Response to Parrenas

I was particularly drawn to Parrenas’ commentary on the burdens of the “double day” (567) in her article “Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers and the International Division of Reproductive Labor.” This term highlights the “plague” (567) of many domestic workers, namely the burden of doing paid reproductive labor all day and then returning to their own home where they must take up the same responsibilities again before they can rest. In other words, housework, childcare, and other related duties do not end for the domestic when she leaves her employer’s house (granted that she is not a live-in worker), but instead continue at her own abode. Needless to say, Parrenas characterizes the “double day” as an understandably undesirable side effect for the domestic laborer. However, Glenn makes an equally interesting point that the motivation of these domestics to bear the trials of reproductive labor as a vocation in the first place centers on providing for the welfare of their children. How then does the domestics’ “double day” (which certainly can be comprised of caring for their own children when they return home) relate to this mentioned motivational force of responsibility for their children? Does the “double day” encompass a universal sense of unpleasantness, or is there an psychological distinction for these workers between having to repeat their cleaning jobs and having to repeat their child caring duties? I would be interested to hear Parrenas’ perspective on whether a dread of the “double day” dominates other emotions or, conversely, if the intensity of a mother’s love of her children can alter her perspective on the dual labor that she is forced to perform.