Ehrenreich Response

Barbara Ehrenreich's article "Maid to Order" is an interesting interpretation of the cleaning service workforce and its implications for society.  She claims that the continuation--indeed, the growth--of the maid service system is an indication that "men won" (Ehrenreich 62) the battle of delegating household chores, so that a wide gender gap still exists.  While the fact that women still do the majority of house work is significant, I remain unconvinced by several aspects of her article.  Mainly, I take issue with some of her extreme claims, as well as a crucial gap in her evidentiary support.

One of Ehrenreich's central claims does not ring true, since intentions that she attributes to people do not necessarily exist.  Specifically, she claims that men won the "chore wars" by making "a few strategic concessions" (62).  This implies that men colluded in a grand plot to avoid chores (a comical thought--too bad Aristophanes is long dead).  I do not think this is the case.  Rather, I think that the traditional division of "women's work" and "men's work" has been deeply imbedded in many cultures for thousands of years, and it will take more than a few decades to change that core value system when it has been in place for so long.  Is it really late enough in the game to declare a victory for either side?  Should one not expect ups and downs during the process of women's empowerment?  

Another melodramatic claim that Ehrenreich makes is that we are becoming utterly dependent on maids--that "The American overclass is raising a generation of young people who will, without constant assistance, suffocate in their own detritus" (69).  Ah, if only the biggest threat facing us was Death by Detritus!  Seriously, though, I think she need not worry so.  Even non-human creatures are able to order their living spaces.  Most of it is pretty intuitive.  Some people might not learn the most efficient or hygienic of cleaning practices, but surely even someone of below-average intelligence could figure out how to clean at least adequately.  Many homeowners hire house-cleaners, but most, I think, could theoretically do without.  They just do not want to.

Finally, Ehrenreich leaves a large gap in her evidence that leaves me unconvinced.  She has clearly interviewed and worked alongside many cleaners, which provides an important perspective.  However, she does not appear to have interviewed any actual homeowners who hire these people or the companies they work for.  Is their perspective not equally important to understanding the relationship between employers and employees?  How can she attribute various intentions or mentalities to employers if she has not interviewed any?  To me, her article seems like a rather one-sided story.