Parrenas Response

In her article "Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers and the International Division of Reproductive Labor," Rhacel Parrenas expands on many of the ideas that we have seen so far: the stratification of labor along gender, racial, and class lines.  As the title suggests, Parrenas places the discussion in a global context, arguing that studying labor in an international context is essential in today's world of globalization.  At the same time that she widens the discussion, however, Parrenas narrows her focus to one racial-ethnic and gender group: Filipina domestic workers abroad and in their home countries.  Also, unlike Kessler-Harris, Glenn, and Ehrenreich, Parrenas places special emphasis on class, though not at the expense of race and gender.  Her more class-oriented approach is reflected in her terminology: rather than refer simply to "white women," as the other authors do, she talks about "white class-privileged women" (562) and "middle-class women" (569), and she discusses the "conflicting class mobility" (574) of many Filipina workers extensively.

I found Parrenas' discussion of the three-tier system within the Filipina workforce to be intriguing--I had been completely unaware of the dynamics among Filipina workers, and I had not known that Filipina migrants made up such a large percentage of migrant workers in the social reproduction sphere.  In addition, I had not considered the concept of "displaced mothering" (576), to which Parrenas devotes some time for discussion.  I was also glad that Parrenas acknowledged the role of  "nation-based citizenship" (570) in the stratification of labor.  I do have two broad questions about the article, though.  First, often when Parrenas makes claims about the marital or other circumstances of Filipina migrant workers, she cites her extremely small sample size of 72 workers (for if indeed Filipinas migrate in such large numbers as Parrenas suggests, 72 could not even make a dent in the total number).  She rarely, however, cites any general statistics or studies on this matter, which makes some of her percentages rather dubious.  Second, Parrenas seems to use Filipina migrants as a sort of case in point, yet she acknowledges that Filipina migrants are unique in the global labor market, since they migrate in especially large numbers and come from a culture that allows them a high education but few lucrative job opportunities.  Their uniqueness begs the question of what migrants of other nationalities experience and how they fit into the global labor market.  Focusing mainly on Filipinas is fine, but it would have been nice if she had at least briefly tied in the experiences of other migrant workers, either to emphasize or to contrast some of her points.