Experiences of Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers - Article Example

Experiences of Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers By Parrenas Rhacel Experiences of Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers In this article, Parreñas’ core aim encompasses highlighting the political aspect that characterises reproductive labour in relation to globalisation (Parreñas, 2000). In previous literatures, on femininity and migration, scholars often assert that migration is a rather liberating experience for women. Such an allegation has been made mainly by US-based academicians who write about immigrant females from numerous countries like Mexico, India and the Dominican Republic. However, these scholars have also made the same declaration on both professional migrant women such as nurses and low-wage migrant workers. This paper focuses on the case of Filipina women. Essentially, the argument that the author makes contradicts the common suggestion that women make greater gains in status, autonomy and resources after migration. Parreñas’ perspective on this is that it is not substantial to assert that the status of women improves upon migration. She clearly highlights this fact by using a three-tier transfer of reproductive labour in globalisation, which she applied collections of middle-class women in receiving countries, migrant domestic labourers and under-developed nation women who are too deprived to migrate (Parreñas, 2000. Parreñas does this by expounding its extent as well as nature in comparison with the developing and industrialised states. In her article, she majorly highlights the “sending states” economic disparity with that of “receiving states’” economies (Parreñas, 2000). Hence, the economic disparity discovered in her study aligns with others she has acknowledged. This economic disparity acts as a core push factor that usually compels numerous women to opt to be domestic workers in the developed states. This is despite them being held in high esteem as professionals back in their home states like Filipina. Key Concepts and Ideas In the past decade, scholars have recognised the demand for migrant care workers. They have documented on the drive of care personnel from Eastern to Western Europe, South and Central America to North America, Asia to the Americas and Europe, within Asia and within South America. Most of these explorers have shown that women from these republics are mostly hired as domestic workers by the high-class families. They also earn more than what they would back in their countries. In her dissertations, she comes up with the concept of division of labour. This is where a privileged woman pays a migrant woman to perform her housework. The migrant woman in turn passes on her household work to a woman left behind in her country of origin. Parreñas suggests that as care work is passed on, its economic value of diminishes (Parreñas, 2000). Furthermore, she highlights that when most scholars are asked about Filipina migrants, they often assume that they are middle-class professional stream of workers such as nurses. This assumption is based on the fact that in America, Philippine nurses are more than the Philippine domestic workers. She asserts that their claims are wrong since about two-thirds of female labour migrants from the Philippines are, in fact, domestic workers (Parreñas, 2000). This phenomenon changes the perspective that women are greatly empowered by migration. Consequently, Parreñas shows that the perception of most scholars on the issue of women migration might not be conclusive. She does this by employing two analytical goals that give a clear view into the structural relationship between the politics of reproductive labour and the flow of Filipina domestic worker immigrants. Reflections Nakano Glenn’s dissertation is that white class-privileged women in the United States have historically freed themselves from reproductive labour. They have achieved this through the purchase of low-wage services of women of colour (Parreñas, 2000). This shows the reason behind Filipina migration. She further extends this discussion on the international division of labour in globalisation from the sole consideration of productive labour to include analysis of reproductive labour. Nakano analyses the structural relationship between reproductive labour and the feminization of the migrant labour force. Thus, she shows another dimension by which gender shapes the economic divisions of labour migration. Through her reflections, she shows a wider area in the phenomenon of women immigrants that has not been exploited or researched on by previous researchers. By breaking up the concept of women immigrants, more specifically, Filipina immigrants, the author comprehensively drives her point through. It greatly differs from the dominant theoretical model. This model has been widely applied in the situation of migrant care workers across the globe. It is also the one contributors to this special issue revisit in the notion of the ‘care chain’. From her article, she clearly defines and makes a contrast of reproductive labour and Care work. According to Paula England et al. (Parreñas, 2000), care work entails face-to-face contact and refers to the provision of a service that develops the aptitudes of the recipient. In contrast, the author states that reproductive labour encompasses the range of activities and relationships involved in sustaining people on a daily basis, as well as inter-generationally (Parreñas, 2000). From, Parreñas’ work, one learns that reproductive labour entails a wider array of activities than care work. For instance, her study on the immigrant sample in Rome and Los Angeles shows several aspects of reproductive labour. This includes the fact that it involves purchasing household goods, preparing food, laundering clothes, dusting furniture and sweeping floors. It also entails maintaining community ties, caring for adults and children, socialising children and providing emotional support. Much of the labour undertaken by migrant women is non-relational. It would, therefore, not fit the traditional definition of ‘care work’. This suggests that the ‘care chain’ ignores the bulk of the work that migrant care workers do, which is to perform the dirty work of cleaning households. The concept of reproductive labour enables us to analyse racial equalities among care providers and care recipients better. First, it allows us to account more fully the range of tasks migrant care workers perform and the division of labour in the social reproduction of the population. This allows us to take note of who does menial and non-menial labour. It also helps in determining who does nurturant and non-nurturant work in caring institutions, including households, hospitals and schools. As domestic work, employers mostly do the ‘spiritual’ work. This includes reading books and providing emotional support. On the other hand, migrant women and women of colour mostly do the menial work. This comprises of the nurturant tasks, for example, cleaning soiled pants and non-nurturant tasks, for instance, sweeping floors (Parreñas, 2000). Using reproductive labour as a framework would allow one to juxtapose the work of low-wage migrant workers to the work of employers in the household or co-workers in the hospital. This enables one to account for both transnational and local inequalities of race, class and gender. In conclusion, Rhacel Salazar Parrenas goes against the common norm of assuming that immigration empowers women economically. She clearly brings about the concept of international division of reproductive labour, where women values are overlooked. The use of Filipina immigrants is perfect to show that a conclusive research on the matter has not yet been done. In her article, she shows the origin of reproductive labour migration. She also demonstrates the dissimilarity in what is conceived as domestic work and reproductive labour. She has also focussed on the aspect of how it has affected the idea that migration is economically significant to immigrant women workers. References Parreñas, R. S. 2000. The Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers and International Division Of Reproductive Labour. Gender and Society, 14(4): 560-581 Read More