"Maid to Order" Response

Barbara Ehrenreich’s essay “Maid to Order” highlights many interesting points and observations about the little known world of residential cleaning. At first glance, cleaning someone’s home seems as innocuous as taking out the trash. However, Ehrenreich exposes the darker side of this task; in particular, the power dynamics between the sexes comes to mind. More often than not, it is the women’s duty to clean the house and pick up after the men. This unspoken agreement between the genders has been one of the staples of the patriarchal society in America. The basic theory, from a feminist perspective, is that housework equates to power. Ehrenreich observes that, “To make a mess that another person will have to deal with…is to exert domination in one of its more silent and intimate forms” (61). Men have power because they force women (indirectly) to clean up after them. Even in contemporary times, women still do the majority of household cleaning. This fact compels Ehrenreich to introduce us to a “dea ex machina,” (62) the maid. She notes that in the past few decades, the home has slowly transformed into a workplace for these maids. What used to be an intimate household chore has now given way to the entrepreneurs seeking profits in a capitalist economy. In light of this recent trend, the author raises the following question: “Is the home a place where you would want to live?” (62) My answer is no, because I wouldn’t feel comfortable letting strangers probe through every nook and cranny of my house. The home should remain a private part of one’s life. Any conflict between men and women concerning household chores should be resolved in an assertive and definitive manner.

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.

Response to Ehrenreich Essay

In what could easily have become a spewing of meaningless facts and figures regarding the changes in the roles of housework over the past decades, leaving the reader feeling somewhat unconvinced and apathetic, Ehrenreich instead uses personal experiences to make sense of and interpret such statistics in her essay "Maid to Order." By assuming the life of a paid housekeeper as part of her research, Ehrenreich is able to personally relate to many of the facts that she presents in her essay, helping to legitimize the validity of those facts. For example, Ehrenreich does not just say the world "below knee level" is filthy and subpar; rather, she describes in extreme detail the "dried bits of pasta glued to the floor" (59). The reader is left with an image of the floor in his or her mind, much more moving than a dull, uninteresting adjective. Later in the essay, when describing the inevitable loss in pay for workers as they transition from being "independents" to employees of a corporate cleaning service, Ehrenreich provides the reader with details about her own wages when working for The Maids International. The unjust rules of the cleaning service, such as "miss one day and your wage dropped to $6" or having to arrive at work at 7:30 but with billable hours not beginning until 8:00, are ones most likely only a true worker would know. It seems unlikely that a corporate cleaning service would advertise such restrictions when trying to hire employees in an already tight labor market. And yet, such details are significant additions to Ehrenreich's argument, allowing her to present the reader with a more thorough, more developed argument by providing both the advantages and disadvantages of the corporate cleaning services for the individual workers.