Gender & Society http://gas.sagepub.

com/

Doing the Dirty Work : Gender, Race, and Reproductive Labor in Historical Perspective
Mignon Duffy Gender & Society 2007 21: 313 DOI: 10.1177/0891243207300764 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gas.sagepub.com/content/21/3/313

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Sociologists for Women in Society

Additional services and information for Gender & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gas.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://gas.sagepub.com/content/21/3/313.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 17, 2007 What is This?

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

DOING THE DIRTY WORK Gender, Race, and Reproductive Labor in Historical Perspective
MIGNON DUFFY University of Massachusetts Lowell

The concept of reproductive labor is central to an analysis of gender inequality, including understanding the devaluation of cleaning, cooking, child care, and other womens work in the paid labor force. This article presents historical census data that detail transformations of paid reproductive labor during the twentieth century. Changes in the organization of cooking and cleaning tasks in the paid labor market have led to shifts in the demographics of workers engaged in these tasks. As the context for cleaning and cooking work shifted from the dominance of private household servants to include more institutional forms, the gender balance of this reproductive labor workforce has been transformed, while racial-ethnic hierarchies have remained entrenched. This article highlights the challenges to understanding occupational segregation and the devaluation of reproductive labor in a way that analyzes gender and race-ethnicity in an intersectional way and integrates cultural and structural explanations of occupational degradation.

Keywords: care work; reproductive labor; occupational segregation; domestic service; janitorial and food service work

ritiques by scholars of color of feminist theory and political practice emphasize the ways the impacts of race, class, and other aspects of inequality are obscured when gender is considered in isolation, universalizing

AUTHORS NOTE: I would like to thank the many colleagues and friends who read various versions of this article along the way and gave me invaluable feedback and advice: Cynthia Cranford, Michael Duffy, Karen Hansen, Kim McMaken, Cheryl Najarian, Debi Osnowitz, and Diane Purvin. Also thank you to the anonymous Gender & Society reviewers and to Dr. Christine Williams and Dr. Dana Britton for their thoughtful comments and guidance. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Carework Conference in San Francisco in 2004 (thanks to Amy Armenia for presenting), and the Carework Network has provided an important intellectual home for me. And last but not least, I am grateful to my colleagues at UMass Lowell who daily provide me with inspiration and support.
GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 21 No. 3, June 2007 313-336 DOI: 10.1177/0891243207300764 2007 Sociologists for Women in Society 313
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

314

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

the experiences of all women in the process (Collins 1991; hooks 1984; Nakano Glenn 1992). Feminist understandings of reproductive labor have been at the center of this critique, and it is now widely accepted that the misrepresentation of the experiences of white middle-class women as the universal experiences of women have led to significant theoretical and political shortcomings. Treatments that focused on womens role as housewife in the 1950s or on the entrance of women into the labor force in the 1970s told important storiesbut also obscured the empirical reality that Black women, immigrant women, and poor women had been engaged in paid market work in large numbers for many decades. Critics have argued that the experiences of these marginalized groups of women cannot simply be added into existing theoretical models, because their inclusion at the outset actually profoundly transforms the nature of those theoretical insights. The concept of intersectional analysis emerged as an alternative to these formulations of universal womanhood and has gained momentum in feminist scholarship across disciplines. An intersectional approach treats race, gender, class, and other systems of oppression as interconnected, interdetermining historical processes (Amott and Matthaei 1996). Catalyzed by a number of key works in the 1980s (Collins 1991; Davis 1981; hooks 1984; Moraga and Anzalda 1981), the movement toward intersectionality has become central to the project of understanding inequalities. Legal scholars such as Kimberl Crenshaw, Dorothy Roberts, and Patricia Williams have been particularly influential in further developing a theory of intersectionality (see Crenshaw et al. 1995 for an excellent review of the development of critical race theory). Intersectional analysis demands that theory be built on historically grounded, sufficiently complex understandings of empirical phenomena. This study contributes to the necessary empirical base for intersectional theory by documenting historical patterns of race and sex segregation1 among paid reproductive labor occupations. After defining the concept of reproductive labor as I use it here to discuss paid work, I will show that studying paid reproductive labor through an intersectional lens is a critical element in advancing our understandings of gender and racial inequalities in the labor market as well as in society as a whole. The data in this article show the changing contexts in which reproductive labor is performed in the paid labor market as well as the shifting demographics of the workers who perform these tasks. After presenting the findings, I explore the implications of this empirical work for theoretical development.

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

315

Reproductive Labor, Gender, and Race-Ethnicity The idea of reproductive labor comes originally from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who differentiated between the production of goods in the economy and the reproduction of the labor power necessary to the maintenance of that productive economy. The concept was further developed in the 1970s largely with the goal of naming and analyzing a category of work that had previously remained virtually invisible within sociology and economics: womens unpaid work in the home. In his classic article on the topic, Wally Secombe explains that when the housewife acts directly upon wage-purchased goods and necessarily alters their form, her labour becomes part of the congealed mass of past labour embodied in labour power (Secombe 1974, 9). Using this concept, socialist-feminists were able to bring all of the activities of a housewifefrom cleaning bathrooms and preparing food to caring for childreninto the discourse of Marxist economics (Hansen and Philipson 1990). Scholars argued that the work of reproductive labor was indispensable to the ongoing reproduction and maintenance of the productive labor force and society and should be recognized as such (Boydston 1990; Dalla Costa 1972; Hartmann 1976). From the beginning, the idea of reproductive labor was inextricably linked to an analysis of the gendered division of labor and its central role in perpetuating womens subordination. Feminist scholars have argued that womens continued responsibility for unpaid work in the home disadvantages them in the labor market, both through periodic or long-term absences and through the burden of the second shift that wage-earning women still bear in the home (Hochschild 1989). These labor market disadvantages restrict women to lower-paying, lower-status jobs, reinforcing mens greater access to both resources and power. In turn, this inequality at the macro level maintains material constraints and ideological norms that uphold the gendered division of labor in the home (Chafetz 1991). While originally conceptualized as a way to theoretically account for unpaid work, there has been growing recognition of the inadequacy of the equation of women with unpaid domestic work in the private sphere and men with paid work in the public sphere. Two concurrent trends have made the limitations of this view more clear in recent decades: the increasing numbers of women in the paid labor force and the heightened visibility of the role of paid workers in reproductive labor. As a result, the concept has been expanded to bridge the unpaid and paid spheres. For example, Barbara Laslett and Johanna Brenner (1989, 383) define social reproduction as including various kinds of workmental, manual, and

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

316

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

emotionalaimed at providing the historically and socially, as well as biologically, defined care necessary to maintain existing life and to reproduce the next generation. Unlinking the concept of reproductive labor from its exclusive association with the housewife allowed scholars to use the idea to analyze the parallel devaluation of paid reproductive labor such as domestic service, cleaning, food preparation and service work, and child care. Although feminists have argued that reproductive labor produces value, and that the sustainability of productive labor and of society itself depends on it, domestic activities remain largely defined in contrast to work. And when those domestic activities are performed by paid workers, they seem to retain their invisibility as labor. While the links between reproductive labor and gender have been studied extensively, large-scale movement away from a universalization of womens experiences to a more intersectional approach that takes into account race, citizenship, and other inequalities has been relatively recent. Evelyn Nakano Glenn (1992) has argued that understanding the relationships between race, gender, and reproductive labor is central to the project of intersectionality. The racial division of reproductive labor, she says, is key to the distinct exploitation of women of color. . . . It is thus essential to the development of an integrated model of race and gender, one that treats them as interlocking, rather than additive, systems (Nakano Glenn 1992, 116). One area in which there has been an explosion of scholarship focused on unraveling the complex interactions among race, gender, and reproductive labor is research on domestic service (Chang 2000; Dill 1994; Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2003; HondagneuSotelo 2001; Parrenas 2001; Rollins 1985; Romero 1992). These scholars have again seen paid reproductive laborhere in the form of domestic serviceas a uniquely important locus of study for developing integrated understandings of inequality. Judith Rollins (1985, 7) explains that examining the domestic service relationship offers an extraordinary opportunity: the exploration of a situation in which the three structures of power in the United States todaythat is, the capitalist class structure, the patriarchal sex hierarchy, and the racial division of laborinteract. Nakano Glenn (1992) argues that the racial-ethnic hierarchies identified in domestic service arrangements parallel hierarchies in institutional settings in which paid reproductive labor is also performed. Using detailed historical analyses of several regions of the United States, she shows that despite the large-scale historical transformation of paid reproductive labor from a model of servitude to one of service work, the relegation of the dirty work to racial-ethnic2 women has remained remarkably consistent.

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

317

In previous centuries, racial-ethnic women were disproportionately represented as domestic servants, performing the laborious tasks of maintaining the home while their white employers served as housewives and hostesses. Nakano Glenn argues that as reproductive tasks have been increasingly removed from the household and performed within publicly organized institutions, racial-ethnic women have continued to perform the back-room work (hospital cafeteria workers, for example), while white women maintain more public and supervisory roles (nurses, for example). Roberts (1997) describes this racialized hierarchy within reproductive labor as the division between spiritual workassociated with white womenand menial workassociated with racial-ethnic women. This article therefore addresses an issue that is central to advancing an intersectional analysis of gender and race by focusing on the dirty work of reproductive laborthe tasks historically associated with racial-ethnic women. My goal is to add a broad historical quantitative dimension to a field that has been largely framed by intensive qualitative analysis. Using a large national sample, I trace the evolution of cleaning and cooking tasks in the labor force and analyze the demographics of these workers. The historical story in these data further complicates the hierarchy presented by Nakano Glenn (1992) and Roberts (1997). What these data show is that the shift from servitude to service work has resulted in a fairly dramatic increase in the proportion of the dirty work of reproductive labor being performed by racial-ethnic men as well as women. These findings therefore raise interesting challenges for integrating gender and race in an understanding of reproductive labor and labor market inequalities. Data and Method The data on which this article is based are part of a larger historical study of reproductive labor and care work. The larger study from which this article is drawn uses U.S. census data to analyze the development of reproductive labor in the paid labor market from 1900 to 2000, focusing on occupational shifts as well as the gender, racial-ethnic, and immigrant composition of the reproductive labor workforce. The data come from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) project at the University of Minnesota (Ruggles et al. 2004), which is an initiative designed to facilitate historical analysis of the decennial census of the United States. For each year included in the series, IPUMS provides access to a computerized sample drawn from the entire population of U.S. census respondents (see www.ipums.umn.edu for more information). The IPUMS data

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

318

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

sets are very large, high-precision, nationally representative samples of the U.S. population. Since the U.S. census includes many detailed labor force variables as well as information about gender, race-ethnicity, and immigration status at an individual level, the IPUMS data were a perfect fit for the goals of this project. The analysis uses ten different IPUMS data sets, one for each decade except 1930 (the 1930 data set was not available at the time of the study). The samples, representative subsets of the full census data sets, range in size from 366,000 cases to more than 2.8 million cases. For the majority of the analyses in the study, the universe of interest is the labor force. The size of the labor force samples ranges from about 135,000 to more than 1.3 million. For any project involving a period of 100 years, the comparability of the data is a major concern. Since the goal of the IPUMS project is to facilitate historical analysis, the creators of the data sets have addressed comparability in a number of ways. First, IPUMS provides extensive documentation of potential comparability problems with particular variables. In addition, for many variables, IPUMS has assigned uniform codes across decades. For example, the coding scheme for the variable recording an individuals occupation has changed significantly through the history of the U.S. census. Every IPUMS sample contains a new variable recoding an individuals occupation according to the 1950 categorization. In all cases, the original variable is preserved, allowing for accurate historical comparison without the loss of detailed information provided by contemporary codes. While specific comparability issues remain, in general, IPUMS has created a system that allows for unprecedented levels of consistency in historical analysis with such a wealth of data. For most of the historical analysis, I used the 1950 occupational categorization to allow for consistent comparison across decades. Using the work of Nakano Glenn (1992) as a guide, I determined the following criteria for inclusion of an occupation in the study as reproductive labor:
Work that maintains daily life (physical or mental health, food preparation and service, cleaning, personal care) or Work that reproduces the next generation (care of children and youth).

I then assigned a separate code subdividing the reproductive labor occupations into nurturant and nonnurturant jobs (see Duffy 2005 for more details on this conceptual distinction). I used a set of criteria developed by Paula England, Michelle Budig, and Nancy Folbre (2002) to identify nurturant occupations that include a significant relational and caregiving dimension (such as child care, teaching, and many health care
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

319

positions). Those jobs coded as nonnurturant correspond to Nakano Glenns (1992) identification of dirty work: cleaning, food preparation and service, and laundry. It is this latter category of nonnurturant reproductive labor that will be the primary focus of this article. However, it should be noted that as with most categorical divisions, there is certainly some ambiguity in labeling this group of workers nonnurturant in contrast to nurturant. For example, as I will discuss later in the article, many domestic workers have been expected to perform both child care and cleaning tasks. My primary goal in this article is to follow the occupational and demographic path of the particular tasks identified as associated with racial-ethnic hierarchies in reproductive labor. I will use contemporary occupational and industry variables to provide detail and context to the categorical analysis. The measurement of race in the census has been the subject of much controversy and debate, and the enumeration of racial categories has changed many times over the decades. Each IPUMS data set contains a variable for race (RACEG) that collapses detailed codes into the following categories: white, Black, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, other Asian/Pacific, and other race. These categories are common across years and therefore allow for historical comparison of the data sets. However, I did not find them to be the most useful categories for understanding the racial-ethnic breakdown of the reproductive labor force, particularly in recent decades. Therefore, I decided to create a new race variable (RACENEW) combining this variable with a separate measure of Hispanic origin3 into the following mutually exclusive categories: white, non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Asian and Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic; other race, non-Hispanic; and Hispanic. The categorical choice is a strategic one based on the particular social construction of racial-ethnic categories in the United States rather than on the inherent conceptual validity of the categories. These broad racial-ethnic characterizations allow me to examine general historical trends at a national level. For each data set, I used SPSS to calculate a series of composite statistics that measure the size and scope of the reproductive labor workforce as well as the distribution of these workers by sex and race. In the second phase of the analysis, I compiled all of the statistics described above for each decade into a single Excel file to facilitate historical comparison. A wide range of tables, charts, and graphs created from the data present patterns over time. Each of the historical charts generated from this study is therefore the result of an analysis of ten different data sets totaling almost 16.5 million individual cases. I will present the findings of the study in two sections. First, I will describe the transformation of nonnurturant reproductive labor from a

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

320

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

private domestic service model to institutionally based cleaning, food preparation and service, and laundry occupations. In the second section, I will examine the shifts in the sex and race makeup of nonnurturant reproductive labor that accompanied this transformation. The Occupational Transformation of Reproductive Labor If one defines reproductive labor as a set of tasks necessary to maintain existing life and to reproduce the next generation (Laslett and Brenner 1989), one can immediately see that there are various ways of organizing the accomplishment of those tasks within a society. The work can be done by family members or volunteers for no pay; workers can come into employers homes to cook, clean, and care for children or ill family members; or reproductive labor can be performed in institutions such as hospitals, restaurants, child care centers, and nursing homes. Nakano Glenn (1992) refers to the two models that involve paid workers as servitude and service work. Following the terminology used in the census, I use the term private household work to refer to work done by paid workers within private homes (I will also refer to these as domestic servants/workers). I use the terms public and institutional to refer to the workers whose reproductive labor takes place within institutions as opposed to private households. These terms are meant to efficiently capture the location of the work and the occupational transformation of nonnurturant reproductive labor in the twentieth century, not to superimpose an ideological dichotomy of any kind. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of domestic service in the United States after the Civil War, both to women workers and to reproductive labor. Throughout the last half of the nineteenth century, nearly everybody in middle- and upper-class families employed at least one domestic servant, and some wealthier families employed an entire staff to carry out the daily functions of their households. Ninety percent of these servants were women, and until 1870, at least 50 percent of employed women in the United States were servants. In 1870, right before the number of servants in the United States reached its peak in the 1880s, there was one servant for every eight American families, and in some cities, the ratio was as high as one to four (Sutherland 1981). When domestic service was at its most widespread, a fully staffed household might have included numerous maids to clean and maintain the rooms of the house, laundresses to do the washing and ironing, a cooking staff to prepare and serve meals, a nursemaid to attend to children, personal care staff for the adults in the household, and a head housekeeper
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

321

and butler to manage and oversee the rest of the domestic staff. However, in the majority of households in the United States, all of these functions were combined into the job of a single domestic servant, often called a maid-of-all-work (Sutherland 1981). These were workers who usually lived in the homes of their employers and were engaged in every aspect of reproductive laborcleaning, food preparation and service, laundry, child care, and care for the ill and elderly. Contemporary studies of domestic service show that despite some important continuities, there have been some significant shifts in the job. Hondagneu-Sotelo (2001) describes three different models of domestic work in the latter half of the twentieth century: live-in nanny/housekeepers, who live with and work for a particular family; live-out nanny/housekeepers, who work for a particular family five or six days a week but return to their own homes at night; and housecleaners, who work for multiple employers on a contractual basis. She found that the live-in model was often considered the most onerous by workers and that the trend in contemporary domestic service is away from live-in positions. Contemporary domestic workers are also less likely than their nineteenth-century counterparts to be asked by employers to prepare meals for the whole family. And although those hired by a single family on a live-in or live-out basis are most often expected to do both cleaning and child care work, housecleaners who work for multiple clients usually do not take care of children. Other researchers have identified similar trends in domestic work (Dill 1994; Rollins 1985; Romero 1992). As shown in Figure 1, the number of private household workers decreased between 1900 and 1990.4 Almost 1.3 million workers5 were employed in private household work in 1900. The majority of these workers were identified generically as domestic servants, with only a few assigned more specific titles such as laundresses, housekeepers, or cooks. In 1950, about 1.5 million workers were employed in private households, representing a rate of growth far slower than the dramatic growth in the size of the labor force during this same time period (from 27 million to 61 million workers). And by 1990, the absolute number of domestic workers had decreased to 570,000, again in the context of enormous overall labor market growth (up to 124 million workers). The majority (69 percent) of these workers are identified as private household cleaners and servants or housekeepers and butlers, and an additional 29 percent as child care workers within a private household.6 These are the nanny/housekeepers identified by Hondagneu-Sotelo (2001) and others. Again supporting Hondagneu-Sotelos findings, private household cooks and laundresses are found in much smaller numbers.
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

322

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

6,000,000 5,000,000 Number of workers 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Private household workers Public cleaning occupations Food preparation and service Laundry and dry cleaning operatives

1900

1950

1990

Figure 1:

Occupational Distribution of Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor Workers, 1900, 1950, and 1990

NOTE: National population estimates calculated from Integrated Public Use Microdata Series samples (see Duffy 2004 or www.ipums.umn.edu for more information).

Nakano Glenn (1992) has argued that just as production was removed from the household in the nineteenth century, the tasks of reproduction became increasingly located outside of private households during the twentieth century. The dramatic increases seen in Figure 1 in the broad occupational categories of public cleaning and food preparation and service reflect this transformation. The growth of the service sector during the last half of the twentieth century has been widely studied in recent decades (e.g., MacDonald and Sirianni 1996). The expansion of institutionally based reproductive labor is part of that trend. As shown in Figure 1, fewer than 80,000 workers were employed in public cleaning work in 1900, compared to 3.5 million by 1990. Likewise, the number of food preparation and service workers grew from 426,000 in 1900 to almost 5.5 million in 1990. Taken together, these two occupational groups grew by an astounding 1,700 percent during the century. Also shown is the much less precipitous increase in laundry and dry cleaning operatives, the third major public incarnation of nonnurturant reproductive labor, which peaked before the end of the century. In 1900, a relatively small number of workers were performing the cleaning and maintenance work of social reproduction outside of private household settings. These public cleaning workers were largely janitors,
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

323

responsible for cleaning and maintaining public buildings and apartment houses, and sextons, responsible for cleaning and maintenance of churches. By 1990, the rise of what Nakano Glenn (1992) calls institutional service work has dramatically expanded the numbers of workers performing the cleaning and maintenance tasks of reproductive labor in institutional settings. While these workers are employed in industries across the economy, a large number still work in public buildings and apartment complexes. The other institutions in which these workers are concentrated are hotels and motels, schools, and hospitals and nursing homes. At the same time as the practice of having private household workers responsible for meal preparation and service became less common, the provision of food through restaurants and in other institutions grew at a phenomenal rate. In 1900, the workers engaged in food preparation and service were categorized generically as employees of hotels and restaurants and numbered far fewer than the number of domestic servants at the time. By 1990, the number of food preparation and service workers outnumbered private household workers 10 to 1. In modern institutions, these workers fulfill much more specialized roles: cooks, kitchen workers, waiters and waitresses, assistants, and food counter workers, to name a few. More than two thirds work in restaurant settings, and the remainder are again concentrated in hotels and motels, schools, and hospitals and nursing homes. Figure 2 provides a vivid illustration of the combined impact of these occupational shifts on the organization of the dirty work of reproductive labor in the economy. Overall, the percentage of the labor force engaged in nonnurturant reproductive labor has increased modestly from 6.8 percent to 8.0 percent. However, as can be seen by the shaded areas, the makeup of the workers within these occupations has changed quite dramatically. In 1900, the overwhelming majority were private household workers. By 1990, domestic workers were a small minority compared to those in public cleaning occupations and food preparation and service.7 If one looks across the economy at how nonnurturant reproductive labor tasks are organized within in the paid labor market, one sees a transformation from the dominance of domestic service to the preponderance of institutional forms of cooking and cleaning. As more workers perform the tasks of nonnurturant reproductive labor outside of private homes, more and more of those workers are men. However, the gender shifts cannot be understood without simultaneously analyzing the racial-ethnic makeup of the men who are doing the work of institutional reproductive labor. It is this shifting picture of sex and racial-ethnic segregation that will be the focus of the next section.

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

324

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

10%

Percentage of labor force

9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1900 1950 1990 Food preparation and service Private household workers Laundry and dry cleaning Public cleaning occupations

Figure 2:

Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor Workers as a Percentage of Labor Force, 1900, 1950, and 1990

Whos Doing the Dirty Work? While private household work is and has always been almost exclusively the domain of women, public cleaning and food preparation and service jobs have historically been much less dramatically segregated by sex. Because of the contrasting makeup of these groups of workers, the occupational transformation of nonnurturant reproductive labor has led to a significant change in overall sex composition. By contrast, general patterns of racial-ethnic subordination have shown remarkable continuity in the face of such sweeping occupational change. There have been some shifts in the balance of Black and Hispanic workers represented in nonnurturant reproductive labor, but the disproportionate presence of racialethnic and immigrant workers in this group of jobs has remained. Figure 3 illustrates the significantly different sex compositions of private and public versions of nonnurturant reproductive labor. Both at the beginning and at the end of the century, more than 95 percent of private household workers were women. By contrast, in 1900, three-quarters of the small number of public cleaning workers were men. As the size of the occupation grew, the proportion who were women also rose. But even in 1990, women made up only 43 percent of these workers overall. The percentage of women in food preparation and service was about 65 percent
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

325

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Private household workers Public cleaning occupations 1900 Food preparation and service 1950 1990 Laundry and dry cleaning operatives

Figure 3:

Percentage women

Women as a Percentage of Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor Occupations, 1900, 1950, and 1990

in 1900 and had dropped slightly to 60 percent in 1990. And the much smaller number of laundry and dry cleaning operatives was 36 percent women in 1900 and 65 percent in 1990. Figure 4 shows the changes in the overall sex makeup of nonnurturant reproductive labor over time from 1900 to 2000. The solid line, representing the percentage of the labor force that is female, shows a steady increase over time, particularly in the post-1950 decades. While women made up only 18 percent of the labor force in 1900, that share had increased to 47 percent in 2000. At the same time as the presence of women in the labor force was undergoing a significant increase, the percentage of nonnurturant reproductive labor workers who were women declined from 83 percent in 1900 to 56 percent in 2000. To contextualize this decrease in light of the overall growth in womens labor force participation, I will borrow a measure from Teresa Amott and Julie Matthaei (1996) called relative concentration. The relative concentration is the ratio of a groups representation in a particular sector relative to that groups representation in the labor market as a whole (Amott and Matthaei 1996). For example, if women make up 20 percent of the labor force in a particular year, but 40 percent of the reproductive labor sector, the relative concentration of women in the

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

326

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

100% 90% 80% Percentage women 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Labor force Nonnurturant reproductive labor

Figure 4:

Women as a Percentage of Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor Workers (All), 1900 through 2000

NOTE: Sample for 1930 not available at time of the study.

reproductive labor sector would be 2.0 (40/20). This ratio would indicate that women are overrepresented in the reproductive labor sectorin fact, at double the rate of their representation in the labor force as a whole. A relative concentration of exactly 1 would indicate perfectly proportional representation, and a ratio of less than 1 would indicate an underrepresentation of that group. This measure allows for the comparison of occupational distributions over time in the context of the changing representation of women, racial-ethnic groups, and immigrants in the labor force overall. Going back to the data presented in Figure 4, the relative concentration of women in nonnurturant reproductive labor in 1900 was 4.61 (83/18). This means that women were overrepresented in nonnurturant reproductive labor at more than four times their representation in the labor market. By 2000, the relative concentration was 1.19 (56/47), a figure approaching parity. In Figure 4, the drop in relative concentration is visually represented by the narrowing of the gap between the solid line (womens representation in the labor force) and the dotted line (womens representation in nonnurturant reproductive labor) through the century. Figure 5 shows a very different picture of the evolution of the racialethnic makeup of nonnurturant reproductive labor over the century. Again,
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

327

100% 90% 80% Percentage white 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Labor force Nonnurturant reproductive labor

Figure 5:

Whites as a Percentage of Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor Workers (All), 1900 through 2000

NOTE: Sample for 1930 not available at the time of the study. Comparable race-ethnicity data not available for 1910 and 1960.

the solid line shows the percentage of the overall labor force identified as non-Hispanic white, a percentage that decreased from 87 percent in 1900 to 71 percent in 2000. Whites remain underrepresented among nonnurturant reproductive labor throughout the century, making up 66 percent of these workers in 1900 and 60 percent in 2000. Although there is some change in the racial-ethnic distribution of nonnurturant reproductive labor during this time periodthe relative concentration of racial-ethnic workers decreases from 2.62 to 1.37the scale of the change is considerably less extreme than the shifts in gender balance. The relative consistency of overrepresentation of racial-ethnic workers among nonnurturant reproductive labor supports Nakano Glenns (1992) argument that there are important historical continuities in the division of reproductive labor between women along racial-ethnic lines. Her argument that these back room jobs have long been and continue to be the province of women of color is supported by these data. However, the other piece of the story that emerges from examining the shifting sex configuration along with the racial-ethnic makeup is the increasing presence of racial-ethnic men in nonnurturant reproductive labor. As seen in Figure 6, the increasing presence of men in nonnurturant reproductive labor has been fueled largely by the significant increases in

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

328

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

100%

Percentage of non-nurturant reproductive labor workers

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Other men Asian/Pacific men Hispanic men Black men White men Other women Asian/Pacific women Hispanic women Black women White women

Figure 6:

Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor Workers, by Gender and RaceEthnicity, 1900 through 2000

NOTE: Sample for 1930 not available at the time of the study. Comparable race-ethnicity data not available for 1910 and 1960.

representation of Hispanic men, who made up 9 percent of these workers in 2000 compared to less than 1 percent in 1900, and increases in the representation of white men, who made up 9 percent of nonnurturant reproductive labor workers in 1900 and 25 percent in 2000. The proportion of nonnurturant reproductive labor workers who are Black men has remained relatively consistent over the century at around 7 percent. Men of Asian/Pacific origin represent a much smaller segment of the overall labor force, but their pattern of representation shows a more significant presence at the beginning of the century, decreasing for the first 50 years, and then increasing again in recent decades. This pattern is largely due to the overrepresentation of Asian/Pacific men among laundry workers early in the century. Figure 6 illustrates that the racial-ethnic makeup of women in nonnurturant reproductive labor has also changed substantially over the century. Domestic servants at the beginning of the century were largely white women (often immigrants) and Black women. As a result, white women made up 56 percent of nonnurturant reproductive labor in 1900, and Black women represented 26 percent of these workers. By 2000, only 35 percent of nonnurturant reproductive labor workers were white women, while 8 percent were Black women. As opportunities outside domestic service opened up for these two groups, large numbers fled not only domestic service but also other similar occupational categories.8 Like the pattern for men, the largest proportional increases in representation among nonnurturant reproductive labor were among Hispanic women and Asian/Pacific

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

329

8.00 Relative concentration 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
en en en en en en en w om w om w om w om m m m te ac k c ifi hi ni H is pa c m en

Pa c

Bl

pa

is

n/

As

ia

1900

2000

Figure 7:

Relative Concentrations of Racial-Ethnic Groups within Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor, by Gender, 1900 and 2000

NOTE: The relative concentration is the ratio of a groups representation in a particular sector relative to that groups representation in the labor market as a whole (Amott and Matthaei 1996). A value of 1 indicates perfectly proportional representation, values more than 1 indicate overrepresentation, and values less than 1 indicate underrepresentation.

women. Hispanic women, who were barely represented in 1900, made up 9 percent of these workers by 2000. And the percentage of Asian/Pacific women increased from less than 1 percent to slightly more than 2 percent. Figure 7 better contextualizes these shifts in the racial-ethnic makeup of nonnurturant reproductive labor in terms of the changes in the labor market as a whole by comparing the relative concentrations of each group in 1900 and 2000. In 1900, all groups of women were heavily overrepresented among nonnurturant labor. Black womens enormously disproportionate representation among domestic workers is reflected in a relative concentration of 6.66 in nonnurturant reproductive labor. And white women were overrepresented at a relative concentration of 4.16. Hispanic and Asian/Pacific women were also heavily overrepresented, although it must be remembered their numbers in the labor force were quite small at that time. Among men, all were underrepresented in this group of jobs, with the exception of Asian/Pacific men, who were small in number and concentrated among laundry jobs.

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

As

ia

n/

Pa c

te

ac k

hi

ifi

ni

Bl

330

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

By 2000, the picture looks significantly different. First, the relative concentration of white women in nonnurturant reproductive labor has decreased to 1.04, almost exactly proportional to their representation in the overall labor force. The relative concentration for Hispanic women, now a much larger presence, is the highest of any group at 2.00. And Black women and Asian/Pacific women remain overrepresented at relative concentrations of 1.41 and 1.28, respectively. Among women, then, there have been some shifts in the racial-ethnic makeup of nonnurturant reproductive labor. In particular, Hispanic women are now the group that is most heavily concentrated in this group of jobs. Among men, we see not only shifts in degree but dramatic reversals from underrepresentation to disproportionate concentrations of men of color among nonnurturant reproductive labor. Black men and Hispanic men have shifted from being underrepresented to being overrepresented among nonnurturant labor, at relative concentrations of 1.34 and 1.43, respectively. It is important to note that these levels are now higher than levels of overrepresentation for white women. In fact, the only group of men not overrepresented among nonnurturant reproductive labor in 2000 is white men, whose relative concentration remains 0.64. As with women, Hispanics are the group of men most heavily overrepresented among this group of workers. DISCUSSION So, what is gained from this empirical analysis of the intersections of sex and race in the history of nonnurturant reproductive labor? First, to the extent that cultural typing of jobs by gender, race, and other characteristics is linked to the creation and maintenance of occupational segregation and devaluation, the patterns described in this article challenge us to think about that process in an intersectional way. These nonnurturant reproductive labor occupations have very similar content (cooking and cleaning) but are performed in different locations (private homes versus institutional settings). One way to interpret the results is that the deeply gendered ideological division of public and private becomes so central to the process of occupational segregation in this case that the content of the work and its similarity becomes overshadowed. So, the distinction between the institutional (public) context and the household (private) context becomes the gendered boundary despite the similar nature of the tasks. It is worth noting that this does not necessarily hold true for other gender-typed tasks. For example, caring for young children has remained strongly associated with women, and child care occupations, whether in
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

331

private households or in centers, remain dominated by women. In this case, the nurturing content of the work itself is connected to a gendertyping process that appears to supersede the public-private boundary in location. This strong association of child care with women may be part of the explanation for why private household work (which can include some expectation of child care) remains dominated by women, while institutional forms of cleaning and food preparation (in which workers are not asked to also perform child care) are more balanced.9 These data add a broad dimension to detailed historical analyses of the gender typing of particular occupations (Cohn 1985; Preston 1993). The data in this article also emphasize that however this gender-typing process works, it is not race neutral. While white women are much more likely to be associated with the private forms of nonnurturant reproductive labor, racial-ethnic women are significantly overrepresented in both the private household and institutional incarnations of cooking and cleaning work. And although men are barely represented among private household workers, racial-ethnic men are disproportionately concentrated in institutional cleaning and food preparation and service occupations, while white men are underrepresented across the board. So race and gender have an interlocking impact on segregation by content as well as by location of work. Interestingly, the racial-ethnic hierarchy in reproductive labor also manifests itself along a somewhat differently formulated version of the public-private divide. All of the jobs included in this study as nonnurturant reproductive labor would fall into Nakano Glenns (1992) definition of back room work, as opposed to the more relational and more public work performed by whites. The emphasis in this analysis is on visibility rather than location. The work that is more visiblemore publictends to be more dominated by whites, while racial-ethnic workers are disproportionately represented among those workers who remain more invisible. While the data in this article cannot provide information about the cultural meanings of reproductive labor, they do show the complexity of the patterns in the labor market that both create and are the result of these cultural attributions. Those patterns highlight the importance of an analysis of the typing of jobs that integrates gender with other factors such as race, immigration, and class to understanding how certain jobs become occupational ghettos for disenfranchised members of society. And these largescale patterns of demographic clustering within certain occupations are important data for those scholars interested in further unraveling the process of job typing through an intersectional lens. Of course, cultural norms are only part of the picture of labor market inequalities, and the patterns described in these data also highlight the
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

332

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

need to take an intersectional approach to understanding the structural processes that create and maintain occupational segregation and the devaluation of reproductive labor. While sex segregation and racial-ethnic segregation in the labor market have both been the subject of extensive empirical and theoretical work, there has been much less scholarship that considers how these and other factors work simultaneously to concentrate particular groups of workers in particular jobs. Theoretical models that have focused on human capital (Becker 1994), discrimination (Acker 1989; Blau, Ferber, and Winkler 1998; England 1992), labor market segmentation (Doeringer and Piore 1985), residential segregation (Massey and Denton 1993), and geographic isolation (Wilson 1996) have tended to address either gender or race, but not both simultaneously. There have been a number of recent books that have taken on the challenge of understanding labor market configurations through a historical and intersectional lens (Amott and Matthaei 1996; Nakano Glenn 2002). The present study builds on this project by documenting the specific configurations of race and sex within a particular occupational group over time. Taken together with more detailed studies of processes of segregation in local contexts, this empirical work provides the basis for the further development of new intersectional theoretical models. An example will illustrate the potential of developing theories of intersectionality based on combining broad quantitative data with detailed qualitative analysis. One of the trends that emerges from this study is the very heavy presence of Hispanic women among the remaining private household workforce as well as the high concentration of Hispanic women and men in the institutional cleaning and food preparation and service positions. The quantitative analysis in the present study shows that as new waves of immigrants from Mexico and Central America have entered the labor force in the United States, nonnurturant reproductive labor is one of the sectors of the economy in which they have become disproportionately represented. In her detailed qualitative study of domestic workers in Los Angeles, Hondagneu-Sotelo (2001) found that many of the women she interviewed had obtained their positions through a word-of-mouth referral from a friend or relative. Thus, the social networks within communities of immigrants and their children seemed to be a central feature to the process of concentration of Hispanic women in domestic worker positions in the Los Angeles context. Cynthia Cranford (2005) has also analyzed the role of social networks in recruitment of Mexican and Central American immigrant workers in Los Angeles. Cranford found that word-of-mouth referrals through immigrant communities are also a critical factor in the concentration of Hispanic men and women in the janitorial industry, the institutional
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

333

incarnation of nonnurturant reproductive labor. It is important to note that Cranford argues that the use of these informal networks facilitated the exploitation of immigrant workers by companies during a time of economic restructuring and changing political context. In the combination of these empirical analyses lies fertile ground for theory development. The large-scale patterns identified by the quantitative data and the processes identified by the qualitative studies are like pieces of a puzzle that together create a better picture of the whole. Ultimately, understanding occupational segregation and the devaluation of reproductive labor in the paid labor market requires theoretical models that build links between structural and cultural explanations and integrate gender with race-ethnicity and other important factors such as citizenship. These theoretical models will only emerge from careful empirical research that documents at the most broad as well as at the most detailed level the historical processes through which current labor market configurations have arisen. The data in the present study provide a broad empirical view of an area that also has marshaled considerable qualitative investigation. The challenge now is how to use this knowledge to build better theory, and ultimately better policy, to address the persistent concentration of women, racial-ethnic workers, and other disenfranchised groups in these and other low-wage jobs. NOTES
1. Thank you to Dr. Dana Britton for pointing me to her very useful clarification of the distinction between the gendering of an occupation and the concept of sex segregation (Britton 2000). 2. Following the example of Evelyn Nakano Glenn, I will use the term racialethnic to refer collectively to groups that have been socially constructed and constituted as racially as well as culturally distinct from European Americans (Nakano Glenn 1992, 41). 3. The census began to collect information about Hispanic origin in 1970. In previous data sets, the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series created a proxy variable for Hispanic origin using lists of Spanish-language surnames. No measure of Hispanic origin is available for the 1910 and 1960 data sets, so these years are excluded from analyses involving the RACENEW variable. 4. While some analyses have pointed to the re-emergence of domestic service as a growth occupation in Europe (Andall 2000; Anderson 2000) and in particular cities in Southern California (Milkman 1998), the census data analyzed in this study show no growth in the occupation at a national level at any time in the century through 1990. Separate identification of domestic workers in the 2000 data is impossible, and so it is not included in this part of the analysis.
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

334

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

5. Throughout the presentation of findings, I use national population estimates when discussing numbers of workers. I calculated these population estimates by applying a weight variable included in every Integrated Public Use Microdata Series data set (PERWT) to each analytic procedure. The population estimates involving race for the 1970 sample may contain minor inaccuracies due to a necessary imputation of missing data in about 10 percent of the cases. 6. Unless otherwise cited, information about the specific distribution of workers within occupational categories was calculated by the author using the contemporary occupation and industry codes in the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series data sets. 7. Scholars generally agree that the U.S. census undercounts domestic workers (especially those who are immigrants), perhaps by as much as 200 percent (Milkman 1998). Given this fact, these figures are undoubtedly underestimations of the actual number of domestic workers. However, since more immigrants are included in census figures now than at previous times in history (WoodrowLafield 1998), it is unlikely that contemporary underrepresentation significantly distorts the overall downward trend. 8. Interestingly, as Black women left domestic service, their representation increased significantly among nursing and teaching, two of the largest occupations among nurturant reproductive labor, both of which had been dominated by white women through the 1950s. It is also important to note Black womens heavy representation among the fast-growing occupation of home health care. Although their job is set up as personal care, many home health care workers are also involved in cleaning tasks in private homes. While these data do not allow for the separation of these workers from nursing aides in hospitals and nursing homes, it would be interesting to track the growth of this occupation and its relationship to more traditional domestic service arrangements. 9. This would be an interesting question to explore related to home health care workers because in contrast to traditional domestic service, the job of home health care workers is primarily defined in terms of a more nurturant role.

REFERENCES
Acker, Joan. 1989. Doing comparable worth: Gender, class, and pay equity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Amott, Teresa, and Julie Matthaei. 1996. Race, gender, and work: A multicultural economic history of women in the United States. Boston: South End. Andall, Jacqueline. 2000. Gender, migration, and domestic service: The politics of Black women in Italy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Anderson, Bridget. 2000. Doing the dirty work? The global politics of domestic labour. New York: Zed Books. Becker, Gary. 1994. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blau, Francine D., Marianne A. Ferber, and Anne E. Winkler. 1998. The economics of women, men, and work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK

335

Boydston, Jeanne. 1990. Home and work: Housework, wages, and the ideology of labor in the early republic. New York: Oxford University Press. Britton, Dana. 2000. The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender & Society 14:418-34. Chafetz, Janet Saltzman. 1991. The gender division of labor and the reproduction of female disadvantage: Towards an integrated theory. In Gender, family, and economy: The triple overlap, edited by Rae Lesser Blumberg. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chang, Grace. 2000. Disposable domestics: Immigrant women workers in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: South End. Cohn, Samuel. 1985. The process of occupational sex-typing: The feminization of clerical labor in Great Britain. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1991. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Cranford, Cynthia. 2005. Networks of exploitation: Immigrant labor and the restructuring of the Los Angeles janitorial industry. Social Problems 52 (3): 379-97. Crenshaw, Kimberl, Neil Gotanda, Garry Peller, and Kendall Thomas. 1995. Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York: New Press. Dalla Costa, Mariarosa. 1972. The power of women and the subversion of the community. Bristol, UK: Falling Wall Press. Davis, Angela. 1981. Women, race, and class. New York: Random House. Dill, Bonnie Thornton. 1994. Across the boundaries of race and class: An exploration of work and family among Black female domestic servants. New York: Garland. Doeringer, Peter, and Michael Piore. 1985. Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Duffy, Mignon. 2004. One hundred years of buying care: Gender, race, immigration, and market care work in the twentieth century. PhD diss., Brandeis University. . 2005. Reproducing labor inequalities: Challenges for feminists conceptualizing care at the intersections of gender, race, and class. Gender & Society 19 (1): 66-82. Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Arlie Russell Hochschild. 2003. Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy. New York: Metropolitan Books. England, Paula. 1992. Comparable worth: Theories and evidence. New York: Aldine. England, Paula, Michelle Budig, and Nancy Folbre. 2002. Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social Problems 49 (4): 455-73. Hansen, Karen V., and Ilene J. Philipson. 1990. Women, class, and the feminist imagination: A socialist-feminist reader. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hartmann, Heidi. 1976. Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society 1 (3): 137-69. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1989. The second shift. New York: Avon Books. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 2001. Domestica: Immigrant workers cleaning and caring in the shadows of affluence. Berkeley: University of California Press. hooks, bell. 1984. Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End.
Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012

336

GENDER & SOCIETY / June 2007

Laslett, Barbara, and Johanna Brenner. 1989. Gender and social reproduction: Historical perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology 15:381-404. MacDonald, Cameron, and Carmen Sirianni. 1996. Working in the service society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Milkman, Ruth. 1998. The macrosociology of paid domestic labor. Work and Occupations 25 (4): 483-510. Moraga, Cherri, and Gloria Anzalda. 1981. This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. New York: Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press. Nakano Glenn, Evelyn. 1992. From servitude to service work: Historical continuities in the racial division of paid reproductive labor. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 18:1-43. . 2002. Unequal freedom: How race and gender shaped American citizenship and labor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Parrenas, Rhacel Salazar. 2001. Servants of globalization: Women, migration, and domestic work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Preston, Jo Anne. 1993. Domestic ideology, school reformers, and female teachers: Schoolteaching becomes womens work in nineteenth-century New England. New England Quarterly 66 (4): 531-51. Roberts, Dorothy. 1997. Spiritual and menial housework. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 9 (51): 51-80. Rollins, Judith. 1985. Between women: Domestics and their employers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Romero, Mary. 1992. Maid in the U.S.A. New York: Routledge. Ruggles, Steven, Matthew Sobek, Trent Alexander, Catherine A. Fitch, Ronald Goeken, Patricia Kelly Hall, Miriam King, and Chad Ronnander. 2004. Integrated public use microdata series. Ver. 3.0. Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center. Secombe, Wally. 1974. The housewife and her labour under capitalism. New Left Review 83:3-24. Sutherland, Daniel E. 1981. Americans and their servants: Domestic service in the United States from 1800 to 1920. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When work disappears: The world of new urban poor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Woodrow-Lafield, Karen A. 1998. Undocumented residents in the United States in 1990: Issues of uncertainty in quantification. International Migration Review 32 (1): 145-73. Mignon Duffy is an assistant professor of sociology and a faculty associate of the Center for Women and Work at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

Downloaded from gas.sagepub.com by guest on October 16, 2012