Men and Domestic Labor: a Missing Link in the Global Care Chain

Men and Masculinities 13(1) 126-149 ª The Author(s) 2010 Men and Domestic Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1097184X10382884 Labor: A Missing Link in http://jmm.sagepub.com the Global Care Chain

Majella Kilkey1

Abstract This article develops Manalansan’s critique that the concept of global care chains, while feminizing scholarship on the relationship between migration and globalization, has been less successful at gendering it, in part because it largely ignores men. The article responds to this gap by focusing on male domestic workers. The focus is such, however, that a new dimension to the emerging research agenda on male domestic workers is suggested. Thus, it is argued that in addition to examining how men are implicated in the global redistribution of stereotypically female tasks of domestic labor, we need to broaden our conceptualization of social reproduction to interrogate the ways in which stereotypically male areas of domestic work, such as gardening and household repair and maintenance, are embedded in global care chains. The argument is based on a review of the existing literature, as well as findings emerging from the author and colleague’s on-going exploration in the United Kingdom, using quantitative and qualitative research methods, of the scale, characteristics, dynamics, and drivers of the commoditization of specifically male tasks of social reproduction and their displacement onto migrant men.

Keywords fathering, gender, global care chains, male domestic work, migration

1 Department of Social Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author: Majella Kilkey, Department of Social Sciences, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX United Kingdom Email: [email protected]

126

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 127

Introduction Research over the last decade has documented the return, or in some cases the rediscovery, of paid domestic labor in various parts of the Global North.1 Paid work in the domestic sphere often goes undeclared (Pfau-Effinger 2009), and so it is difficult to know its scale with any accuracy. Estimates suggest, however, that in many countries, the numbers working in the sector are now significant. In the United Kingdom, for example, an estimated two million domestic workers are employed in British households (Cox 2006, 3). Moreover, evidence from family expenditure data indicates that both in absolute terms and relative to income and expenditure, U.K. households’ spending on domestic services has also been increasing (National Statistics 2007). The data suggest that in absolute terms, expenditure on ‘‘household services’’ increased from £11.90 per week in 1984 to £27.10 in 2006.2 As a percentage of weekly gross income, such expenditure increased from 3 to 4.4 percent in the same period, and as a percentage of household expenditure, from 5 to 6 percent. The growth in paid domestic labor is part of the broader process of the commoditization of social reproduction, which has accompanied the displacement of the male breadwinner family model by the dual worker model in some societies (Crompton 2006; Lewis 2001). This commoditization has been most pronounced where the public provision of care has been minimal (Kofman 2006), and/or in retrenchment (Misra, Woodring, and Merz 2006), and has occurred in the context of little or no realignment in the sexual division of domestic labor (Aliaga 2006; Coltrane 2000; Gershuny and Sullivan 2003; Lader, Short, and Gershuny 2006). Much of the research points to the increasing reliance on migrant domestic workers (Lutz 2007). The concept of global care chains—‘‘a series of personal links between people across the globe based on the paid or unpaid work of caring’’ (Hochschild 2000, 131)—has been developed to capture the transnational character of this growth in paid domestic labor (Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2003; Hochschild 2000). The concept of global care chains and the related body of work on the growth of the international market in domestic workers have contributed in important ways to a range of research agendas. In bringing social reproductive labor into the analytical frame, they have made critical contributions to our understandings of globalization and migration processes.3 They reveal for example, that households as well as states and markets, are embedded in globalization processes, that social reproductive work is part of the international economy, and that the distribution of nonmaterial resources is a feature of globalization too (Yeates 2005). In terms of migration, the work illuminates further the feminized contours of international migration and challenges the tendency dominant in economic, particularly neoclassical, models of migration to construct migrants as independent and nonrelational.4 It also directs us toward household- and individual-level impacts of migration and considers these in relation to home-state citizens as well as migrants, and in social and emotional, as well as economic, terms. Collectively, such contributions advance our

127

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 128 Men and Masculinities 13(1) understandings of the ways in which gender in particular is an important constitutive element of globalization and migration (Mahler and Pessar 2006). There have, however, also been appeals for a greater contextualization of the concept of global care chains, as well as a broadening of its application. Williams (2005, 3; see also Kofman 2006; Lutz 2008b; Williams and Gavanas 2008) has argued that analysis of the pattern of migrant domestic labor needs to be sensitive to cross-national variations in first, ‘‘care regimes’’—‘‘the extent and nature of public and market care provision, women’s employment and policies facilitating work and care;’’ second, ‘‘migration regimes’’—‘‘immigration policies, forms of regula- tion, and paths and histories of emigration and immigration;’’ and third, ‘‘care cul- tures’’—‘‘dominant national and local cultural discourses on what constitutes appropriate child care, or elder/disabled support ... [which] may also be constituted through differences and inequalities of class, ethnicity and location.’’ Additionally, Yeates (2004, 379) in a wide-ranging critique suggests that the concept could also usefully be broadened to embrace the full diversity of migrant care workers, in respect of first, skill and occupational hierarchies (so, semiskilled and skilled, as well as unskilled); second, locations of work (so institutional, as well as domestic); and third, types of care (e.g., health and education). The aim of this article is to contribute to the task of contextualizing and broadening the concept of global care chains by focusing on male domestic workers.5 Despite bringing gender center stage to analyses of globalization and migration processes, Manalansan (2006) has identified problems with the ways in which global care chain and related research use the concept of gender. More specifically, he argues that the work tends to subscribe to ‘‘normative universalizing notions of gender scripts and domesticity’’ (241), in which married mothers are assumed to be the only possible and logical links in the care chain. Manalansan uses Rhacel Parrenãs’ (2001) highly acclaimed study of Filipina domestic workers in Rome and Los Angeles—Servants of Globalisation—to illustrate his claim. He correctly observes that while significant proportions of Parrenãs’ research samples were other than married women with children, their stories remain untold and their role within the global care chain unanalyzed.6 While Parrenãs’ focus is understandable, given her prime concern with how care of children in particular has become a commodity to be redistributed (unequally) across the globe, it is difficult to deny the fact than men, and an analysis of their positions with the international division of social reproductive labor, have been obscured as a result.7 This article seeks to contribute to the task of addressing that omission. In doing so, it is argued that not only is it important, as the other contributions to this special issue do, to examine how men are implicated in the global redistribution of stereotypically female tasks of social reproduction—the care and cleaning jobs that have constituted the focus of global care chain research—but that there is also merit in interrogating the ways in which stereotypically male areas of domestic work, such as gardening and household repair and maintenance, are embedded in global care chains. With reference to mainly, but not exclusively, the European and particularly

128

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 129 the U.K. context, the article focuses on migrant men as workers in the international domestic economy, adopting the broader conceptualization of domestic labor, and contextualizing the examination with reference to both men’s historical and cross- cultural presence within domestic service, as well as contemporary migration processes, patterns, and policies. The article also highlights the need to incorporate men as consumers within the international division of domestic labor, by investigating the meanings attached to home-state men’s outsourcing of stereotypically male domestic tasks. Such enquiry, it is suggested, has the potential to reveal the ways in which men are connected in the relationship between migration, globalization, and social reproduction, just as the global care chain research has shown the connections between women. The article is based on a review of the existing literature, as well as findings emerging from an on-going exploration in the United Kingdom of the scale, characteristics, dynamics, and drivers of the commoditization of specifically male tasks of social reproduction and their displacement onto migrant men. It is to an outline of the key aspects of that research that the article first turns.

Method, Data, and Definitions The project has two components. The first is a quantitative study consisting of secondary data analysis designed to accumulate data on the scale and characteristics of sup- ply of and demand for what the project has termed migrant handymen in the United Kingdom. By migrant handymen, it is meant migrant men who work for pay in private households undertaking a range of unspecialized stereotypically male domestic chores.8 The second component is a qualitative study involving in-depth face-to- face semistructured interviews with migrant handymen and labor-using households. Specifically, the arguments developed in this article are informed by a secondary analysis of the U.K. Labor Force Survey (LFS) that has been conducted as part of the quantitative study and interviews with men in households that repeatedly outsource stereotypically male domestic work, completed as part of the qualitative study.9

The LFS The LFS is a quarterly sample survey, based on a systematic random sample design that targets all persons aged sixteen and over to make it representative of the whole of U.K. households living at private addresses in the United Kingdom. It provides a wide range of data on labor market statistics, including employees and the self- employed. The analysis was motivated in particular by the desire to illuminate men working in a domestic setting undertaking stereotypically male areas of domestic labor. These workers are unlikely to be captured by the ‘‘common sense’’ category of domestic service, which in any case is notoriously vulnerable to definitional variations across data sources (Sarti 2005a). The analysis thus proceeded in two stages. First, it identified those persons whose main or second job, and whether

129

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 130 Men and Masculinities 13(1) employed or self-employed, is located in private households other than their own household, analyzing as it did so, their distribution by gender and country of origin. Second, it disaggregated what is termed here the domestic sector workforce by occupational group based on the Standard Occupational Classification used in the LFS (Office for National Statistics [ONS] 2006), which classifies according to (1) the kind of work which is performed (the job) and (2) the competent performance of the tasks and duties (the skill level), again analyzing as we did so, distribution by gender and country of origin. This second stage identified a number of occupational categories that would not fall under ‘‘common sense’’ understandings of domestic work—for example, teachers and secretarial occupations. It identified a further range of occupations that could be considered stereotypically female areas of domestic work—health care and related personal services, child care and related personal services, housekeeping occupations, and elementary cleaning occupations. The analysis also revealed the presence of other occupations in the domestic sector, however, which this article suggests could be classified as stereotypically male areas of domestic work. These include the categories (elementary) agricultural trades, by far the most dominant among which is the occupation of gardener/groundsman, and (elementary) construction/building-type trades. To examine change in the domestic sector workforce over time, both stages of the analysis were conducted for two periods—1992–1995 and 2004–2007.10 While every effort has been made to compare like with like, the temporal comparison needs to be interpreted with a degree of caution, however, since the occupational classificatory scheme used in the LFS is not the same in both time periods.11 It is important to note that as with most population surveys, the LFS underrepre- sents migrants, especially recent migrants. It remains, however, an important source of data on migrants’ labor market performance and has been used extensively in such research (e.g., Dustmann et al. 2005; Eade 2007; Green, Jones and Owen 2007; Spence 2005). Due to the very specific focus on domestic sector workers in the analysis, sample sizes, however, do not allow disaggregation by country of origin, and it is only possible to distinguish between U.K.-born and foreign-born workers. ‘‘For- eign born’’ is defined as born outside of the United Kingdom and is not necessarily synonymous with ‘‘migrant.’’

Men in Labor-Using Households The purpose of the qualitative study is to explore in greater depth than is possible in the secondary data analysis why and how households use migrant handymen, the meanings they attach to the use of this labor, and how it might be affecting their time-use patterns, and gender and parental relations. It also aims to uncover the processes by which migrants come to be inserted in this type of work, the characteristics of their current working and living conditions, including the opportunities their migration and work status affords for the performance of their own social reproductive tasks, and the nature of their relationship with their employing households, as

130

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 131 well as what and how ties are maintained with their homeland. This article draws on the analysis of one set of interviews conducted in 2008 and 2009 as part of the qualitative study—that of twenty-two men in households that repeatedly outsource stereotypically male domestic work. The men were all fathers with dependent children and twenty-one of them were living as part of a heterosexual couple. They were mostly professional men, with household incomes in the top quintile of U.K. household disposable income. The majority were part of a dual-income couple, with the men employed full-time and their female partners employed either full- or part- time. In some cases, partners were on maternity leave, while in still others they had withdrawn from the labor market to raise children. Most of the men lived in and around London, but some lived in the North East of England.

Migrant Male Domestic Workers As the data in Table 1 demonstrate in respect of a broad range of European societies, care, cleaning, and cooking activities account for the bulk of all domestic work undertaken in households and tend to be performed predominantly by women (Aliaga 2006; Lader, Short, and Gershuny 2006). Both because of who traditionally does these tasks, and their relative importance to daily living, they are also the areas where greatest time squeeze will be experienced as Global Northern women increase their labor market participation, and middle-class women in particular intensify commitment to their careers. In this context, it is hardly surprising that global care chain literature has tended to focus on care (child and elder), cleaning, and cooking services performed by female domestic workers (Manalansan 2006; Yeates 2004), eliding men in the process. However, the domestic sphere is not an exclusively female employment arena. Cancedda (2001, 46), for example, reports that in the late 1990s, an average of 10 percent of those employed in private households across the EU-15 were male, with the rate much higher than this in some countries—for example, 27 percent in the United Kingdom, 18 percent in Italy, and 17 percent in Finland and Belgium. Analysis of the U.K. LFS puts the U.K. rate even higher, finding that between 2004 and 2007, an average of 39 percent of those working in private homes (other than their own) were men (see also Kilkey and Perrons 2010).

Male Domestic Workers: Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives It is worth remembering that domestic sector employment has not always been so heavily feminized and that in some places in the world it is still not so (Moya 2007, 560). Qayum and Ray (2010), for example, writing about India report that in 1991 one-third of the West Bengal domestic worker population was male. There, while a growing proportion of domestic workers are female, male domestics are considered status enhancing and continue to be sought after (see also Ray 2000). Simi- larly, in much of Africa even today, a high percentage of domestic workers are men (Moya 2007; Bartolomei 2010). In Zambia, for example, despite the increasing

131

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 132 Men and Masculinities 13(1) movement of women into the sector throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, still men made up two-thirds of those employed in domestic service by the mid- 1980s (Tranberg Hansen 1989). In Western Europe, while the precise timing and pace vary from place to place, the feminization of domestic service is a process generally originating in the eight- eenth century and reaching its peak by the end of the nineteenth/first half of the twentieth century (Moya 2007, 562; Sarti 2006). Even throughout this process, though, there is evidence that male domestic workers continued to be employed, particularly by the aristocracy, and in such households, male domestics could still out- number females (Moya 2007, 565; Cox 2006; Sarti 2005b, 2006; Meldrum 2000). Government policy also had an impact on the gender balance of domestic workers. Thus, the levy of a tax on the keeping of male domestic workers in England in 1777 simultaneously contributed to the decline in the employment of male servants among the population at large, and signified their luxury status, thus reinforcing demand amongst those who could afford to keep them (Cox 2006). Bearing in mind the methodological problems inherent in a temporal and cross- national comparison of Census data on domestic workers, Sarti’s (2006) historical analysis of Census data across a range of Western European countries suggests that in recent decades, men’s representation among the domestic service workforce has increased in several contexts. Evidence of what she terms a slight ‘‘re-masculinization’’ of domestic service is also borne out by a range of data sources and studies in the case of Italy, Germany, and Spain. In Italy, for example, national social insurance data indicate that between 1991 and 1996, the proportion of the declared domestic sector workforce that was male increased from 6 to 17 percent. While there has been a decline in men’s representation since then, by 2005, it was still over the 10 percent mark (Sarti 2010). Analysis of LFS data provides evidence that the United Kingdom has also experienced this phenomenon, with the proportion of those working in private homes (other than their own), which is male up from 17 percent in the early to mid-1990s, to the 39 percent noted earlier (see also Kilkey and Perrons 2010).

Migration, Domestic Labor, and Men The link between migration and domestic sector employment is a very common one. Jose Moya’s (2007, 567-70) historical and cross-cultural review reveals the long- standing and widespread importance of both internal (rural–urban) and international migrants to the domestic sector workforce. In addition, as was noted above, one of the key contributions of the global care chain literature has been to highlight how crucial transnational migration is to the current growth in paid domestic labor. In the case of the United Kingdom, analysis of the LFS reveals that currently 16 percent of all those working in private homes (other than their own) are foreign born, and their density in this sector is higher than in the workforce in general (10 percent). Indeed, the analysis finds that since the early to mid-1990s, the proportion of all those working in private homes (other than their own) who are foreign-born has almost doubled

132

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 133

(from 9 to 16 percent), and the increase has outpaced that of foreign-born workers’ representation within the workforce as a whole (from 7 to 10 percent). National-level analysis, however, obscures considerable regional variation. Thus, in London, the majority (57 percent) of domestic sector workers are now foreign-born; in the early to mid-1990s they were still, albeit slightly, the minority (45 percent; see also Kilkey and Perrons 2010). Significantly, there is evidence from the literature to suggest that the increase in men’s representation within the domestic sector workforce, as with the rise in domestic labor in general, has gone hand-in-hand with what Castles and Miller (2009) term ‘‘the age of migration,’’ characterized by, among other things, the acceleration and globalization of migration flows in recent decades. Thus, Sarti’s (2006 and in this volume) analysis of Italian social insurance data for the period 1991–2005 reveals that while men composed only about 3 percent of Italian domestic workers over this period, depending on the year, they constituted between 15 and 30 percent of foreign domestic workers. As she suggests (2008b), it is possible that contemporary migration processes, patterns, and policies are implicated in the increase in male domestic workers specifically. The precise nature of the relationship, however, is context specific. Thus, in some societies (e.g., Italy and Spain), domestic work has been designated as a legal route of entry to the country and/or it has benefited from post-migration amnesties (Penninx, Spencer, and Van Hear 2008; see also Kilkey, Lutz and Palenga-Mo¨llenbeck 2010). In this context, the attractiveness of domestic work increases and it becomes susceptible to redefinition in gender (as well as class and ethnic) terms, coming to be regarded as acceptable work for migrant men (Sarti 2008). Elsewhere, domestic work may not provide a route of valid entry/regulariza- tion, but in the context of tight controls on migration, its location within the private sphere offers a distinct advantage in terms of avoiding state surveillance; domestic work therefore becomes a legitimate survival strategy among migrants (Pfau-Effinger 2009), male as well as female (see also Kilkey 2010b; Kilkey and Per- rons 2010). This in part contributes to the transformation of domestic work into an ‘‘immigrant niche,’’ a development that Moya (2007, 574) suggests may also be implicated in its masculinization. This is the case in two senses. In the first place, the endo- genous and informal mechanisms of information, assistance, and selection associated with immigrant niche formation, may mean that ethnic group membership rather than or alongside of gender, is the key determinant for working in the domestic sector. Second, the transformation of domestic work into an immigrant niche may also facil- itate entrepreneurialism within the sector, and ‘‘[I]n so far as house-cleaning becomes afamilybusiness ... husbands and adolescent sons tend to participate ...’’ (ibid). The precise ways in which gender and country of origin intersect in the domestic sector, however, may vary from place to place. Thus, while analysis of LFS data provides evidence that an increasing proportion of foreign-born domestic sector workers are male (from 10 to 19 percent between 1992–1995 and 2004–2007), a much more pronounced ‘‘re-masculinization’’ among U.K.-born domestic sector workers (from 18 to 43 percent across the same period) is revealed (see also Kilkey and

133

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 134 Men and Masculinities 13(1)

Perrons 2010). Precisely why this might be so requires deeper investigation. Part of the explanation, however, is likely to lie in the characteristics of the occupational profile of the U.K. domestic sector workforce, and it is to that issue that the article now turns.

What Jobs are Migrant Male Domestic Workers Doing? Little has been documented about precisely what jobs migrant male domestic workers are doing. This is in large part because as noted above, until very recently there has been little or no empirical investigation of them. It is also, however, because pre- sentation of data on the matter tends to be ambiguous in terms of what is constituted by the classification ‘‘domestic worker.’’ Among the few authors who have high- lighted the existence of male domestic workers, the tendency has been to focus on those doing the traditionally female job of care giving (e.g., see Manalansan 2006, as well as the other contributions to this special issue). Indeed, Manalansan (2006, 239) uses the terms ‘‘domestic work’’ and ‘‘care work’’ interchangeably. Likewise, Sarti (2006, 234) defines male domestic workers as ‘‘men that do a job which, in Europe in the last two centuries, became strictly associated with femininity.’’ Investigation of male domestic workers who do traditionally female jobs without doubt constitutes fruitful research terrain, not least in terms of its potential to contribute to theoretical understandings of gender performance in the workplace, and particularly how this is inflected by ethnicity, nationality, and location. Thus, for example, research reveals how migrant male domestic workers actively negotiate the tensions inherent in doing what is commonly regarded as ‘‘women’s work’’ and/or working in the private sphere, long regarded as a woman’s world, by performing something similar to what LaRossa (1997) in describing men’s approach to unpaid housework has termed ‘‘masculine domesticity.’’ So, they have been found to invest the work with socially constructed masculine qualities such as breadwinning, responsible fatherhood (Ray 2000; Qayum and Ray in this special issue), and physical strength (Scrinzi 2010).12 Moreover, through their actions, body language, and terminology they have been found to transform traditionally private and ‘‘unproduc- tive’’ spaces, such as the kitchen, into public arenas with the characteristics of the workplace (Chopra 2006), and to distance themselves from femininity by refusing to do tasks intimately associated with women such as the hand washing of their underwear (Ibid). Migration itself in creating ‘‘transnational spaces of masculinities’’ (McKay 2007, 630) may also provide opportunities for migrant male cleaners and carers to reassert traditional masculinities in similar ways to McKay’s Filipino seafarers for whom ‘‘their conspicuous consumption, their reputation as hyper-masculine adventurers, and their ability to endure hardship ... give ... a chance to transform a marginalised and subordinate masculinity on the job, into a model of exemplary masculinity at home, emphasising the ideals of fatherhood, economic provision, sacrifice for one’s family, and the ‘machismo of manual work.’’’

134

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 135

Research demonstrates that employers too have to negotiate the tensions involved in employing a man to do traditionally ‘‘women’s work,’’ tensions that may be particularly acute when the work involves intimate physical care (Anderson 2007, 251). By dint of their ‘‘foreignness,’’ migrant male carers and cleaners may be acceptable to employers in ways that home-state men simply would not be. Their otherness per- mits both simultaneously and variously their de-masculinization, feminization, and infantalization (Ray 2000; Qayum and Ray in this special issue; Scrinzi in this special issue), processes which were also central to the management of servant–master/ mistress relations in historical periods, for example, the Victorian era (Davidoff 1995). To restrict the conception of male domestic work to tasks commonly associated with women’s work is problematic, however. Historically, when male domestic workers were much more common, they not only did the same jobs as women but they did other jobs too. While the latter included indoor male servant occupations such as butler, footman, and clerk of the kitchen, they related in the main to outdoor service, such as horse work (coachmen, grooms, and postillions) and garden and estate work (gardeners, park, lodge and gatekeepers, and gamekeepers; Ebery and Preston 1976; Meldrum 2000). So too in contemporary times there is evidence from the literature that migrant male domestic workers in Europe while doing the same jobs (e.g., care, particularly elder care, and cleaning), also do different jobs to their female counterparts, such as home, garden and vehicle maintenance (Pe-Pua 2003 cited in Piper 2005, 8); activities that have been conceptualized as being vital to social reproduction (Nakano Glenn 1992), and as the data in Table 1 demonstrate, when done without pay in people’s own homes, tend to be done predominantly by men. Looking beyond the European context, we also find a body of research in the United States, which while not exclusively positioned within a global care chain/ migrant domestic labor framework, does highlight the preponderance of migrant men in jobs such as domestic gardening and exterior/yard maintenance, both historically and currently (e.g., Glazner 1995; Pisani and Yoskowitz 2005; Ramirez and Hondagneu-Sotelo 2009; Tsuchida 1984; Tsukashima 1991, 1995/1996). So too there is evidence from the United Kingdom that the occupational profile of those working in the domestic sector is more varied than the literature on the growth of domestic sector work commonly recognizes. Thus, analysis of the LFS found that in the period 2004–2007, almost 39 percent of those working in the domestic sphere were doing what might be considered stereotypically male areas of domestic labor— essentially garden work and household repair/maintenance, and that the vast majority of those workers were male. This compares with a figure of 45 percent (mostly women) who were doing traditionally female areas of domestic labor—health care and related personal services, child care and related personal services, housekeeping, and cleaning (see also Kilkey and Perrons 2010).13 While a reclassification of occupations in the LFS means that caution is required when comparing the occupational composition of the domestic sector workforce over time (see above), temporal analysis suggests that in the early to mid-1990s, only 13 percent of those working in the

135

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 136 136

Table 1. Domestic Activities of Men and Women Aged 20 to 74 in Selected European Countries, Various Years c. 2000

Food Dish Construction/ Shopping/ Country Prep. Washing Cleaning Laundry Ironing Handicrafts Gardening Repairs Services Childcare

Downloaded from Belgium M h:m 0:22 0:10 0:21 0:02 0:01 0:00 0:17 0:24 0:26 0:19 M % part. 53 35 ... 53 0 16214425 F h:m 1:01 0:22 0:57 0:09 0:19 0:09 0:06 0:05 0:36 0:35 jmm.sagepub.com F % part. 85 64 ... 30 29 11 9 9 53 36 Estonia M h:m 0:22 0:06 0:36 0:02 0:00 0:00 0:12 0:33 0:21 0:11 M % part. 45 24 ... 3 1 0 9 27 40 25 atMasarykova Univerzita onMay 2,2015 F h:m 1:21 0:26 0:53 0:15 0:08 0:12 0:14 0:03 0:29 0:34 F % part. 90 73 ... 24 14 12 13 3 60 42 Germany M h:m 0:16 0:08 0:25 0:02 0:01 0:00 0:10 0:18 0:28 0:10 M % part. 46 31 ... 62 0 11194214 F h:m 0:49 0:21 0:53 0:12 0:10 0:06 0:09 0:03 0:38 0:26 F % part. 80 59 ... 32 18 6 15 5 53 22 Italy 13(1) Masculinities and Men M h:m 0:11 0:05 0:15 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:15 0:06 0:22 0:11 M % part. 28 17 ... 1 0 0 11 7 36 15 F h:m 1:19 0:35 1:30 0:10 0:20 0:07 0:05 0:01 0:36 0:28 F % part. 86 69 ... 26 28 8 8 1 55 24

(continued) Kilkey Downloaded from Table 1 (continued)

Food Dish Construction/ Shopping/ Country Prep. Washing Cleaning Laundry Ironing Handicrafts Gardening Repairs Services Childcare jmm.sagepub.com Sweden M h:m 0:25 0:10 0:20 0:03 0:01 0:00 0:11 0:20 0:22 0:16 M % part. 64 42 ... 82 0 12194422

atMasarykova Univerzita onMay 2,2015 F h:m 0:50 0:21 0:32 0:12 0:05 0:03 0:10 0:04 0:29 0:25 F % part. 87 69 ... 33 12 4 22 7 54 ... UK M h:m 0:26 0:09 0:20 0:02 0:02 0:00 0:12 0:17 0:24 0:12 M % part. 62 34 ... 65 0 12163816 F h:m 0:59 0:18 0:50 0:11 0:11 0:05 0:07 0:04 0:39 0:33 F % part. 87 62 ... 33 22 5 10 6 52 28

Source: Derived from Aliaga (2006), Table 2. Note: h:m ¼ hours and minutes per day; % part. ¼ percentage of persons who perform the activity on an average day; M ¼ males; F ¼ females. 137 137 138 Men and Masculinities 13(1) domestic sector were doing the stereotypically male domestic jobs of gardening and household repair/maintenance, indicating a considerable increase in the decade or so up to 2004–2007 (see also Kilkey and Perrons 2010). Further analysis of the LFS indicates, though, that stereotypically male areas of domestic work are less migrant dense than stereotypically female areas (Table 2). A ‘‘migrantization’’ of male areas of domestic work, however, may be in progress; thus as the data in Table 2 indicate, over time the increase in the proportion of foreign-born domestic sector workers doing stereotypically male domestic jobs has outpaced that of U.K.-born workers (albeit from a smaller base). As noted earlier, the analysis of the LFS data did not permit exploration of specific country of origin of foreign-born men doing stereotypically male domestic labor. In the course of the qualitative study, however, it has become apparent that the handyman sector is increasingly dominated by migrants from the Central and Eastern European states that joined the European Union in 2004 (known as the A8 countries). Citizens of those countries have dominated migration flows to the United Kingdom in recent years, and since May 1, 2004, compared with non-EU citizens and those from the subsequent Accession states (Bulgaria and Romania), they have had a comparatively unconditional right to work in the United Kingdom. Handyman work has come to be associated with Polish men in particular, with the stereotype of the ‘‘Polish Plumber’’ now firmly embedded in Britain’s popular imagination (see also Garapich 2008; Perrons, Plomien, and Kilkey 2010). The qualitative study also provides evidence that asylum seekers from countries such as Iran and Kurdistan are working in this sector, indicating that the phenomenon is located within more global migrationflows.IncontrasttoA8migrants, the majority of asylum seekers, however, are not permitted to do paid work, and many are denied access to social welfare provisions (Kilkey 2010b).

Developing an Understanding of the Migrant Handyman Phenomenon in the United Kingdom The growth observed above in the United Kingdom in the prevalence of migrant men working in the domestic sector in stereotypically male occupations—a scenario that might be termed ‘‘the migrant handyman phenomenon’’—is bound up with an increase in the commoditization of stereotypically male areas of domestic labor such as gardening and home maintenance and repair, a process that has been acknowledged to be occurring in Europe (e.g., Cancedda 2001, 22), but which remains rel- atively unexplored. This is a gap that the qualitative part of the author’s ongoing research project—Situating men within global care chains: the migrant handyman phenomenon—aims to address in the case of the United Kingdom, and which the work of Ramirez and Hondagneu-Sotelo (2009) and Cox (2008) address in the United States and New Zealand, respectively.

138

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 139

Table 2. Domestic-Sector Workers—Country of Origin by Stereotypically Male and Female Occupations,a 2004–2007 and 1992–1995, Labor Force Survey Data

2004–2007 1992–1995

Occupation % Foreign Born % UK Born % Foreign Born % UK-Born

Stereotypically 13 41 3 13 male occupations Stereotypically 78 40 80 75 female occupations Other 9 19 17 12 Total % 100 100 100 100 N 157 829 149 1,430

Source: Derived from Kilkey and Perrons (2010), Tables 10 and 11. Note: aIn 2004–2007, stereotypically male occupations ¼ gardeners and construction/building-type trades and stereotypically female occupations ¼ health and child care and related personal services, housekeeping and cleaning. In 1992–1995, stereotypically male occupations ¼ craft and related occupations, which include mostly gardeners and construction/building-type trades and stereotypically female occupations ¼ personal and protective service occupations and cleaning.

Home-State Men and Migrant Male Domestic Labor Exploration of ‘‘the migrant handyman phenomenon’’ requires an analysis of the outsourcing of stereotypically male areas of domestic labor from the perspective of home-state men. Global care chain literature locates the demand for paid domestic work in the changing norms and practices vis-a`-vis home and paid work of middle-class home-state women. Any allusion to home-state men’s part in the phenomenon remains implicit and relates to their reluctance to fill the care deficit created by women’s increased professional commitments (Kofman 2006, 5). This construction of home-state men’s role, accurate as it probably is in relation to heterosexual couples and the domestic division of ‘‘women’s’’ household tasks, may, however, obscure important ways in which men play a more direct and agentic role in the international division of social reproductive labor. While there has been some recognition (Cox 2006) that single men, either living alone or communally, are much more likely than single women to employ cleaners, implicating men very directly in the commoditization of domestic work, the evidence of both the commoditization of stereotypically male tasks of social reproduction and their displacement onto migrant men, suggests a further dimension to home-state men’s role in the international division of domestic labor, and can reveal the ways in which men are connected in the relationship between globalization, migration, and social reproduction, just as the global care chain research has shown the connections between women. This would, therefore, suggest that a more complex understanding of how the use of paid domestic labor is bound up with the construction and reproduction of hegemonic masculinities is required.

139

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 140 Men and Masculinities 13(1)

The author’s ongoing research reveals one aspect to this relationship. This relates to the role of fathering and paid work in the construction of hegemonic masculinity. More precisely, while connection to the labor market remains a key marker of contemporary hegemonic masculinity in Western societies (Seidler 1997), there is also in the United Kingdom (and elsewhere—see OECD 2007) a growing normative expectation for more active, involved and hands-on fathering, particularly as it relates to middle-class families (Dermott 2008). This scenario is borne out in the apparently contradictory evidence that while on one hand, the current generation of U.K. fathers are spending more time with their children than those of previous generations (O’Brien 2005), on the other hand, there has been little or no reduction in U.K. fathers’ working hours (Dermott 2005; Finch 2007; O’Brien and Shemilt 2003). This begs the question as to where this ‘‘new-father time’’ comes from? For the middle-to-high income earning men interviewed as part of the author’s research, it comes, at least in part, from buying themselves out off stereotypically male domestic chores (see also Kilkey 2010b; Perrons, Plomien, and Kilkey 2010).14 Time ‘‘saved’’ from outsourcing the chores that most of them had at one time or another (usually before the arrival of children) done themselves, was prioritized for paid work and ‘‘family time,’’ the latter concentrated particularly during weekends and annual leave, when gardening and household repair and maintenance would traditionally be expected to be done. For most of the men interviewed, paying someone else to do their (stereotypically male) domestic chores was unproblematic in identity terms; these were men who subscribed to a notion of masculinity as cerebral, and for whom in the main, the physical and often dirty work of male domestic labor, was constructed as ‘‘other.’’ Reflecting on what the above finding reveal about the meanings attached to home-state men’s outsourcing of male domestic chores, commentary of Hondagneu-Sotelo and Messner (1997) on the American ‘‘New Man’’ seems instruc- tive. They not only make the point that the ability of some men to realize the ideal of the ‘‘New Man’’ is based on class, gender, and ethnic power and privilege but also that it is rooted in the subordination of women and other groups of men. Their obser- vation is significant in that it points us to the relationships between men, as well as between women and men, in the construction and realization of the ‘‘New Man.’’ The relationship between men that they write about is more precisely an ideological one between a ‘‘new’’ and a ‘‘traditional’’ hegemonic masculinity. What exploration of the migrant handyman phenomenon suggests, however, is that the ability of some men to conform to the normative notion of a ‘‘good father’’—someone who com- bines a successful career with active involvement in family life—is also dependent on the material exploitation of other men. As Connell (1995) has argued, masculinity, like femininity, is a multiple social construction in which men are positioned in relation to each other, often hierarchically in terms of inferiority and superiority. Thus, just as there is a fit between a shift in the norms around the appropriate role of (middle class) mothers and the commoditization of at least some of the domestic labor traditionally performed by women, so too there is a connection between

140

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 141 changing normative expectations around (middle class) fathering and the commoditization of other areas of domestic labor, which have traditionally been seen as lying in men’s realm of responsibility. In other words, it would seem that ‘‘new-father time’’ may be predicated, at least in part, on men’s withdrawal from stereotypically male domestic responsibilities and their displacement onto migrant men. What this means for migrant handymen is also a subject of the author’s current research and relevant areas for enquiry will be suggested in the concluding section that follows.

Conclusion The concept of global care chains and the related body of research on the growth of the international market in domestic workers while successfully ‘‘feminizing’’ scholarship on globalization and migration has arguably been less successful in gendering it. In large part, this is because it has focused overwhelmingly on women and womanly aspects of social reproduction. As others have suggested, there is a need, therefore, to incorporate men into the research. The purpose is as Manalansan (2006, 239) argues ‘‘not to valorize the male domestic labor [sic],’’ but rather to contribute to the process of gendering our understanding of the relationship between globalization, migration, and social reproduction. There is a small and emerging body of research on migrant male domestic workers, and as has been argued in the article, this has the potential to contribute in important ways to scholarship on gender, and particularly its construction and reproduction in the workplace. In the article, however, it has also been suggested that there is a need to trouble the conceptualization of the male domestic worker utilized (often implicitly) in this emerging body of work. It has been argued that historically and contemporaneously, male domestics have not only done the same jobs as women but they have also done other jobs. In contemporary times, these jobs include gardening and household repairs and maintenance. Such tasks are also vital to social reproduction, but because they tend to be undertaken by men, and because men’s work tends to be analyzed only to the extent that it takes place in the public sphere, these jobs are not commonly conceptualized as being part of domestic labor, at least within the body of work concerned with the contemporary growth in paid domestic labor.15 While research has begun to focus on migrant men doing stereotypically female tasks of domestic labor such as caring and cleaning, it is, with only a few exceptions, silent on situations where migrant men do stereotypically male tasks of social reproduction. In this article, it has been argued that this lacunae is worth addressing. Analysis of the LFS suggests that empirically, what has been termed ‘‘migrant handymen’’ are a growing phenomenon in the United Kingdom. It is recognized that the ability to pro- duce a statistically robust and refined quantitative portrait is constrained. This is in large part because of the difficulties inherent in capturing with accuracy the extent of domestic sector work and migrant workers, given that much of both is often located outside the realm of the ‘‘formal’’ economy. Nonetheless, the results do support a

141

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 142 Men and Masculinities 13(1) call for the recognition of the commoditization of specifically male areas of domestic labor in the analysis of the commoditization of social reproduction and the migrant dimension to this. The case is more than an empirical one, however. It has been suggested that a focus on the meanings attached to the commoditization of stereotypically male domestic work can enhance understanding of how middle-class fathering identities and practices are facilitated. Revealing the relationality of middle-class fathers to migrant men’s labor in particular, moreover, contributes an additional dimension to gendered accounts of the relationship between globalization, migration, and social reproduction. However, what of the meaning of the migrant handyman phenomenon from the perspective of migrant men? On one hand, that they are men doing male- typed work would suggest that it is a less conceptually fruitful area of enquiry than that of migrant men doing female-typed jobs. On the other hand, however, there are some potential areas of discontinuity, which may offer conceptual insights. For example, these are men doing ‘‘men’s work’’ but, at least in terms of indoor work, in a domesticated and feminized sphere. Which male bodies are deemed appropriate to enter this sphere, raises interesting questions around the embodiment of migrant male domestic labor in classed, gendered, and racialized terms. Additionally, what kind of ‘‘boundary work’’ (Lan 2003) do migrant handymen and their labor-using householders perform, and what are the gendered and ethnic dimensions to this? Do migrant handymen experience ‘‘contradictory class mobility’’ (Parren˜as 2001)?, and if so, how does this influence the meanings they attach to the work and how they practice it day to day? These are some of the questions being pursued in the on-going qualitative study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The data contained in this article are derived from a research project being conducted with Diane Perrons and Ania Plomien, and I should like to acknowledge their contribution to the project, while noting that they are not responsible for the arguments in this paper.

Funding The research upon which this article is based was funded by the U.K. Economic and Social Research Council, grant RES-000-22-2590.

Notes 1. See, for example, Cox (2006); Gregson and Lowe (1994); McDowell et al. (2005) on England; Degiuli (2007); Escriva´(2005); Hochschild (2000); Lazaridis (2007); Pojmann (2006); Scrinzi (2008) on Southern Europe; Akalin (2007) on Turkey; Platzer (2006) on Sweden; Hondagneu-Sotelo (2001) on the United States; Anderson (2000); Anderson and O’Connell Davidson (2003); Cancedda (2001); Lister et al. (2007); Parren˜as (2001, 2005); Sarti (2006); Williams (2005) on cross-national experiences; and Lutz’s (2008a) edited collection covering a wide range of European countries.

142

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 143

2. Components of household services include (1) domestic services, including cleaners, gardeners, and au pairs; (2) carpet cleaning, ironing services, and window cleaners; and (3) hire and repair of household furniture and furnishings. Prices are at 2006 prices. 3. It is acknowledged that other research agendas have also recognized the importance of (migrant) social reproductive labor to contemporary globalization processes. See, for example, the concept of global cities (Sassen 2001). For a review of some of the debates around this concept see, for example, Cox and Watt (2002) and May et al. (2007). 4. In doing so, the global care chain literature draws on the identification within migration research of the importance of transnational social networks in the migration process (see Ryan 2007 for a review of social network theory and migration). 5. Versions of this article have been read at the European Sociological Association Confer- ence, Glasgow, September 2007, and the European Social Science History Conference, Lisbon, February 2008. I am grateful for the comments of participants at both events. 6. For example, in Rome, Parren˜as conducted a survey of 301 domestic workers, 26 percent of whom were men. In addition, in Rome, just under half of all the female domestic workers interviewed were never-married single women (Parren˜as 2001, 16-9). 7. In his discussion, Manalansan, who is writing from a queer studies perspective, gives greater weight to other casualties, namely gay men and single (lesbian) women. It should be noted that Manalansan has not been alone in highlighting the need for a focus on male migrant domestic workers. The historian Raffaella Sarti in her explorations of the continuities and discontinuities between domestic service in historical and contemporary times has brought male domestic workers into the frame (Sarti 2005b, 2006, 2008), as has the sociologist Francesca Scrinzi writing about the intersection of gender and ethnicity in domestic service (2005). Together, they orga- nized the panel ‘‘Male Domestic Workers: Past and Present’’ at the European Social Science History Conference, Lisbon, February 2008. 8. In the course of the qualitative study, such men have been found to be doing jobs that include landscaping and lawn care, assembling garden sheds, paving driveways, repairing fences, changing locks, replacing taps, fixing leaks, mounting shelves, hanging pictures and mirrors, attaching fixtures, and painting and decorating. 9. The quantitative study is analyzing two additional data sources: the UK2000 Time Use Survey and the UK Worker Registration Scheme (see Kilkey and Perrons 2010 for a fuller discussion of those sources). The qualitative study is interviewing four additional groups: the partners of men in households that repeatedly outsource male domestic chores; migrant handymen; British-born handymen; and handyman agencies (see Kilkey 2010b and Perrons, Plomien, and Kilkey 2010). 10. To increase sample size quarterly ‘‘waves’’ of the LFS over each of the two four-year periods were pooled. To avoid duplication, the method recommended by Economic and Social Data Services (2007, 71-4) was followed. 11. The reclassification affects the ability to detect changes in the representation of specific occupations, but in the analysis, every effort was made to ‘‘reconstruct’’ occupational groupings relating to stereotypically male and female occupations to maximize compar- ability over the two time periods. This was generally possible, and any remaining

143

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 144 Men and Masculinities 13(1)

difficulties relate mainly to stereotypically female rather than male occupations. In particular, child care was not identified as a separate category in the earlier set of data (see Kilkey 2010a for a fuller technical discussion). 12. In a study of low-paid migrant workers in London, similar strategies have been observed of migrant male cleaners working in public spaces such as offices (Datta et al. 2008). 13. The remainder were engaged in a range of other, less obviously gendered, occupations, including teaching. 14. Collectively, men employed a range of strategies to help them manage work–family conflict, including sleeping less and utilizing technology to increase temporal and spatial flexibility when it came to fitting work into family life. 15. Some other bodies of work, however, do recognize and examine specifically male types of domestic work. Doucet (2006), for example, draws on Pahl’s (1984) seminal study on Divisions of Labour, to account for the tendency she observes in her research with stay-at- home fathers, to emphasize their time investment in what she terms ‘‘male self- provisioning jobs’’ such as home repairs.

References Akalin, A. 2007. Hired as a caregiver, demanded as a housewife: Becoming a migrant domestic worker in Turkey. European Journal of Women’s Studies 14:209-25. Aliaga, C. 2006. How is the time of women and men distributed in Europe? Statistics in focus, population and social conditions 4/2006. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Anderson, B. 2000. Doing the dirty work? The global politics of domestic labour. London: Zed Books. Anderson, B. 2007. A very private business. Exploring the demand for migrant domestic workers. European Journal of Women’s Studies 14:247-64. Anderson, B., and J. O’Connell Davidson. 2003. Is trafficking in human beings demand dri- ven? A multi-cultural pilot study. International Organisation for Migration Research Series No. 15. Geneva: International Organisation for Migration. Bartolomei, M. R. 2010. Migrant male domestic workers in comparative perspective: Four case studies from Italy, India, Ivory Coast, and Congo. Men and Masculinities 13:87-110. Cancedda, L. 2001. Employment in household services. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Castles, S., and M. J. Miller. 2009. The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chopra, R. 2006. Invisible men: Masculinity, sexuality, and male domestic labour. Men and Masculinities 9:152-67. Coltrane, S. 2000. Research on household labour: Modelling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1208-33. Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cox, R. 2006. The servant problem: Domestic employment in a global economy. London: I B Tauris.

144

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 145

Cox, R. 2008. Hired hubbies and mobile mums: Discourses of skill and the gendering of paid work in the home. Paper presented at the Domestic Work and the Making of the Modern World Conference, Warwick University, May 2008. Cox, R., and P. Watt 2002. Globalization, polarization and the informal sector: The case of paid domestic workers in London. Area 34:39-47. Crompton, R. 2006. Employment and the family: The reconfiguration of work and family life in contemporary societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Datta, K., C. McIlwaine, J. Herbert, Y. Evans, J. May, and J. Wills. 2008. Mobile masculinities: Men, migration and low paid work in London. Working paper 9, Department of Geography, Queen Mary, University of London. Davidoff, L. 1995. Worlds between: Historical perspectives on gender and class. Cambridge: Polity Press. Degiuli, F. 2007. A job with no boundaries: Home eldercare work in Italy. European Journal of Women’s Studies 14:193-207. Dermott, E. 2005. The effect of fatherhood on men’s patterns of employment. ESRC End of Award Report, Swindon: ESRC. Dermott, E. 2008. Intimate fatherhood. London: Routledge. Doucet, A. 2006. Do men mother? Fathering, care and domestic responsibility. Toronto: Uni- versity of Toronto Press. Dustmann, C., F. Fabbri, I. Preston, and J. Wadsworth. 2005. Labour market performance of immigrants in the UK labour market. Home Office Online Report 05/03. www.homeoffi- ce.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr0503.pdf (accessed November 23, 2006). Eade, J. 2007. Class and ethnicity: Polish migrant workers in London (Full Research Report). ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-1294. Swindon: ESRC. Ebery, M., and B. Preston. 1976. Domestic service in late Victorian and Edwardian England, 1871-1914. Geographical Papers. Reading: University of Reading. Economic Social Data Services. 2007. Analysing change over-time: A guide to ESDS resources. Manchester: ESDS. Ehrenreich, B., and A. Hochschild, eds. 2003. Global women: Nannies, maids and sex workers in the new economy. New York: Metropolitan Books. Escriva´, A. 2005. Aged global care chains: A Southern-European contribution to the field. Conference on Migration and Domestic Work in Global Perspective, Wassenaar, May 26–29, 2005. www.nias.knaw.nl/en/ (accessed September 1, 2006). Finch, N. 2007. Equalling the divide: A comparative perspective on gender equity, social policy and the family. PhD Diss., University of York, York. Garapich, M. 2008. Odyssean Refugees, Migrants and Power: Construction of the ‘Other’ and civic participation within the Polish community in the United Kingdom. In D. Reed- Danahay and C. Brettell (Eds.) Citizenship, Political Engagement and Belonging. Chapel Hill, NC, Rutgers University Press. Gershuny, J., and O. Sullivan. 2003. Time use, gender, and public policy regimes. Social Politics 10:205-28. Glazner, L. K. 1995. Injuries among Hispanic gardeners: A research note. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 17:121-5.

145

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 146 Men and Masculinities 13(1)

Green, A., P. Jones, and D. Owen. 2007. Migrant workers in the East Midlands labour market. Warwick: Warwick Institute for Employment Research. Gregson, N., and M. Lowe. 1994. Servicing the middle classes. London: Routledge. Hochschild, A. R. 2000. Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In On the edge: Liv- ing with global capitalism, ed. W. Hutton and A. Giddens, 130-146. London: Jonathan Cape. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. 2001. Dome´stica. Immigrant workers cleaning and caring in the sha- dows of affluence. Berkley: University of California Press. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., and M. A. Messner. 1997. Gender displays and men’s power. The ‘‘New Man’’ and the Mexican immigrant man. In Towards a new psychology of gender, ed. M. M. Gergen and S. N. Davis, 503-520. New York: Routledge. Kilkey, M. 2010a. Situating men within global care chains: The migrant handyman phenomenon. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-2590. Swindon: ESRC. Kilkey, M. 2010b. Domestic-sector work in the UK: Locating men in the configuration of gendered care and migration regimes. Social Policy and Society 9:443-54. Kilkey, M., H. Lutz, and E. Palenga-Mo¨llenbeck, eds. 2010. Domestic and care work at the intersection of welfare, gender and migration regimes: Some European experiences. Themed Section. Social Policy and Society 9:379-455. Kilkey, M., and D. Perrons. 2010. Gendered divisions in domestic work time: The rise of the (migrant) handyman phenomenon. Time and Society 19:239-64. Kofman, E. 2006. Gendered migrations, social reproduction and welfare regimes: New dialo- gues and directions. Paper presented at the European Social Science History Conference, Amsterdam, March 2006. Lader, D., S. Short, and J. Gershuny. 2006. The time use survey 2005. How we spend our time. London: Office for National Statistics. Lan, P. 2003. Negotiating social boundaries and private zones: The micropolitics of employing migrant domestic workers. Social Problems 50:525-49. LaRossa, R. 1997. The modernization of fatherhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lazaridis, G. 2007. Les infirmieres exclusives and migrant quasi-nurses in Greece. European Journal of Women’s Studies 14:227-45. Lewis, J. 2001. The decline of the male breadwinner model: Implications for work and care. Social Politics 8:152-69. Lister, R., F. Williams, A. Anttonen, J. Bussemaker, U. Gerhard, J. Heinen, S. Johansson, A. Leira, B. Siim, C. Tobio, and A. Gavanas. 2007. Gendering citizenship in Western Eur- ope. Bristol: Policy Press. Lutz, H. 2007. Editorial. Domestic work. European Journal of Women’s Studies 14:187-92. Lutz, H., ed. 2008a. Migration and domestic work: A European perspective on a global theme. Avebury: Ashgate. Lutz, H. 2008b. Introduction: Migrant domestic workers in Europe. In H. Lutz, ed. Migration and domestic work: A European perspective on a global theme, 1-10. Avebury: Ashgate. Mahler, S., and P. Pessar. 2006. Gender matters: Ethnographers bring gender from the periphery toward the core of migration studies. International Migration Review 40:27-63.

146

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 147

Manalansan, M. F. 2006. Queer intersections. Sexuality and gender in migration studies. International Migration Review 40:224-49. May, J., J. Wills, K. Datta, Y. Evans, J. Herbert, and C. McIlwaine 2007. Keeping London working: Global cities, the British state and London’s migrant division of labour. Trans- actions of the Institute of British Geographers 32:151-67. McDowell, L., K. Ray, D. Perrons, C. Fagan, and K. Ward. 2005. Women’s paid work and moral economies of care. Social and Cultural Geography 6:219-35. McKay, S. C. 2007. Filipino sea men: Constructing masculinities in an ethnic labour niche. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33:617-33. Meldrum, T. 2000. Domestic service and gender 1660-1750. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Misra, J., J. Woodring, and S. Merz. 2006. The globalization of care work: Neoliberal economic restructuring and migration policy. Globalizations 3:317-32. Moya, J. C. 2007. Domestic service in a global perspective: Gender, migration and ethnic niches. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33:559-79. Nakano Glenn, E. 1992. From servitude to service work: Historical continuities in the racial division of paid reproductive labour. Signs 18:1-43. National Statistics. 2007. Family spending 2006. London: Office for National Statistics. O’Brien, M. 2005. Shared caring: Bringing fathers into the frame. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission. O’Brien, M., and I. Shemilt. 2003. Working fathers: Earning and caring. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission. OECD. 2007. Babies and bosses—Reconciling work and family life: A synthesis of findings for OECD countries. Paris: OECD. Office for National Statistics. 2006. Labour force survey user guide—Volume 5: LFS classifications. London: Office for National Statistics. Pahl, R. E. 1984. Divisions of labour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Parren˜as, R. 2001. Servants of globalisation: Women, migration and domestic work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Parren˜as, R. 2005. Children of global migration: Transnational families and gendered woes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Penninx, R., D. Spencer, and N. Van Hear. 2008. Migration and integration in Europe: The state of research. Oxford: Centre on Migration, Policy and Society. Perrons, D., A. Plomien, and M. Kilkey. 2010. Migration and uneven development within an enlarged European Union: Fathering, gender divisions and male migrant domestic services. European Urban and Regional Studies 17:197-215. Pfau-Effinger, B. 2009. Varieties of undeclared work in European societies. British Journal of Industrial Relations 47:79-99. Piper, N. 2005. Gender and migration. Global commission on international migration. www.gcim.org/en/ir_gmp.html (accessed September 1, 2006). Pisani, M. J., and D. Yoskowitz. 2005. Grass, sweat and sun: An exploratory study of the labour market for gardeners in south Texas. Social Science Quarterly 86:229-51. Platzer, E. 2006. From private solutions to public responsibility and back again: The new domestic services in Sweden. Gender and History 18:211-21.

147

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 148 Men and Masculinities 13(1)

Pojmann, W. 2006. Immigrant women and feminism in Italy. Ashgate: Avebury. Qayum, S., and R. Ray 2010. Male servants and the failure of patriarchy in Kolkata (Calcutta). Men and Masculinities 13:111-125. Ramirez, H., and P. Hondagneu-Sotelo 2009. Mexican immigrant gardeners: Entrepreneurs or exploited workers? Social Problems 56:70-88. Ray, R. 2000. Masculinity, femininity, and servitude: Domestic workers in Calcutta in the late twentieth century. Feminist Studies 26:691-718. Ryan, L. 2007. Migrant women, social networks and motherhood: The experiences of Irish nurses in Britain. Sociology 41:295-312. Sarti, R. 2005a. Conclusion. Domestic service and European identity. In S. Pasleau and I. Schopp (eds.), with R. Sarti, Proceedings of the Servant Project,E´ ditions de l’Universite´ de Lie`ge, Lie`ge, 2005 (but 2006), vol. V. 195-284. Sarti, R. 2005b. The true servant: Self-definition of male domestics in an Italian city (Bologna, 17th-19th centuries). The History of the Family 10:407-33. Sarti, R. 2006. Domestic service: Past and present in southern and northern Europe. Gender and History 18:222-45. Sarti, R. 2008. The globalisation of domestic service—An historical perspective. In Migration and domestic work: A European perspective on a global theme, ed. H. Lutz, 77-98. Avebury: Ashgate. Sarti, R. 2010. Fighting for masculinity. male domestic workers, gender and migration in Italy from the late nineteenth century to the present. Men and Masculinities 13: 16-43. Sassen, S. 2001. Global city: New York, London, Tokyo. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton Univer- sity Press. Scrinzi, F. 2005. Les hommes de me´nage, ou comment aborder ka fe´minisation des migrations en interviewant des hommes. Migrations Socie´te´ 17: 229-40. Scrinzi, F. 2008. Migrations and the restructuring of Welfare State in Italy. Change and continuity in the Italian domestic work sector. In Migration and domestic work: A European perspective on a global theme, ed. H. Lutz, 29-42. Aldershot: Ashgate. Scrinzi, F. 2010. Masculinities and the international division of care: migrant male domestic workers in Italy and France. Men and Masculinities 13: 44-64. Seidler, V. 1997. Man enough. Embodying masculinities. London: SAGE. Spence, L. 2005. Country of birth and labour market outcomes in London. An analysis of labour force survey and census data. DMAG Briefing 2005/1, London: GLA. Tranberg Hansen, K. 1989. Distant companions: Servants and employers in Zambia, 1900- 1985. Cornell: Cornell University Press. Tsuchida, N. 1984. Japanese gardeners in southern California, 1900-1941. In Labor immigration under capitalism: Asian workers in the United States before world war II, ed. L. Cheng and E. Bonacich, 435-469. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tsukashima, R. T. 1991. Cultural endowment, disadvantaged status and economic niche: The development of an ethnic trade. International Migration Review 25:333-54. Tsukashima, R. T. 1995/1996. Continuity of ethnic participation in the economy: Immigrants in contract gardening. Amerasia Journal 21:53-76.

148

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015 Kilkey 149

Williams, F. 2005. Intersecting issues of gender, ‘race’, and migration in the changing care regimes of UK, Sweden and Spain. Paper presented to Annual Conference of International Sociological Conference Research Committee 19, September 8–10, Northwestern Univer- sity, Chicago. Williams, F., and A. Gavanas 2008. The intersection of childcare regimes and migration regimes: A three-country study. In Migration and domestic work. A European perspective on a global theme, ed. H. Lutz, 13-28. Avebury: Ashgate. Yeates, N. 2004. Global care chains: Critical reflections and lines of enquiry. International Feminist Journal of Politics 6:369-91. Yeates, N. 2005. Global care chains: A critical introduction. Research Paper No. 44. Global Commission on International Migration. www.gcim.org/en/ir_gmp.html (accessed September 1, 2006).

149

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Masarykova Univerzita on May 2, 2015