Child Care?

Domestica!

Two chapters in the book Domestica have been read. This book goes into the topic of hired child care and housekeeping workers, focused on the Latina community in Los Angeles. The author is not fan of this system: Suburban, middle-class white women commanding lower class Latina to do their motherly duties for them. It's not entirely the Whites' fault. Growths in employment of women, the underdeveloped nature of American day care, the middle class prejudice towards day care centers, and the influx of Mexican/Latina immigrants factor into the rise of hired domestic workers. It seems to support inequality.
Paid domestic work is being racialized. It can be seen in our pop culture. Housekeepers are always Latina in movies and TV. It is a reflection of reality, while at the same time a reinforcement of a stereotype.
The author distiguishes the main types of Latina-oriented, paid domestic care work notiable in Los Angeles. Live-in nanny/housekeeper live within the household. Some are even on call 24/7 to obey the every command of their employer. She lives with one family and her primary responsibilities are taking care of the children and the upkeep of the homestead, jobs traditionally done by the mother. Live out nanny/housekeeper works multiple days a week. She takes care of the children and the house and then goes home to her own place and does the same. Housecleaners work a number of different houses, taking care of their upkeep and does not usually deal with the children. These women in Los Angeles deal with varying levels of satisfaction on the job. There may be cases of racism or isolation from employer.
This reading illuminated to me specific examples of the lives of Latina housekeepers. I wish the author didn't just focus on LA. I feel that perpetuates the superiority of California-based culture by focusing on it. I'm sure there are cases out there where the domestic workers are actually benefited from the relationship they have with their employment. The impact of nannies on the betterment of otherwise neglected children should not be overlooked.

Nanny Question in Feminism

People are hiring domestic servants to accomplish their child care work. This practice, according to the author, is unjust and furthers social inequality.
The inequality is a consequence of a number of factors. These include greater freedom of women to become professional, increase in social and economic inequality between households, and finding childcare arrangements a concern for working mothers.
New, "two-career households" with both partners committing to outside careers have arisen and will resort to hiring people to help raise children. These hired outside helpers include domestic servants, domestic workers, and nannies.
When the wealthy of society hire domestic servants, it results in injustice for individuals and society. Inequality is associated with the increase of domestic servants.
A tyranny is created among the employing parents. The household is different from the goods market and should not be treated similarly. There three perspectives on the matter of nannying: workers, employing parents, and children. The worker may feel alienated from self-values and sense of worth, leave behind her own family, but may appreciate their work. The employing parents, usually the mother, can be either an ally to the help or a competitor for the value she has in her child's life. The children may treat people like means instead of ends, but exposed to diversity and social interaction.

I believe the author is mostly correct in her assumptions. The service of nannying may very well provide a valuable service, but also may reinforce inequality. My main concern with nannying is having the child develop too strong a relationship with the nanny over the mother or father. But this may be necessary if the child is neglected by the parent. The article seemed to gloss over the benefits of nannies, but it was more about exposing the silent consequences of the practice.

Parental Leave and Child Care

A number of forces have made care giving undervalued. These include the development of industrialization and wage economics whose definition of work is centered on the production and servicing goods. Feminist theory has also devalued homework as woman's work and valued activities outside the home.
The definition of work is usually centered around the production and servicing of goods. Women who do care giving are put at an economic disadvantage due to this definition. Paid employment compresses homemaking labor into the leisure hours. The emphasis of labor has been placed on jobs outside of the home and should be oriented as so the home labor is considered of greater importance.
Home activity is squeezed to the edges of time and energy. Failure to make time for children and parenting may result in great stress in the parents and children. The care of people is not equal to the care of marketable goods.
How can this be improved? Maybe, shortening the work day, modifying time and wage?

Care giving work is not well respected in society according to the author and I agree. Care giving is considered lower than outside the home, paid work. People, women specifically, are growing to resent this role and neglect or hire others to do it, while they pursue outside home work. So, I agree with this article. Child care, parent care, family care, person care should elevated more in the public eye, not looked down upon because it is more necessary and fulfilling than A LOT OF THE OTHER JUNK OUT THERE PEOPLE MAKE MONEY OFF OF, LIKE THOSE SOUL-SELLING BUSINESSMEN/WOMEN.