to contract foreign domestic laborers (Hondagneu-Sotelo). In the United States, domestic work is informal and done with little government regulation.
Domestic labor remains, in large, a woman’s task. Even when people outsource domestic work, women are in charge of the hiring. While outsourcing domestic tasks as well as quicker and simpler ways to perform domestic tasks have cut down on number of hours worked, it is still the women that perform the majority of the tasks. The women are usually responsible for organizing their children’s lives as well, and due the majority of child rearing. However, when a woman performs paid work as a nanny or housekeeper, that diminishes the time they can spend with their own family. They spend time, instead, connecting with the family they work for and building emotional ties with them. These domestic laborers fit into three categories- live-in nanny/housekeepers, live-out nanny/housekeeper, and housecleaner (Hondagneu-Sotelo).

Maid in L.A.
Although Latina immigrants often work in low-paying domestic once they move to the United States, they usually were not domestic workers in their previous homes. Because it does require some money to move to a new country, people must have some money. Live-in nanny jobs are especially convenient for those who do not have enough money to get a place of their own when they first come to the United States. The employers of domestic workers often do not acknowledge the previous jobs or education their employees had, instead treating them with little respect. Privacy is also difficult for live-in nannies; even those that have their own room still must share common space with their employers. The line between work and home life also becomes incredibly blurred for these employees; especially those who are on call during the night or live in a room with a child. Along with room, live-in nannies are usually provided board, but this is somewhat ambiguous, and employees often feel uncomfortable expressing their food preferences and when they want to eat their meals. Some women also say there are designated foods only for the family, and are left with scarce options. Although many of the families employing domestic laborers are in the upper class, they still grossly underpay their employees. The time constraints also keep the workers from their families for days at a time. Live-in nanny jobs, because of the reasons listen above, are the least desired of the domestic jobs. Mostly, people who have not been in the country long enough to afford room and board for themselves, and are somewhat forced into the position.
Live-out nanny jobs follow a much more rigid schedule than live-in nanny jobs, but are nonetheless demanding. The work and home are truly separate for these employees, and they can designate time for their own families. They still develop strong loving bonds with some of the children they care for, however. Many of the responsibilities include picking up children from school and various activities, as well as food preparation for the children. Some parents who use live-out nannies hire help so they can both work, however one nanny expressed, “La Americana is very selfish, she only thinks about herself. They prefer not to be with their children, as they find it’s much easier to pay someone to do that” (Hondagneu-Sotelo 40). Some nannies believe they are hired just so that mothers do not need to spend more time with their children, and this way they can decide how often they interact with their children. These parents also rarely discipline their children, and hostility is often taken out on nannies. Disciplining is hard for nannies to do, the way Latina culture disciplines varies from the traditional American way, and discipline is often reserved by the parents. Sometimes, however, the children only listen to their nannies, as they spend most time with them. This respect for the nanny sometimes makes parents jealous that their children may love their nannies more than them. The nannies often feel similar affection for the children, which can strain their own family ties.
Housecleaners are the least involved of the domestic laborers. Housecleaners usually split their week between working at the homes of several families. These women report that the hours are convenient to being with their families and feel that they still spend a good amount of time with their families. One woman interviewed states that housecleaning was easier than many of the other job options for one with her qualifications, and pays more than other jobs. Usually housecleaners had been living in the United States for a while, often previously working as a live-in or live-out nanny, and usually have children of their own as well. One of the hardest parts of housecleaning is finding enough work, because these women have to find multiple families to hire them. When they do not have enough families for a week, they have to find alternative means of earning money that week. Overall, the housecleaning jobs are those taken by the people who have been in the United States for longer, and these people receive significant more wages than some of the other domestic laborers do. They also work the most desirable hours and have the most time available to spend with their families. Live-in nanny jobs often separate families, making mothers only see their children once a week or simply having to mail home their wages. The mothers who send their families home checks for their domestic work are common, and this is known as “transnational motherhood” (Hondagneu-Sotelo).
While nonwhites have traditionally preformed domestic work, there is a disproportionate number of Central American employees (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Los Angeles especially has a large amount of Central American domestic workers, because of both its location and the patterns and traditions that kept Central American workers in domestic labor force. When first moving to the United States, women look to their social contacts for opportunities for work, usually domestic labor. These jobs often also provide a place to live, and women often see these jobs as an easy option. Cultural forces, such as the low marriage rate in Central America, lead women to migrate because they might not have a family, and if they do, then they often must leave as the sole breadwinners of their families, and send their money back. There are a multitude of reasons families prefer Latina domestic employees, mostly that they trust Latinas to keep family secrets of what they might see while working in the house. They are also viewed as more submissive and servile. Ironically, women who employee domestic workers identify their heritage as clean and hygienic, but do not perform the cleaning themselves. Some employees also display racist attitudes towards their employers. Stereotypes are applied and quickly learned for domestic employers, as well as employees.

The “Nanny” Question in Feminism
The great accomplishment of moving women out of the home and allowing them into the workplace was vital part of the feminist movement. However, this leaves the question of what to do with children whose mothers leave for the workplace. Partners can use a rotating schedule, or professional daycare or nanny services. This author also asserts that live-in, full time nannying is the most difficult of all domestic jobs.
The author deciphers several differences between hiring domestic laborers and purchasing labor and services. These include that the house setting, in private, is often not thought of as employment, because the relationships between domestic laborer and employer and more intimate than in market relationships, and that the product of domestic labor is often a relationship between caregiver and children (Tronto). He also mentions three perspectives of the employees, the first of which is the worker.
Domestic workers are paid low wages, especially when they are live-in nannies. However, the most important thing to the workers is not the wages, however it is “… that they are not accorded sufficient respect and dignity. From the standpoint of workers, the moral stress of being a domestic worker is great” (Tronto 38). Workers are forced to act in the manner that their employer believes desirable and acceptable, and people lose their own values and self worth then. There are few laws to ensure welfare of domestic laborers, and those that do exist are rarely enforced. Caring for children and the elderly is undervalued in the United States, unlike most other cultures. However, the unique bond that develops between caregivers and children makes it difficult for women to leave their jobs as domestic laborers. The employee holds very little power over their position, instead the employer, usually the wife and mother, is in control of the relationship the caregiver has with children and the family. The mother holds all control over the relationship, and can demand her caregiver acts a certain way. This can make the mother act in a tyrannical way, or feel guilty for the low wages and hardships of the job she inflicts upon the worker (Tronto).
Having a nanny and multiple caregivers can be both beneficial and harmful for children. Having a nanny around, meeting children’s needs, may make children believe adults will always be there to cater to their needs (Tronto). However, caregivers are important source of love and intimacy for children. Also, caregivers are usually a different race than the children they care for, which might provoke racial stereotyping by children.
For many families, having a nanny is a status symbol. Upper class mothers are expected to outsource at least some domestic tasks to domestic laborers. Mothers are also urged to outsource many of the childrearing tasks to professionals- children are encouraged to participate in many activities, keeping them largely out of the home. However, parents are often skeptical of large daycare or childcare establishments, so they instead turn to nannies. Therefore, parents alleviate guilt in hiring domestic laborers by believing they are doing it for the good of their children.
The concept of intensive mothering has made it so no matter how much time mothers spend with their children and how much time they allocate for other caregivers, they still do not feel they provide their children with adequate hours of caregiving. For feminists, there is also no solution for what to do with children when their mothers go off toe be a part of the labor force.