WUNRN
http://monthlyreview.org/2013/12/01/the-feminization-of-migration/
“The astonishingly high number of women migrating is a new global trend.”
THE FEMINIZATION
OF MIGRATION
Care & the New Emotional Imperialism
By
Zuhal Yesilyurt Gunduz, Associate Professor in the International Relations
Department at TED University in Ankara, Turkey
Migration, Care, Care Drain, and Care
Chains
The
history of migration is as old as the history of humanity. Since the very
beginnings humans have migrated to build a new, more hopeful existence
somewhere else. Today migrants often break away from their home countries as a
consequence of warfare, political repression, or severe poverty. Stephen
Castles and Mark J. Miller write that “migration has become a private solution
to a public problem.”4 Migrant
labor is also of course associated with a myriad of other problems to which
such workers are subjected.
Employers,
recruiting agencies—as well as both sending and receiving states—profit from
migrants’ hard work and contributions. For the sending countries, migration is
a successful development and growth policy. It not only decreases unemployment
rates, but also brings in remittances. Some states market the image of female
migrants by praising them as “‘economic heroes’ who
not only sacrifice themselves for their families but also for the nation.”5 Receiving
countries, too, gain from the hard, but low-priced, work of migrants. These
states are able to reduce labor shortages in sectors such as information
technology or health and domestic care and provide upper-middle-class families
the possibility of private child or elderly care as a kind of limited
recompense for the shrinking welfare state. They also benefit from the brain
drain of sending nations—the siphoning of highly educated professionals from
their home countries, where they received their education, towards the
economically developed countries. And of course by taking advantage of the
availability of low-cost, migrant care workers, relatively privileged families
in the rich countries are able to acquire a higher standard of living.
The
astonishingly high number of women migrating is a new global trend. In the past
it was mainly men who went to countries far away; women came as followers. In
the last twenty years, however, this has changed so much that today over half
of all migrants are women. Furthermore, female migrants have often become the
main or single wage earners of their families. Saskia Sassen calls this the
“feminisation of survival”—societies, governments, and states more and more
depend on the work of women in the labor force. Thus the necessary conditions
of work and survival fall increasingly on the shoulders of low-waged, deprived,
and exploited migrant women.6
Driving
the “feminization of migration” are global social and demographic trends in
developed countries such as aging populations in general and the elderly in
specific, and the growing number of women in paid labor (over 50 percent
overall, and close to 70 percent of women in some developed countries). This
all contributes to the increasing demand for “care work”—in sectors like
health, nursing, food service, hotels, housework, and care for children,
elderly, or ill people. Care work—also called intimate labor—includes care and
nursing of children, sick, or elderly people, as well as housework and housekeeping.7 It
is private and public simultaneously, therefore breaking down this dichotomy.
Selmin
Kaşka lists five drivers of the escalation of demand for
domestic work globally: (1) in many European states neoliberal policies are
dwindling the welfare state, which include cuts in free public-services
provisions; (2) demographic factors, such as the aging of population; (3) the
transformation in the socioeconomic role of women with the feminization of
labor leads to a need for help to cope with the accomplishment of both family
and career; (4) the further commercialization and commodification of domestic work,
which used to be (and often still is) unpaid labor—and when not is almost
always very poorly paid labor; and (5) the fact that in some countries,
especially in the Middle East, “taking and having foreigners” for domestic work
is a status symbol that many women, whether they are part of the paid labor
force or not, desire.8
Not
only do many employers explicitly seek foreign women, specific nationalities
are often sought-after, such as Filipinos. Sometimes migrants with undocumented
status are preferred, since this increases employers’ control and power over
them.9
Foreign
domestic workers around the globe can be found in all kinds of relatively
privileged households—in the homes of upper-middle-class and above families;
single people, single mothers or fathers; and the elderly or ill. Migrant
workers perform what Bridget Anderson calls the “three C’s—cleaning, cooking,
caring.”10 Domestic
work can be divided into “practical,” that is performance-oriented, and
“social,” that is care-oriented branches. The first requires one to “care for”
and includes work such as cooking, washing, or cleaning, while the latter
consists of “care about” and embraces care and love as emotional work. This
emotional work necessitates emotive engagement and cannot be realized without
affection and fondness. Care workers improve the home’s quality of life and
convey an emotional surplus for their employers.11
The
transnational labor market leads to a new trend “as women who normally care for
the young, the old, and the sick in their own poor countries move to care for
the young, the old, and the sick in rich countries, whether as maids or nannies
or as daycare and nursing-home aides. It’s care drain.”12 Care
drain, with its “importation of care and love from poor to wealthier countries”13 leads
to a global redistribution or even a maldistribution of women’s care labor
power—since now what the rich states have on a fairly large scale, especially
in their more privileged sectors, is largely missing elsewhere.14 Brain
drain has its drawbacks—but care drain will lead to far-reaching and even
irreversible consequences.
Many
migrant women, hoping to improve their families’ fates and lives, leave behind
their families and children, sometimes even their babies, for years to come.
However, their migration leads to “the distortion and erosion of the Third
World commons. Indeed, as whole villages…are emptied of mothers,
aunts, grandmothers and daughters…a desertification of
Third World caregivers and the emotional commons” takes place.15
Still,
even from far away, mothers keep on caring. They send money, gifts, listen to
and talk to their kids on the phone, and keep doing care work. But as this
cannot be enough, others have to step up. Rhacel Salazar Parreñas underlines
that when husbands migrate, women take over the roles of mother and father. But
when wives migrate, fathers frequently step out and let female relatives care
for their kids. Parreñas therefore invites husbands of migrating women to quit
traditional patriarchal gender roles and take responsibility for their children
and homes.16
If
they do not, however, other women take their places and duties: grandmothers,
aunts, cousins—even nannies. Thus female migrants who work in household and
child care in affluent countries sometimes engage nannies for their own homes
in poor countries. These nannies in turn leave their own children in the care
and protection of other women. This way, international care chains of care
workers in the global South and the global North are developing as
transnational networks enabling the reproduction of daily life.17
Care
chains include a “series of personal links between people across the globe
based on the paid or unpaid work of caring,” with each care worker being
dependent on the work of another care worker.18 The
result is the “globalization of mothering.”19 The
commodification of care connects women by gender, but separates them by race,
class, and ethnicity. With its commodification, the already very-low value
attributed to reproductive work wanes further. Barbara Katz-Rothman writes:
“When performed by mothers, we call this mothering…when performed by hired
hands, we call it unskilled.”20 Although
care is socio-emotional work that should be expensive—domestic workers do care
work for their employers’ most beloved, their children, their parents, their
homes, and this they do with affection—this tough work is devalued and obtained
for a cheap price.
These
women were already doing care work in their home countries without any payment.
Now they perform similar work in developed countries, this time in exchange for
low wages, although higher than those available back home. States, such as the
Philippines or Sri Lanka, even promote female migration by providing easier
access for legally required permits or papers or by providing institutional
support; for example, the six-month course at the Philippine Women’s University
grants a housekeeper diploma. In the Philippines alone there are over 1,200
agencies that find “appropriate” domestic workers for the first world’s moneyed
families.21
Life as Domestic Care Workers
In
all kinds of social groups care has to be organized, realized, and provided,
because “human life as we know it would be inconceivable without relations of
care.”22 In
cases of deficiency or disruption of care activities and relations, human
well-being is endangered.23
In
some cases care workers are compelled to co-reside in the houses of their rich
employers to guarantee twenty-four-hour availability. This, however, isolates
them from the outside world and renders socialization and integration into
their new society nearly impossible. In many cases the relationship between the
employing family and the domestic worker may be similar to a
“master-and-servant” one, which disgraces the migrants’ human rights, talents,
and expertise. Notwithstanding their educational background and skills, a
change of occupation and move up the career ladder for these women becomes
mostly unattainable.24
Even
more detrimental is the fact that cohabitation makes domestic workers nearly
helpless in cases of discrimination, exploitation, and abuse—including
incarceration, violence, sexual harassment, and/or rape.25 Removal
of legal documents, under- or non-payment, as well as denial of resting times
(even sick leave) or overtime pay, are more the rule than the exception. Due to
the private nature of houses, locating women at risk of enslavement is nearly
impossible. As many female migrant workers work without a residence or work
permit, the fear of deportation aggravates their situation and makes it even
harder to proceed against the culpable.
Coping with Migration
Migrating
women are in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, their home countries
praise them as “heroes” for bringing in remittances and contributing to
development and growth. Their husbands and families celebrate them, as they now
can afford to live better than ever before (good and healthy food, private
schools, toys, better houses, etc.). Their employers in the rich North
sometimes esteem them, as they acknowledge the increased need for care work. On
the other hand, the same women migrants are being criticized and condemned.
Many times, their children express disapproval and negative feelings towards
their mothers. They keep asking themselves—even years after the migration
process has ended and the family is reunited again—whether their mothers really
had to “go,” why their mothers left them, whether there were alternatives to
leaving children behind. Neighbors criticize migrant women, especially the more
wealth the migrating women’s families acquire, for how “materialistic” those
departing women are. After all, they sometimes surreptitiously say, those women
were able to leave children and husbands behind just to make money. And very often these are exactly the same
thoughts and beliefs that migrating women themselves have. Thus, women migrants
have and face constant self-reflection and self-criticism.26
Another
problem, often disregarded, is the contradictions in class positions of the
female migrants. Most of these have received high educations and have academic
qualifications. Many have worked in middle-class, albeit underpaid, jobs.
Migration exchanges all these for a job in an economically rich country, that
will bring in a much higher income for the migrants and families back home, but
is ascribed lower status and considered low-skilled and easy. The move thus
involves a social decline as care work is undervalued, but is simultaneously an
ascent, as the new job involves higher payment and thus social rise.27
Millions
of children of migrants are also affected. A generation of children has grown
up without their mothers at their sides. The consequences of long separation
periods, especially in very young ages, can be devastating. Another negative
aspect is the fact that now that mother-child/children relations cannot be
based upon direct care, they alter into “care through money.” This can be
called “commodification of motherhood.”28 Although
mothers make huge sacrifices for their children, trust in mother-child relations erodes and
children frequently have doubts about why their mothers had gone.
Studies
reveal that migrants’ children are ill more often than other children; they
experience resentment, bewilderment, and indifference more than their friends,
who live with their mothers. Here we notice “injustice at work, linking the
emotional deprivation of these children with the surfeit of affection their
First World counterparts enjoy”—at least ostensibly.29 Time,
energy, heartiness, and vigor—but also care, affection, fondness, and yes,
love—are all being redirected from the children of the migrating women towards
the children of their employers, who now apparently possess everything: nice
toys and big rooms, fancy cloths and good schools, caring nannies and adoring
parents. These children get all the freely given love and affection that their
parents and families are willing and able to provide, plus all the bought love
and affection of their nannies. Of course, much of this is an illusion since
the children of the rich also suffer from a kind of emotional deprivation,
given that meaningful caring cannot simply be bought and paid for. Still, what
is so hard to come by among the poor disproportionately located in one part of
the globe, is available in much greater abundance among the rich
disproportionately located in another part of the globe.
Care Seen Through Feminist Eyes
From
the point of view of middle-class women in developed states, “liberation” from
non-paid domestic work is an attractive and understandable aspiration. Although
technology has made most household chores less burdensome, the total hours of
housework has not decreased for women or been shared equitably with men. Thus,
women still are not emancipated from domestic work, which makes some kind of
domestic help attractive, especially if they work in highly demanding,
administrative, time-consuming jobs.30 The
labor of low-wage foreign domestic workers changes all this.
Upper-middle-class,
professional women of the rich countries, who can afford to do so, “use their
class privilege to buy themselves out of their gender subordination”—in their
case by hiring foreign housekeepers.31 In
doing so, they emancipate themselves from housework and care work. However, the
increasing North-South gap and rising poverty in the global South means female
migrants who take over care work have few other choices if they are to promote
the economic welfare and guarantee the survival o f their families. And so
emancipated women seem to consent to this gendered, unequal, hierarchical job
division (public/male—private/female dichotomy) and bind it with a globally
racist division of labor between women.32
Polly
Toynbee evaluates this critically: “Domestic servitude has only been escaped by
passing it down to another cadre of oppressed women. Battalions of low-paid
women…have taken up the domestic duties, along with the dirty washing,
discarded by professional women who have fled the home. Liberation for
high-fliers breaking through glass ceilings is only possible because of a
flotilla of unseen, unheard women.”33 Parreñas
calls this the “international division of reproductive labour…that is shaped simultaneously by global capitalism, gender
inequality in the sending country, and gender inequality in the receiving
country.”34
Because
reproductive and care work remains in female hands—no longer in the hands of
the intellectual, sometimes even quite liberated woman, but this time in the
hands of an ethnically and socially “other” woman, who carries out
life-sustaining reproduction and care work—the mounting participation of women
in paid labor cannot transform gender roles connecting women with care work.35 So,
“despite the increased feminization of labour, there has not been a decreased
feminization of reproductive labour [i.e., the various forms of caregiving].”36
Arlie
Hochschild draws attention to another aspect of the problem. Professional women
in highly demanding administrative and executive employment in the developed
world are obligated to work along capitalist lines: long working hours,
excessive tasks, hard conditions, harsh competition; plus, of course the
minimization of all obtrusions to work, including family work or family time,
as your job comes first, always, at all times. This is aggressive capitalism.
Thus, the need for the ever-increasing “care industry” stepping in to help out.37
It
is not uncommon for women in the upper-middle- (or professional-technical)
class in the global North to work long hours in stressful occupations, while
their domestic care workers suffer from similar work overload—of course under
still more oppressive conditions. According to Hochschild: “Two women working
for pay is not a bad idea. But two working mothers giving their all to work is
a good idea gone haywire. In the end, both First and Third World women are
small players in a larger economic game whose rules they have not written.”38 Of
course in all of this one should not forget that there are also women who
belong to the capitalist class, and who do not need to work at all, and yet are
even more likely to hire domestic laborers than their upper-middle-class
counterparts—simply because their huge fortunes allow them to do so.
Care in the Neoliberal World
With
neoliberalization continuing and the North-South gap increasing, it is not hard
to forecast an increase of care drain. Seen from this perspective, it is hardly
possible to consider care to be a “private” topic: care is undoubtedly a global
political topic. Even more, Fiona Robinson says “decisions regarding the
provision and distribution of care are of profound moral significance, insofar
as they are central to the survival and security of people around the world.”39 Care
relations globally are “constructed by relations of power determined primarily
by gender, class, and race. These are, in turn, structured by the discourses
and materiality of neoliberal globalization and historical and contemporary
relations of colonialism and neocolonialism.”40 Therefore,
the negative consequences of neoliberal capitalism must be included in
discussions of foreign domestic work and workers.
Whereas
in the past many European countries offered welfare support, over the last two
decades most have curtailed the welfare state, imposing increasingly harsh
austerity on domestic populations. They have done so in various ways:
restricting rights to and quantity of social benefits, expanding costs for what
used to be free services, and privatizing the state’s social-security
responsibility.41 As
the state withdraws subventions in care and health-care centers, families take
responsibility for the increasing costs of care tasks. Thus, the privatization
of formerly state-provided support leads to the erosion of care support in
exchange for market dependence.42 The
market increasingly sells care work to anyone—provided that the would-be buyers
have sufficient money or means. Yet, the market does not carry out this
privatization process through legalized labor alone. It is a well-known fact
that “European economies have long profited from and, in actual practice,
condoned illicit work by illegal migrants in the…restaurant trade,
domestic cleaning, and private nursing care.”43 And:
“The system is illegal, but it works. If it were not for the…[migrant] women, most of who are working illegally,
domestic care would collapse completely. Therefore it is tolerated, more or
less tacitly.”44
The
realities of domestic workers reveal the feminization of migration and
globalization of the international job market. Relations of exploitation and
dependency shift from the national to international level; the domestics
question widens from a class issue to an ethnic and international phenomenon.45 Reproductive
work in the Western world is being shifted from local women to migrant women.
Disparities between these women deepen, while global stratification systems are
reinforced, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots within developed
countries as well as between poor and rich states expand.46 Consequently
we need to evaluate critically World Bank and IMF-imposed development models
based on “growth” and the tightening of belts obliging teachers, lawyers,
doctors, and other educated though unemployed or impoverished professionals to
become domestics, maids, nurses, or nannies in developed countries.47
Care
chains can involve the transfer of socio-emotional commons, with the receiving
society as a whole benefitting from the siphoning of socio-emotional capital
from the global South.48Hence
care chains reflect a colonial relationship: in the past precious raw materials
were stolen from Africa and Asia by the imperial powers through coercion,
force, and murder. Modern day colonialism takes over the social good (commons)
of emotional work. This is what Arlie Hochschield calls “the new emotional
imperialism.”49
Whereas
the “old” colonialism was/is overtly brutal and a male-centered imperialism,
modern-day colonialism is in this instance less atrocious, but by no means free
of coercion. It is women-centered, as love and care, indispensable for the
realization of reproductive work, have become the “new gold.”50 Yet,
this new emotional imperialism should be condemned like all other forms of
imperialism. Migrating women seemingly choose to leave. However, they are
coerced by economic pressures and burdens, which force them into such difficult
choices. The continuing global North-South gap itself is a kind of coercion,
violence, oppression, and cruelty. Therefore it is not possible to consider the
decision to migrate as a decision of “free will.”51
Fiona
Robinson underlines that the dependency of the global North on the global South
for the supply of care work—a reproductive work and life-nourishing task—is
rapidly escalating. This indeed openly confronts conservative ideas about the
global South’s “dependency” on the North.52 Moreover,
migrant domestic workers sustain a significant component of the local,
national, and even international infrastructure. Even though neither domestic
work nor domestic workers are typically included in analyses of the global
economy, they indeed are a significant component of it. Thus, the power of
migrant domestic workers is much higher than most of them know: if domestic
workers in a gentrified metropolitan area, say lower Manhattan, went on strike
for a day or more, it would disrupt all parts of the city and the “urban
economy would be paralyzed.”53
Therefore,
notwithstanding the many predicaments and vulnerabilities migrant domestic
workers face, their strength, courage, and determination to overcome all
difficulties, to employ their talents as caregivers, and work hard to assure
and enable the survival and social enhancement of their families and societies
back home, is worth underlining and respecting. Domestic care workers are not
only victims within this tough global economy, but also active agents chasing a
better future for their families and themselves. Their experience represents a
vigorous struggle against economic and social deprivations and hindrances.54 UN
Women Executive Director Michelle Bachelet praises “the resilience and
determination of these women to find ways to survive, and even thrive.”55
What remains to be done is to evaluate critically the global
capitalist system that forces mothers to leave their own families and care for
other families in order to provide for them within a commodity economy, instead
of staying at home and working in their own communities. IMF and World
Bank-imposed growth-models forced upon developing countries contribute to the
further deterioration of the situation. In the global North it is also
necessary to criticize an imperialist system where a substantial minority of
relatively well-to-do, upper-middle-class (and upper-class) individuals are
able to take advantage of a foreign-migrant-labor system to draw on the
low-paid labor of others—who are brought into their domestic sphere to fill a
care gap which is the natural counterpart of affluent professional and
upper-class life styles. What makes this especially complicated, as Hochschild
points out, is that many professional women (and men) may be in a job situation
where they too feel they have no choice although their conditions are hardly to
be equated in this respect with the foreign domestic workers that they employ.
One
of the most problematic deficiencies migrant care workers face is the right to
care—that is, the right to receive care themselves along with the right to care
for their own families. Migrants should have a right to family life and to be
reunited with their children. If families are reunited, transnational care
chains will diminish or even disappear. This would require sociopolitical
changes and reforms in care work. Larger-level changes would include grants of
public money for households, the professionalization of care work, a raise in
its social status, and the legalization of migrant workers—all these are steps
in the right direction.56 Ultimately,
the current, exploitative system of patriarchy, race inequality, capitalism,
and imperialism has to be supplanted. But for an immediate and minimal first
step, it is necessary to struggle to guarantee the right of children in all
situations to be with their mothers (not to exclude their fathers as well) so
that they can share family life again even while the mothers are working.57
Notes
1. ↩Rhacel Parreñas, Servants of Globalization:
Women, Migration, and Domestic Work (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2001), 87.
2. ↩Lise Isaksen, Uma Dave, and Arlie Hochschild, “Global Care
Crisis: Mother and Child’s-eye View,” Sociologia, Problemas e
Praticas no. 56 (January 2008): 67.
3. ↩Stephen Castles and Mark J. Miller, The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the
Modern World, 3rd edition (London: Guilford Press, 1998), 8–9.
4. ↩Arlie Russell Hochschild, “Love and Gold,” The Scholar & Feminist Online 8, no.1 (Fall
2009), http://sfonline.barnard.edu.
5. ↩Annelies Moors, cited in Selmin Kaşka, The New International Migration and Migrant Women in Turkey: The Case of
Moldovan Domestic Workers, MIREKOC Research Projects, 2005–2006,
http://portal.ku.edu.tr, 12.
6. ↩Saskia Sassen, “The Excesses of Globalisation and the
Feminisation of Survival”, Parallax 7, no.
1 (2001): 103.
7. ↩Sonya Michel, “Beyond the Global Brain Drain: The Global Care Drain,” The Globalist, October 20, 2010,
http://theglobalist.com.
8. ↩Kaşka, The New International Migration and Migrant Women in Turkey,
10.
9. ↩Bridget Anderson, “A Very Private Business: Exploring the
Demand for Migrant Domestic Workers,” European Journal of Women’s
Studies, no. 14 (2007): 247–64.
10. ↩Bridget Anderson, Doing the Dirty Work? The
Global Politics of Domestic Labour (London: Zed Books, 2000).
11. ↩Helma Lutz and Ewa Palenga-Möllenbeck, “Care Work Migration
in Germany, Semi-Compliance and Complicity,” Social Policy and Society 9,
no. 3 (July 2010): 420.
12. ↩Arlie Russell Hochschild, “Love and Gold,” in Barbara
Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild, eds., Global
Woman. Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy (New
York: Metropolitan Books, 2003), 17. (Note that this is a different version of
the essay with the same title that appeared in The
Scholar & Feminist Online.)
13. ↩Ibid.
14. ↩Michel, “Beyond the Global Brain Drain.”
15. ↩Isaksen, Dave, and Hochschild, “Global Care Crisis,” 75.
16. ↩Rhacel Salazar Parreñas, Children of Global Migration:
Transnational Families and Gendered Woes (Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press, 2005).
17. ↩Maria Kontos, “European Policies in the Wake of the Globalisation of Care Work,” Gunda Werner Institute, 2010, http://gwi-boell.de.
18. ↩Arlie Hochschild, “The Nanny Chain,” American Prospect, December 19, 2001,
http://prospect.org.
19. ↩Parreñas, Servants of Globalization,
61.
20. ↩Cited in Rhacel Salazar Parreñas, “Migrant Filipina Domestic
Workers and the International Division of Reproductive Labor,” Gender & Society 14, no. 4 (August 2000): 562.
21. ↩Wolfgang Uchatius, “Das globalisierte
Dienstmädchen,” Zeit Online, August
19, 2004, http://zeit.de.
22. ↩Fiona Robinson, The Ethics of Care: A Feminist
Approach to Human Security (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 2011), 2.
23. ↩Ibid, 11.
24. ↩Francesca Bettio, Annamaria Simonazzi and Paula Villa,
“Change in Care Regimes and Female Migration, the ‘Care Drain’ in the
Mediterranean,” Journal of European Social Policy 16,
no. 3 (2006): 281.
25. ↩Michel, “Beyond the Global Brain Drain.”
26. ↩Isaksen, Dave and Hochschild, “Global Care Crisis,” 65–66.
27. ↩Kontos, “European Policies in the Wake of the Globalisation of Care Work.”
28. ↩Parreñas, Servants of Globalization.
29. ↩Hochschild, “Love and Gold,” in Global Woman, 22.
30. ↩Christine E. Bose, “The Interconnections of
Paid and Unpaid Domestic Work,” The Scholar & Feminist
Online 8, no.1 (Fall 2009), http://sfonline.barnard.edu.
31. ↩Rhacel Salazar Parreñas, “Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers
and the International Division of Reproductive Labor,” Gender & Society 14, no. 4 (August 2000): 562.
32. ↩Alexandra Harstall, “Das Dienstmädchen kehrt zurück,” Globalisierung, Migration und Zukunft,
September 10, 2005, http://glow-boell.de.
33. ↩Polly Toynbee, “Mothers for Sale,” Guardian, July 19,
2003, http://guardian.co.uk.
34. ↩Parreñas, “Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers and the
International Division of Reproductive Labor,” 569.
35. ↩Helma Lutz, “Transnationale
Dienstleistungen im Haushalt. Migrantinnen als Dienstmädchen in der
globalisierten Welt,” Bund demokratischer
Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, September 15, 2006,
http://bdwi.de.
36. ↩Annelies Cooper, “Disempowered ‘Heroes,’ Political Agency of Foreign Domestic Workers in
East and Southeast Asia,” e-International Relations,
July 6, 2011, http://e-ir.info.
37. ↩Hochschild, “Love and Gold,” in Global Woman, 20.
38. ↩Ibid.
39. ↩Robinson, The Ethics of Care,
3, 3.
40. ↩Ibid, 3, 5.
41. ↩Bruno Palier, “Is There a Social Route to Welfare Reforms in Europe?,” paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Philadelphia, 2006, http://citation.allacademic.com, 4–7.
42. ↩Helma Lutz, “Intime Fremde:
Migrantinnen als Haushaltsarbeiterinnen in Westeuropa,”Eurozine, August31, 2007, http://eurozine.com.
43. ↩Stephanie Zeiler, “EU Makes Africa its Deputy Sheriff: EU Migration Policy,” Qantara.de—Dialogue With the Islamic World, November
30, 2007, quantara.de.
44. ↩Bernd Kastner cited in Lutz and Palenga-Möllenbeck, “Care
Work Migration in Germany, Semi-Compliance and Complicity,” 427.
45. ↩Alexandra Harstall, “Das Dienstmädchen kehrt zurück.”
46. ↩Bose, “The Interconnections of Paid and Unpaid Domestic
Work.”
47. ↩Robin Broad, “Book Review – Global Women, Nannies, Maids, And Sex Workers In the New
Economy,” YES! Magazine, July
18, 2004, http://yesmagazine.org.
48. ↩Kontos, “European Policies in the Wake of the Globalisation of Care Work.”
49. ↩Hochschild, “Love and Gold,” in Global Women, 27.
50. ↩Ibid, 26.
51. ↩Ibid, 27.
52. ↩Robinson, The Ethics of Care,
10.
53. ↩Ai-jen Poo, “Domestic Workers Bill of
Rights, A Feminist Approach for a New Economy”, The Scholar and Feminist Online, 8, no. 1 (Fall 2009),
http://sfonline.barnard.edu.
54. ↩Robinson, The Ethics of Care,
9–10.
55. ↩Michelle Bachelet, “Address by Michelle Bachelet on the Occasion of the Adoption of the ILO
Convention and Recommendation on Domestic Workers,” UN Women, June 13, 2011, http://unwomen.org.
56. ↩Kontos, “European Policies in the Wake of the Globalisation of Care Work.”
57. ↩Isaksen, Dave, and Hochschild, “Global Care Crisis,” 76.