Feminism and Care perspectives

I found this week’s gender and care centered to be really interesting, especially because they come from three totally different perspectives. I found that Hochschild brought to light some aspects of gender and care work that I would have not really considered otherwise. When she said, “a Thai nanny… tells me she loves the American children she cares for more than here own children back in Thailand…” I found this absolutely heartbreaking, but was able to understand the logic behind it after reading Ferree’s Gender article and how different countries promote different roles for both the mother and the father. By using the examples of the Philippines she demonstrated how certain countries promote the migration of parents to provide more for their children, and the example of Italy for a country that recruits migrant workers for care roles, so that both women and men could work. I also found Hochschild’s evaluation of her wanting to go work based on her mother’s perceived unhappiness while being a housewife, and her father’s happiness while working full-time. I feel that I was also very influenced by the fact that I saw my mother working, and enjoying it. I’ve always said I want a career, and not to be a stay-at-home mom (although interestingly, my Mother tried to explain to me that this is a lot easier said then done, especially after giving birth).

After reading Pyke’s essay, I felt a little underwhelmed. I like the perspective that she’s taking, but I think that her research would have been different and more reliable had she interviewed people that stayed married, rather than those that divorced and remarried. This is because perhaps these masculine and feminine clashing that she says was a reason they got divorced, is able to function properly in couple’s who do not get divorced. It’s very hard to know. She also assumes that gender role discrepancies are often the reason for divorce, rather than other factors such as falling out of love, such as the example of Phil and Jean. As well, she uses loaded language in order to get her point across, for example she says “this need for a wife to serve as a maid and a nanny,” instead of just saying that a high salary earning husband sees the need for a more domestic oriented wife. I understand it is still not an example of gender equality, but is much less malicious.

1. In Ferree’s filling the glass, she states that after interviewing employer’s, the reason that was given for the low wages for care work, “so that only those who are willing to do this work for love would be willing to do this work.” Do you think that higher wages would change people’s commitment to care work?

2. Do you think that Pyke’s article was written from the perspective of a neutral researcher? Why or why not.

3. Why do you think that there are differing “user manuals” in order to act feminine? Are any of these codes in play today?