Parrenas Response

In her essay “Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers and the International Division of Reproductive Labor,” Rhacel Salazar Parrenas extends Glenn’s discussion of reproductive labor into the international sector. She focuses on the specific case of migrant Filipina female workers. She points out a strange type of irony perpetuated by this group of workers: although Filipina migrant workers serve “class-privileged women,” they simultaneously hire their own nation’s workers to work for them. At first, I thought this was odd, since I thought that women put themselves through domestic service so their children wouldn’t have to go through this kind of work. Also, I wondered how they could afford such a luxury since they were domestic workers. Parrenas’ essay revealed that Filipina migrant workers in other countries receive enough wages that they have more than enough to hire domestic workers when they return to the Phillipines. One of the interviewees pointed out the Filipina migrant workers’ plight: “In the Philippines, your work is light but you don’t have any money. Here you make money, but your body is exhausted” (574). It seems that most Filipina migrant workers choose to trade their comfort for money with the expectation of a long term gain in the future.

One other thing I want to mention is Parrenas’ methodology for interviewing Filipina migrant workers. Her methodology for collecting random samples is not totally random since she says that she used “chain and snowball referrals” (565). This puts the validity of her research into question, since this sample of Filipina migrant workers may not necessarily reflect the whole group accurately. I laud Parrenas for taking the time to seek out these workers, but she needs to do the research properly if it is to be credible.