gender & society 2007 duffy 313 36

http://gas.sagepub.com/Gender & Society

http://gas.sagepub.com/content/21/3/313The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0891243207300764 2007 21: 313Gender & Society

Mignon DuffyPerspective

Doing the Dirty Work : Gender, Race, and Reproductive Labor in Historical

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Sociologists for Women in Society

can be found at:Gender & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gas.sagepub.com/content/21/3/313.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- May 17, 2007Version of Record >>

by guest on October 16, 2012gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DOING THE DIRTY WORKGender, Race, and Reproductive Labor in

Historical PerspectiveMIGNON DUFFYUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

The concept of reproductive labor is central to an analysis of gender inequality, includingunderstanding the devaluation of cleaning, cooking, child care, and other womenswork in the paid labor force. This article presents historical census data that detail trans-formations of paid reproductive labor during the twentieth century. Changes in the orga-nization of cooking and cleaning tasks in the paid labor market have led to shifts in thedemographics of workers engaged in these tasks. As the context for cleaning and cookingwork shifted from the dominance of private household servants to include more institu-tional forms, the gender balance of this reproductive labor workforce has been trans-formed, while racial-ethnic hierarchies have remained entrenched. This article highlightsthe challenges to understanding occupational segregation and the devaluation of repro-ductive labor in a way that analyzes gender and race-ethnicity in an intersectional wayand integrates cultural and structural explanations of occupational degradation.

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

Critiques by scholars of color of feminist theory and political practiceemphasize the ways the impacts of race, class, and other aspects ofinequality are obscured when gender is considered in isolation, universalizing

AUTHORS NOTE: I would like to thank the many colleagues and friends who read var-ious versions of this article along the way and gave me invaluable feedback and advice:Cynthia Cranford, Michael Duffy, Karen Hansen, Kim McMaken, Cheryl Najarian, DebiOsnowitz, and Diane Purvin. Also thank you to the anonymous Gender & Society review-ers and to Dr. Christine Williams and Dr. Dana Britton for their thoughtful comments andguidance. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Carework Conference inSan Francisco in 2004 (thanks to Amy Armenia for presenting), and the Carework Networkhas provided an important intellectual home for me. And last but not least, I am gratefulto my colleagues at UMass Lowell who daily provide me with inspiration and support.

GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 21 No. 3, June 2007 313-336DOI: 10.1177/0891243207300764 2007 Sociologists for Women in Society

313 by guest on October 16, 2012gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

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 havebeen at the center of this critique, and it is now widely accepted that the mis-representation of the experiences of white middle-class women as the uni-versal experiences of women have led to significant theoretical and politicalshortcomings. Treatments that focused on womens role as housewife in the1950s or on the entrance of women into the labor force in the 1970s toldimportant storiesbut also obscured the empirical reality that Blackwomen, immigrant women, and poor women had been engaged in paidmarket work in large numbers for many decades. Critics have argued thatthe experiences of these marginalized groups of women cannot simply beadded into existing theoretical models, because their inclusion at the outsetactually profoundly transforms the nature of those theoretical insights.

The concept of intersectional analysis emerged as an alternative tothese formulations of universal womanhood and has gained momentum infeminist scholarship across disciplines. An intersectional approach treatsrace, 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; Davis1981; hooks 1984; Moraga and Anzalda 1981), the movement towardintersectionality has become central to the project of understandinginequalities. Legal scholars such as Kimberl Crenshaw, Dorothy Roberts,and Patricia Williams have been particularly influential in further devel-oping a theory of intersectionality (see Crenshaw et al. 1995 for an excel-lent review of the development of critical race theory). Intersectionalanalysis demands that theory be built on historically grounded, suffi-ciently complex understandings of empirical phenomena. This study con-tributes to the necessary empirical base for intersectional theory bydocumenting historical patterns of race and sex segregation1 among paidreproductive labor occupations.

After defining the concept of reproductive labor as I use it here to dis-cuss paid work, I will show that studying paid reproductive labor throughan intersectional lens is a critical element in advancing our understandingsof gender and racial inequalities in the labor market as well as in societyas a whole. The data in this article show the changing contexts in whichreproductive labor is performed in the paid labor market as well as theshifting demographics of the workers who perform these tasks. After pre-senting the findings, I explore the implications of this empirical work fortheoretical development.


Reproductive Labor, Gender, and Race-Ethnicity

The idea of reproductive labor comes originally from the work of KarlMarx and Friedrich Engels, who differentiated between the production ofgoods in the economy and the reproduction of the labor power necessary tothe maintenance of that productive economy. The concept was furtherdeveloped in the 1970s largely with the goal of naming and analyzing a cat-egory of work that had previously remained virtually invisible within soci-ology and economics: womens unpaid work in the home. In his classicarticle on the topic, Wally Secombe explains that when the housewife actsdirectly upon wage-purchased goods and necessarily alters their form, herlabour becomes part of the congealed mass of past labour embodied inlabour power (Secombe 1974, 9). Using this concept, socialist-feministswere able to bring all of the activities of a housewifefrom cleaning bath-rooms and preparing food to caring for childreninto the discourse ofMarxist economics (Hansen and Philipson 1990). Scholars argued that thework of reproductive labor was indispensable to the ongoing reproductionand maintenance of the productive labor force and society and should berecognized as such (Boydston 1990; Dalla Costa 1972; Hartmann 1976).

From the beginning, the idea of reproductive labor was inextricablylinked to an analysis of the gendered division of labor and its central rolein perpetuating womens subordination. Feminist scholars have arguedthat womens continued responsibility for unpaid work in the home dis-advantages them in the labor market, both through periodic or long-termabsences and through the burden of the second shift that wage-earningwomen still bear in the home (Hochschild 1989). These labor market dis-advantages restrict women to lower-paying, lower-status jobs, reinforcingmens greater access to both resources and power. In turn, this inequalityat the macro level maintains material constraints and ideological normsthat uphold the gendered division of labor in the home (Chafetz 1991).

While originally conceptualized as a way to theoretically account forunpaid work, there has been growing recognition of the inadequacy of theequation of women with unpaid domestic work in the private sphere andmen with paid work in the public sphere. Two concurrent trends havemade the limitations of this view more clear in recent decades: theincreasing numbers of women in the paid labor force and the heightenedvisibility of the role of paid workers in reproductive labor. As a result, theconcept has been expanded to bridge the unpaid and paid spheres. Forexample, Barbara Laslett and Johanna Brenner (1989, 383) define socialreproduction as including various kinds of workmental, manual, and

Duffy / DOING THE DIRTY WORK 315


emotionalaimed at providing the historically and socially, as well asbiologically, defined care necessary to maintain existing life and to repro-duce the next generation. Unlinking the concept of reproductive laborfrom its exclusive association with the housewife allowed scholars to usethe idea to analyze the parallel devaluation of paid reproductive labor suchas domestic service, cleaning, food preparation and service work, andchild care. Although feminists have argued that reproductive labor pro-duces value, and that the sustainability of productive labor and of societyitself depends on it, domestic activities remain largely defined in contrastto work. And when those domestic activities are performed by paid work-ers, they seem to retain their invisibility as labor.

While the links between reproductive labor and gender have been stud-ied extensively, large-scale movement away from a universalization ofwomens experiences to a more intersectional approach that takes intoaccount race, citizenship, and other inequalities has been relatively recent.Evelyn Nakano Glenn (1992) has argued that understanding the relation-ships between race, gender, and reproductive labor is central to the projectof intersectionality. The racial division of reproductive labor, she says,is key to the distinct exploitation of women of color. . . . It is thusessential 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 explosionof scholarship focused on unraveling the complex interactions amongrace, gender, and reproductive labor is research on domestic service(Chang 2000; Dill 1994; Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2003; Hondagneu-Sotelo 2001; Parrenas 2001; Rollins 1985; Romero 1992). These scholarshave again seen paid reproductive laborhere in the form of domesticserviceas a uniquely important locus of study for developing integratedunderstandings of inequality. Judith Rollins (1985, 7) explains that exam-ining the domestic service relationship offers an extraordinary opportu-nity: the exploration of a situation in which the three structures of powerin the United States todaythat is, the capitalist class structure, the patri-archal sex hierarchy, and the racial division of laborinteract.

Nakano Glenn (1992) argues that the racial-ethnic hierarchies identi-fied in domestic service arrangements parallel hierarchies in institutionalsettings in which paid reproductive labor is also performed. Using detailedhistorical analyses of several regions of the United States, she shows thatdespite the large-scale historical transformation of paid reproductive laborfrom a model of servitude to one of service work, the relegation of thedirty work to racial-ethnic2 women has remained remarkably consistent.



In previous centuries, racial-ethnic women were disproportionately repre-sented as domestic servants, performing the laborious tasks of maintain-ing the home while their white employers served as housewives andhostesses. Nakano Glenn argues that as reproductive tasks have beenincreasingly removed from the household and performed within publiclyorganized institutions, racial-ethnic women have continued to perform theback-room work (hospital cafeteria workers, for example), while whitewomen maintain more public and supervisory roles (nurses, for example).Roberts (1997) describes this racialized hierarchy within reproductivelabor as the division between spiritual workassociated with whitewomenand menial workassociated with racial-ethnic women.

This article therefore addresses an issue that is central to advancing anintersectional analysis of gender and race by focusing on the dirty workof reproductive laborthe tasks historically associated with racial-ethnicwomen. My goal is to add a broad historical quantitative dimension to afield that has been largely framed by intensive qualitative analysis. Usinga large national sample, I trace the evolution of cleaning and cooking tasksin the labor force and analyze the demographics of these workers. The his-torical story in these data further complicates the hierarchy presented byNakano Glenn (1992) and Roberts (1997). What these data show is thatthe shift from servitude to service work has resulted in a fairly dramaticincrease in the proportion of the dirty work of reproductive labor beingperformed by racial-ethnic men as well as women. These findings there-fore raise interesting challenges for integrating gender and race in anunderstanding of reproductive labor and labor market inequalities.

Data and Method

The data on which this article is based are part of a larger historicalstudy of reproductive labor and care work. The larger study from whichthis article is drawn uses U.S. census data to analyze the development ofreproductive labor in the paid labor market from 1900 to 2000, focusingon occupational shifts as well as the gender, racial-ethnic, and immigrantcomposition of the reproductive labor workforce. The data come from theIntegrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) project at the Universityof Minnesota (Ruggles et al. 2004), which is an initiative designed tofacilitate historical analysis of the decennial census of the United States.For each year included in the series, IPUMS provides access to a comput-erized sample drawn from the entire population of U.S. census respon-dents (see www.ipums.umn.edu for more information). The IPUMS data



sets are very large, high-precision, nationally representative samples ofthe U.S. population. Since the U.S. census includes many detailed laborforce variables as well as information about gender, race-ethnicity, andimmigration status at an individual level, the IPUMS data were a perfectfit for the goals of this project.

The analysis uses ten different IPUMS data sets, one for each decadeexcept 1930 (the 1930 data set was not available at the time of the study). Thesamples, representative subsets of the full census data sets, range in size from366,000 cases to more than 2.8 million cases. For the majority of the analy-ses in the study, the universe of interest is the labor force. The size of thelabor force samples ranges from about 135,000 to more than 1.3 million.

For any project involving a period of 100 years, the comparability ofthe data is a major concern. Since the goal of the IPUMS project is tofacilitate historical analysis, the creators of the data sets have addressedcomparability in a number of ways. First, IPUMS provides extensive doc-umentation of potential comparability problems with particular variables.In addition, for many variables, IPUMS has assigned uniform codesacross decades. For example, the coding scheme for the variable record-ing an individuals occupation has changed significantly through the his-tory of the U.S. census. Every IPUMS sample contains a new variablerecoding an individuals occupation according to the 1950 categorization.In all cases, the original variable is preserved, allowing for accurate his-torical comparison without the loss of detailed information provided bycontemporary codes. While specific comparability issues remain, in gen-eral, IPUMS has created a system that allows for unprecedented levels ofconsistency in historical analysis with such a wealth of data.

For most of the historical analysis, I used the 1950 occupational cate-gorization to allow for consistent comparison across decades. Using thework of Nakano Glenn (1992) as a guide, I determined the following cri-teria for inclusion of an occupation in the study as reproductive labor:

Work that maintains daily life (physical or mental health, food preparationand 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 occu-pations into nurturant and nonnurturant jobs (see Duffy 2005 formore details on this conceptual distinction). I used a set of criteria devel-oped by Paula England, Michelle Budig, and Nancy Folbre (2002) to iden-tify nurturant occupations that include a significant relational andcaregiving dimension (such as child care, teaching, and many health care



positions). Those jobs coded as nonnurturant correspond to NakanoGlenns (1992) identification of dirty work: cleaning, food preparationand service, and laundry.

It is this latter category of nonnurturant reproductive labor that will bethe primary focus of this article. However, it should be noted that as withmost categorical divisions, there is certainly some ambiguity in labelingthis group of workers nonnurturant in contrast to nurturant. For exam-ple, as I will discuss later in the article, many domestic workers have beenexpected to perform both child care and cleaning tasks. My primary goalin this article is to follow the occupational and demographic path of theparticular tasks identified as associated with racial-ethnic hierarchies inreproductive labor. I will use contemporary occupational and industryvariables to provide detail and context to the categorical analysis.

The measurement of race in the census has been the subject of much con-troversy and debate, and the enumeration of racial categories has changedmany times over the decades. Each IPUMS data set contains a variable forrace (RACEG) that collapses detailed codes into the following categories:white, Black, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, other Asian/Pacific, andother race. These categories are common across years and therefore allow forhistorical comparison of the data sets. However, I did not find them to be themost useful categories for understanding the racial-ethnic breakdown of thereproductive labor force, particularly in recent decades. Therefore, I decidedto create a new race variable (RACENEW) combining this variable with aseparate measure of Hispanic origin3 into the following mutually exclusivecategories: white, non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Asian and PacificIslander, non-Hispanic; other race, non-Hispanic; and Hispanic. The cate-gorical choice is a strategic one based on the particular social construction ofracial-ethnic categories in the United States rather than on the inherent con-ceptual validity of the categories. These broad racial-ethnic characterizationsallow me to examine general historical trends at a national level.

For each data set, I used SPSS to calculate a series of composite statisticsthat measure the size and scope of the reproductive labor workforce as well asthe distribution of these workers by sex and race. In the second phase of theanalysis, I compiled all of the statistics described above for each decade intoa single Excel file to facilitate historical comparison. A wide range of tables,charts, and graphs created from the data present patterns over time. Each ofthe historical charts generated from this study is therefore the result of ananalysis 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 willdescribe the transformation of nonnurturant reproductive labor from a



private domestic service model to institutionally based cleaning, foodpreparation and service, and laundry occupations. In the second section, Iwill examine the shifts in the sex and race makeup of nonnurturant repro-ductive labor that accompanied this transformation.

The Occupational Transformation of Reproductive Labor

If one defines reproductive labor as a set of tasks necessary to main-tain existing life and to reproduce the next generation (Laslett andBrenner 1989), one can immediately see that there are various ways oforganizing the accomplishment of those tasks within a society. The workcan be done by family members or volunteers for no pay; workers cancome into employers homes to cook, clean, and care for children or illfamily members; or reproductive labor can be performed in institutionssuch as hospitals, restaurants, child care centers, and nursing homes.Nakano Glenn (1992) refers to the two models that involve paid workersas servitude and service work. Following the terminology used in thecensus, I use the term private household work to refer to work done bypaid workers within private homes (I will also refer to these as domesticservants/workers). I use the terms public and institutional to refer tothe workers whose reproductive labor takes place within institutions asopposed to private households. These terms are meant to efficiently cap-ture the location of the work and the occupational transformation of non-nurturant reproductive labor in the twentieth century, not to superimposean ideological dichotomy of any kind.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of domestic service in theUnited States after the Civil War, both to women workers and to repro-ductive labor. Throughout the last half of the nineteenth century, nearlyeverybody in middle- and upper-class families employed at least onedomestic servant, and some wealthier families employed an entire staff tocarry out the daily functions of their households. Ninety percent of theseservants were women, and until 1870, at least 50 percent of employedwomen in the United States were servants. In 1870, right before the num-ber of servants in the United States reached its peak in the 1880s, therewas one servant for every eight American families, and in some cities, theratio was as high as one to four (Sutherland 1981).

When domestic service was at its most widespread, a fully staffedhousehold might have included numerous maids to clean and maintain therooms of the house, laundresses to do the washing and ironing, a cookingstaff to prepare and serve meals, a nursemaid to attend to children, per-sonal care staff for the adults in the household, and a head housekeeper



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 functionswere combined into the job of a single domestic servant, often called amaid-of-all-work (Sutherland 1981). These were workers who usuallylived in the homes of their employers and were engaged in every aspect ofreproductive laborcleaning, food preparation and service, laundry, childcare, and care for the ill and elderly.

Contemporary studies of domestic service show that despite some impor-tant continuities, there have been some significant shifts in the job.Hondagneu-Sotelo (2001) describes three different models of domestic workin the latter half of the twentieth century: live-in nanny/housekeepers, wholive with and work for a particular family; live-out nanny/housekeepers, whowork for a particular family five or six days a week but return to their ownhomes at night; and housecleaners, who work for multiple employers on acontractual basis. She found that the live-in model was often considered themost onerous by workers and that the trend in contemporary domestic ser-vice is away from live-in positions. Contemporary domestic workers arealso less likely than their nineteenth-century counterparts to be asked byemployers to prepare meals for the whole family. And although those hiredby a single family on a live-in or live-out basis are most often expected todo both cleaning and child care work, housecleaners who work for multipleclients usually do not take care of children. Other researchers have identi-fied similar trends in domestic work (Dill 1994; Rollins 1985; Romero1992).

As shown in Figure 1, the number of private household workersdecreased between 1900 and 1990.4 Almost 1.3 million workers5 wereemployed in private household work in 1900. The majority of these work-ers were identified generically as domestic servants, with only a fewassigned 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 thesize of the labor force during this same time period (from 27 million to 61million workers). And by 1990, the absolute number of domestic workershad decreased to 570,000, again in the context of enormous overall labormarket growth (up to 124 million workers). The majority (69 percent) ofthese workers are identified as private household cleaners and servants orhousekeepers and butlers, and an additional 29 percent as child care work-ers within a private household.6 These are the nanny/housekeepers identi-fied by Hondagneu-Sotelo (2001) and others. Again supportingHondagneu-Sotelos findings, private household cooks and laundressesare found in much smaller numbers.



Nakano Glenn (1992) has argued that just as production was removedfrom the household in the nineteenth century, the tasks of reproductionbecame increasingly located outside of private households during thetwentieth century. The dramatic increases seen in Figure 1 in the broadoccupational categories of public cleaning and food preparation and ser-vice reflect this transformation. The growth of the service sector duringthe last half of the twentieth century has been widely studied in recentdecades (e.g., MacDonald and Sirianni 1996). The expansion of institution-ally 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 prepara-tion and service workers grew from 426,000 in 1900 to almost 5.5 millionin 1990. Taken together, these two occupational groups grew by anastounding 1,700 percent during the century. Also shown is the much lessprecipitous increase in laundry and dry cleaning operatives, the thirdmajor public incarnation of nonnurturant reproductive labor, whichpeaked before the end of the century.

In 1900, a relatively small number of workers were performing thecleaning and maintenance work of social reproduction outside of privatehousehold settings. These public cleaning workers were largely janitors,


Figure 1: Occupational Distribution of Nonnurturant Reproductive LaborWorkers, 1900, 1950, and 1990

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

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Private householdworkers

Public cleaningoccupations

Food preparationand service

Laundry anddry cleaningoperatives

Num

ber o

f wo

rker

s

1900 1950 1990


responsible for cleaning and maintaining public buildings and apartmenthouses, and sextons, responsible for cleaning and maintenance of churches.By 1990, the rise of what Nakano Glenn (1992) calls institutional servicework has dramatically expanded the numbers of workers performing thecleaning and maintenance tasks of reproductive labor in institutional set-tings. While these workers are employed in industries across the economy,a large number still work in public buildings and apartment complexes. Theother institutions in which these workers are concentrated are hotels andmotels, schools, and hospitals and nursing homes.

At the same time as the practice of having private household workersresponsible for meal preparation and service became less common, the pro-vision of food through restaurants and in other institutions grew at a phe-nomenal rate. In 1900, the workers engaged in food preparation and servicewere categorized generically as employees of hotels and restaurants andnumbered far fewer than the number of domestic servants at the time. By1990, the number of food preparation and service workers outnumbered pri-vate household workers 10 to 1. In modern institutions, these workers fulfillmuch more specialized roles: cooks, kitchen workers, waiters and wait-resses, assistants, and food counter workers, to name a few. More than twothirds work in restaurant settings, and the remainder are again concentratedin hotels and motels, schools, and hospitals and nursing homes.

Figure 2 provides a vivid illustration of the combined impact of theseoccupational shifts on the organization of the dirty work of reproductivelabor in the economy. Overall, the percentage of the labor force engagedin nonnurturant reproductive labor has increased modestly from 6.8 per-cent to 8.0 percent. However, as can be seen by the shaded areas, themakeup of the workers within these occupations has changed quite dra-matically. In 1900, the overwhelming majority were private householdworkers. By 1990, domestic workers were a small minority compared tothose in public cleaning occupations and food preparation and service.7 Ifone looks across the economy at how nonnurturant reproductive labortasks are organized within in the paid labor market, one sees a transfor-mation from the dominance of domestic service to the preponderance ofinstitutional forms of cooking and cleaning. As more workers perform thetasks of nonnurturant reproductive labor outside of private homes, moreand more of those workers are men. However, the gender shifts cannot beunderstood without simultaneously analyzing the racial-ethnic makeup ofthe men who are doing the work of institutional reproductive labor. It isthis shifting picture of sex and racial-ethnic segregation that will be thefocus of the next section.



Whos Doing the Dirty Work?

While private household work is and has always been almost exclu-sively the domain of women, public cleaning and food preparation andservice jobs have historically been much less dramatically segregated bysex. Because of the contrasting makeup of these groups of workers, theoccupational transformation of nonnurturant reproductive labor has led toa significant change in overall sex composition. By contrast, general pat-terns of racial-ethnic subordination have shown remarkable continuity inthe face of such sweeping occupational change. There have been someshifts in the balance of Black and Hispanic workers represented in non-nurturant reproductive labor, but the disproportionate presence of racial-ethnic and immigrant workers in this group of jobs has remained.

Figure 3 illustrates the significantly different sex compositions of pri-vate and public versions of nonnurturant reproductive labor. Both at thebeginning and at the end of the century, more than 95 percent of privatehousehold workers were women. By contrast, in 1900, three-quarters ofthe small number of public cleaning workers were men. As the size of theoccupation grew, the proportion who were women also rose. But even in1990, women made up only 43 percent of these workers overall. The per-centage of women in food preparation and service was about 65 percent


Figure 2: Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor Workers as a Percentage ofLabor Force, 1900, 1950, and 1990

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

1900 1950 1990

Perc

enta

ge o

f lab

or fo

rce

Laundry and dry cleaning Food preparation and servicePublic cleaning occupations Private household workers


in 1900 and had dropped slightly to 60 percent in 1990. And the muchsmaller number of laundry and dry cleaning operatives was 36 percentwomen in 1900 and 65 percent in 1990.

Figure 4 shows the changes in the overall sex makeup of nonnurturantreproductive labor over time from 1900 to 2000. The solid line, repre-senting the percentage of the labor force that is female, shows a steadyincrease over time, particularly in the post-1950 decades. While womenmade up only 18 percent of the labor force in 1900, that share hadincreased to 47 percent in 2000. At the same time as the presence ofwomen in the labor force was undergoing a significant increase, the per-centage of nonnurturant reproductive labor workers who were womendeclined from 83 percent in 1900 to 56 percent in 2000. To contextualizethis decrease in light of the overall growth in womens labor force partic-ipation, 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 aparticular sector relative to that groups representation in the labor marketas a whole (Amott and Matthaei 1996). For example, if women make up20 percent of the labor force in a particular year, but 40 percent of thereproductive labor sector, the relative concentration of women in the


Figure 3: Women as a Percentage of Nonnurturant Reproductive LaborOccupations, 1900, 1950, and 1990

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Privatehousehold

workers

Publiccleaning

occupations

Foodpreparationand service

Laundry anddry cleaningoperatives

Perc

enta

ge w

om

en

1900 1950 1990


reproductive labor sector would be 2.0 (40/20). This ratio would indicatethat women are overrepresented in the reproductive labor sectorin fact,at double the rate of their representation in the labor force as a whole. Arelative concentration of exactly 1 would indicate perfectly proportionalrepresentation, and a ratio of less than 1 would indicate an underrepre-sentation of that group. This measure allows for the comparison of occu-pational distributions over time in the context of the changingrepresentation of women, racial-ethnic groups, and immigrants in thelabor force overall.

Going back to the data presented in Figure 4, the relative concentrationof women in nonnurturant reproductive labor in 1900 was 4.61 (83/18).This means that women were overrepresented in nonnurturant reproduc-tive labor at more than four times their representation in the labor market.By 2000, the relative concentration was 1.19 (56/47), a figure approach-ing parity. In Figure 4, the drop in relative concentration is visually repre-sented by the narrowing of the gap between the solid line (womensrepresentation in the labor force) and the dotted line (womens represen-tation in nonnurturant reproductive labor) through the century.

Figure 5 shows a very different picture of the evolution of the racial-ethnic makeup of nonnurturant reproductive labor over the century. Again,


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Perc

enta

ge w

om

en

Labor force Nonnurturant reproductive labor

Figure 4: Women as a Percentage of Nonnurturant Reproductive LaborWorkers (All), 1900 through 2000

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


the solid line shows the percentage of the overall labor force identified asnon-Hispanic white, a percentage that decreased from 87 percent in 1900to 71 percent in 2000. Whites remain underrepresented among nonnurtu-rant reproductive labor throughout the century, making up 66 percent ofthese workers in 1900 and 60 percent in 2000. Although there is somechange in the racial-ethnic distribution of nonnurturant reproductive laborduring this time periodthe relative concentration of racial-ethnic work-ers decreases from 2.62 to 1.37the scale of the change is considerablyless extreme than the shifts in gender balance.

The relative consistency of overrepresentation of racial-ethnic workersamong nonnurturant reproductive labor supports Nakano Glenns (1992)argument that there are important historical continuities in the division ofreproductive labor between women along racial-ethnic lines. Her argu-ment that these back room jobs have long been and continue to be theprovince of women of color is supported by these data. However, the otherpiece of the story that emerges from examining the shifting sex configu-ration along with the racial-ethnic makeup is the increasing presence ofracial-ethnic men in nonnurturant reproductive labor.

As seen in Figure 6, the increasing presence of men in nonnurturantreproductive labor has been fueled largely by the significant increases in


Figure 5: Whites as a Percentage of Nonnurturant Reproductive LaborWorkers (All), 1900 through 2000

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

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Perc

enta

ge w

hite

Labor force Nonnurturant reproductive labor


representation of Hispanic men, who made up 9 percent of these workers in2000 compared to less than 1 percent in 1900, and increases in the represen-tation of white men, who made up 9 percent of nonnurturant reproductivelabor workers in 1900 and 25 percent in 2000. The proportion of nonnurtu-rant reproductive labor workers who are Black men has remained relativelyconsistent over the century at around 7 percent. Men of Asian/Pacific originrepresent a much smaller segment of the overall labor force, but their patternof representation shows a more significant presence at the beginning of thecentury, decreasing for the first 50 years, and then increasing again in recentdecades. This pattern is largely due to the overrepresentation of Asian/Pacificmen among laundry workers early in the century.

Figure 6 illustrates that the racial-ethnic makeup of women in nonnur-turant reproductive labor has also changed substantially over the century.Domestic servants at the beginning of the century were largely whitewomen (often immigrants) and Black women. As a result, white womenmade up 56 percent of nonnurturant reproductive labor in 1900, and Blackwomen represented 26 percent of these workers. By 2000, only 35 percentof nonnurturant reproductive labor workers were white women, while 8percent were Black women. As opportunities outside domestic serviceopened up for these two groups, large numbers fled not only domestic ser-vice but also other similar occupational categories.8 Like the pattern formen, the largest proportional increases in representation among nonnurtu-rant reproductive labor were among Hispanic women and Asian/Pacific


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Perc

enta

ge o

f non

-nur

tura

ntre

prod

uctiv

e la

bor w

orke

rs

Other menAsian/Pacific menHispanic menBlack menWhite menOther womenAsian/Pacific womenHispanic womenBlack womenWhite women

Figure 6: Nonnurturant Reproductive Labor Workers, by Gender and Race-Ethnicity, 1900 through 2000

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


women. Hispanic women, who were barely represented in 1900, made up9 percent of these workers by 2000. And the percentage of Asian/Pacificwomen increased from less than 1 percent to slightly more than 2 percent.

Figure 7 better contextualizes these shifts in the racial-ethnic makeupof nonnurturant reproductive labor in terms of the changes in the labormarket as a whole by comparing the relative concentrations of each groupin 1900 and 2000. In 1900, all groups of women were heavily overrepre-sented among nonnurturant labor. Black womens enormously dispropor-tionate representation among domestic workers is reflected in a relativeconcentration of 6.66 in nonnurturant reproductive labor. And whitewomen were overrepresented at a relative concentration of 4.16. Hispanicand Asian/Pacific women were also heavily overrepresented, although itmust be remembered their numbers in the labor force were quite small atthat time. Among men, all were underrepresented in this group of jobs,with the exception of Asian/Pacific men, who were small in number andconcentrated among laundry jobs.


Figure 7: Relative Concentrations of Racial-Ethnic Groups withinNonnurturant Reproductive Labor, by Gender, 1900 and 2000

NOTE: The relative concentration is the ratio of a groups representation in a particular sec-tor relative to that groups representation in the labor market as a whole (Amott and Matthaei1996). A value of 1 indicates perfectly proportional representation, values more than 1 indi-cate overrepresentation, and values less than 1 indicate underrepresentation.

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00

Rel

ativ

e c

once

ntra

tion

White

wom

en

Black

wom

en

Hispa

nic wo

men

Asian

/Pacifi

c wom

en

White

men

Black

men

Asian

/Pacifi

c men

Hispa

nic m

en

1900 2000


By 2000, the picture looks significantly different. First, the relativeconcentration of white women in nonnurturant reproductive labor hasdecreased to 1.04, almost exactly proportional to their representation inthe overall labor force. The relative concentration for Hispanic women,now a much larger presence, is the highest of any group at 2.00. AndBlack women and Asian/Pacific women remain overrepresented at relativeconcentrations of 1.41 and 1.28, respectively. Among women, then, therehave been some shifts in the racial-ethnic makeup of nonnurturant repro-ductive labor. In particular, Hispanic women are now the group that ismost heavily concentrated in this group of jobs.

Among men, we see not only shifts in degree but dramatic reversals fromunderrepresentation to disproportionate concentrations of men of coloramong nonnurturant reproductive labor. Black men and Hispanic men haveshifted from being underrepresented to being overrepresented among non-nurturant labor, at relative concentrations of 1.34 and 1.43, respectively. Itis important to note that these levels are now higher than levels of overrep-resentation for white women. In fact, the only group of men not overrepre-sented among nonnurturant reproductive labor in 2000 is white men, whoserelative concentration remains 0.64. As with women, Hispanics are thegroup of men most heavily overrepresented among this group of workers.

DISCUSSION

So, what is gained from this empirical analysis of the intersections ofsex and race in the history of nonnurturant reproductive labor? First, to theextent that cultural typing of jobs by gender, race, and other character-istics is linked to the creation and maintenance of occupational segrega-tion and devaluation, the patterns described in this article challenge us tothink about that process in an intersectional way. These nonnurturantreproductive labor occupations have very similar content (cooking andcleaning) but are performed in different locations (private homes versusinstitutional settings). One way to interpret the results is that the deeplygendered ideological division of public and private becomes so central tothe process of occupational segregation in this case that the content of thework and its similarity becomes overshadowed. So, the distinctionbetween the institutional (public) context and the household (private) con-text becomes the gendered boundary despite the similar nature of thetasks. It is worth noting that this does not necessarily hold true for othergender-typed tasks. For example, caring for young children has remainedstrongly associated with women, and child care occupations, whether in



private households or in centers, remain dominated by women. In thiscase, the nurturing content of the work itself is connected to a gender-typing process that appears to supersede the public-private boundary inlocation. This strong association of child care with women may be part ofthe explanation for why private household work (which can include someexpectation of child care) remains dominated by women, while institu-tional forms of cleaning and food preparation (in which workers are notasked to also perform child care) are more balanced.9 These data add abroad dimension to detailed historical analyses of the gender typing ofparticular occupations (Cohn 1985; Preston 1993).

The data in this article also emphasize that however this gender-typingprocess works, it is not race neutral. While white women are much morelikely to be associated with the private forms of nonnurturant reproductivelabor, racial-ethnic women are significantly overrepresented in both theprivate household and institutional incarnations of cooking and cleaningwork. And although men are barely represented among private householdworkers, racial-ethnic men are disproportionately concentrated in institu-tional cleaning and food preparation and service occupations, while whitemen are underrepresented across the board. So race and gender have aninterlocking impact on segregation by content as well as by location ofwork. Interestingly, the racial-ethnic hierarchy in reproductive labor alsomanifests itself along a somewhat differently formulated version of thepublic-private divide. All of the jobs included in this study as nonnurtu-rant reproductive labor would fall into Nakano Glenns (1992) definitionof back room work, as opposed to the more relational and more publicwork performed by whites. The emphasis in this analysis is on visibilityrather than location. The work that is more visiblemore publictendsto be more dominated by whites, while racial-ethnic workers are dispro-portionately represented among those workers who remain more invisible.

While the data in this article cannot provide information about the cul-tural meanings of reproductive labor, they do show the complexity of thepatterns in the labor market that both create and are the result of these cul-tural attributions. Those patterns highlight the importance of an analysisof the typing of jobs that integrates gender with other factors such as race,immigration, and class to understanding how certain jobs become occu-pational ghettos for disenfranchised members of society. And these large-scale patterns of demographic clustering within certain occupations areimportant data for those scholars interested in further unraveling theprocess of job typing through an intersectional lens.

Of course, cultural norms are only part of the picture of labor marketinequalities, and the patterns described in these data also highlight the



need to take an intersectional approach to understanding the structuralprocesses that create and maintain occupational segregation and the deval-uation of reproductive labor. While sex segregation and racial-ethnic seg-regation in the labor market have both been the subject of extensiveempirical and theoretical work, there has been much less scholarship thatconsiders how these and other factors work simultaneously to concentrateparticular groups of workers in particular jobs. Theoretical models thathave focused on human capital (Becker 1994), discrimination (Acker1989; Blau, Ferber, and Winkler 1998; England 1992), labor market seg-mentation (Doeringer and Piore 1985), residential segregation (Masseyand Denton 1993), and geographic isolation (Wilson 1996) have tended toaddress either gender or race, but not both simultaneously. There havebeen a number of recent books that have taken on the challenge of under-standing labor market configurations through a historical and intersec-tional lens (Amott and Matthaei 1996; Nakano Glenn 2002). The presentstudy builds on this project by documenting the specific configurations ofrace and sex within a particular occupational group over time. Takentogether with more detailed studies of processes of segregation in localcontexts, this empirical work provides the basis for the further develop-ment of new intersectional theoretical models.

An example will illustrate the potential of developing theories of inter-sectionality based on combining broad quantitative data with detailedqualitative analysis. One of the trends that emerges from this study is thevery heavy presence of Hispanic women among the remaining privatehousehold workforce as well as the high concentration of Hispanicwomen and men in the institutional cleaning and food preparation and ser-vice positions. The quantitative analysis in the present study shows that asnew waves of immigrants from Mexico and Central America have enteredthe labor force in the United States, nonnurturant reproductive labor is oneof the sectors of the economy in which they have become disproportionatelyrepresented. In her detailed qualitative study of domestic workers in LosAngeles, Hondagneu-Sotelo (2001) found that many of the women sheinterviewed had obtained their positions through a word-of-mouth referralfrom a friend or relative. Thus, the social networks within communities ofimmigrants and their children seemed to be a central feature to the processof concentration of Hispanic women in domestic worker positions in theLos Angeles context. Cynthia Cranford (2005) has also analyzed the role ofsocial networks in recruitment of Mexican and Central American immigrantworkers in Los Angeles. Cranford found that word-of-mouth referralsthrough immigrant communities are also a critical factor in the concentra-tion of Hispanic men and women in the janitorial industry, the institutional



incarnation of nonnurturant reproductive labor. It is important to note thatCranford argues that the use of these informal networks facilitated theexploitation of immigrant workers by companies during a time of eco-nomic restructuring and changing political context. In the combination ofthese empirical analyses lies fertile ground for theory development. Thelarge-scale patterns identified by the quantitative data and the processesidentified by the qualitative studies are like pieces of a puzzle that togethercreate a better picture of the whole.

Ultimately, understanding occupational segregation and the devalua-tion of reproductive labor in the paid labor market requires theoreticalmodels that build links between structural and cultural explanations andintegrate gender with race-ethnicity and other important factors such ascitizenship. These theoretical models will only emerge from carefulempirical research that documents at the most broad as well as at the mostdetailed level the historical processes through which current labor marketconfigurations have arisen. The data in the present study provide a broadempirical view of an area that also has marshaled considerable qualitativeinvestigation. The challenge now is how to use this knowledge to buildbetter theory, and ultimately better policy, to address the persistent con-centration of women, racial-ethnic workers, and other disenfranchisedgroups in these and other low-wage jobs.

NOTES

1. Thank you to Dr. Dana Britton for pointing me to her very useful clarifica-tion of the distinction between the gendering of an occupation and the conceptof sex segregation (Britton 2000).

2. Following the example of Evelyn Nakano Glenn, I will use the term racial-ethnic to refer collectively to groups that have been socially constructed andconstituted 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. Inprevious data sets, the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series created a proxyvariable for Hispanic origin using lists of Spanish-language surnames. No mea-sure of Hispanic origin is available for the 1910 and 1960 data sets, so these yearsare excluded from analyses involving the RACENEW variable.

4. While some analyses have pointed to the re-emergence of domestic service asa growth occupation in Europe (Andall 2000; Anderson 2000) and in particular citiesin Southern California (Milkman 1998), the census data analyzed in this study showno growth in the occupation at a national level at any time in the century through1990. Separate identification of domestic workers in the 2000 data is impossible, andso it is not included in this part of the analysis.



5. Throughout the presentation of findings, I use national population estimateswhen discussing numbers of workers. I calculated these population estimates byapplying a weight variable included in every Integrated Public Use MicrodataSeries data set (PERWT) to each analytic procedure. The population estimatesinvolving race for the 1970 sample may contain minor inaccuracies due to a nec-essary imputation of missing data in about 10 percent of the cases.

6. Unless otherwise cited, information about the specific distribution of workerswithin occupational categories was calculated by the author using the contemporaryoccupation and industry codes in the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series data sets.

7. Scholars generally agree that the U.S. census undercounts domestic work-ers (especially those who are immigrants), perhaps by as much as 200 percent(Milkman 1998). Given this fact, these figures are undoubtedly underestimationsof the actual number of domestic workers. However, since more immigrants areincluded in census figures now than at previous times in history (Woodrow-Lafield 1998), it is unlikely that contemporary underrepresentation significantlydistorts the overall downward trend.

8. Interestingly, as Black women left domestic service, their representationincreased significantly among nursing and teaching, two of the largest occupa-tions among nurturant reproductive labor, both of which had been dominated bywhite women through the 1950s. It is also important to note Black womensheavy representation among the fast-growing occupation of home health care.Although their job is set up as personal care, many home health care workers arealso involved in cleaning tasks in private homes. While these data do not allowfor the separation of these workers from nursing aides in hospitals and nursinghomes, it would be interesting to track the growth of this occupation and its rela-tionship to more traditional domestic service arrangements.

9. This would be an interesting question to explore related to home health careworkers because in contrast to traditional domestic service, the job of homehealth 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 multiculturaleconomic history of women in the United States. Boston: South End.

Andall, Jacqueline. 2000. Gender, migration, and domestic service: The politicsof Black women in Italy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Anderson, Bridget. 2000. Doing the dirty work? The global politics of domesticlabour. New York: Zed Books.

Becker, Gary. 1994. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, withspecial reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Blau, Francine D., Marianne A. Ferber, and Anne E. Winkler. 1998. The eco-nomics of women, men, and work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.



Boydston, Jeanne. 1990. Home and work: Housework, wages, and the ideologyof 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 offemale disadvantage: Towards an integrated theory. In Gender, family, and econ-omy: The triple overlap, edited by Rae Lesser Blumberg. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chang, Grace. 2000. Disposable domestics: Immigrant women workers in theglobal economy. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Cohn, Samuel. 1985. The process of occupational sex-typing: The feminization ofclerical 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 restruc-turing 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 thecommunity. 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, immigra-

tion, and market care work in the twentieth century. PhD diss., BrandeisUniversity.

. 2005. Reproducing labor inequalities: Challenges for feminists concep-tualizing care at the intersections of gender, race, and class. Gender & Society19 (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: Therelative pay of care work. Social Problems 49 (4): 455-73.

Hansen, Karen V., and Ilene J. Philipson. 1990. Women, class, and the feministimagination: 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.



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 soci-ety. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American apartheid:Segregation and making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Milkman, Ruth. 1998. The macrosociology of paid domestic labor. Work andOccupations 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 ofColor Press.

Nakano Glenn, Evelyn. 1992. From servitude to service work: Historical conti-nuities in the racial division of paid reproductive labor. Signs: Journal ofWomen in Culture and Society 18:1-43.

. 2002. Unequal freedom: How race and gender shaped American citi-zenship and labor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Parrenas, Rhacel Salazar. 2001. Servants of globalization: Women, migration, anddomestic work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Preston, Jo Anne. 1993. Domestic ideology, school reformers, and female teach-ers: Schoolteaching becomes womens work in nineteenth-century NewEngland. New England Quarterly 66 (4): 531-51.

Roberts, Dorothy. 1997. Spiritual and menial housework. Yale Journal of Lawand 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: MinnesotaPopulation Center.

Secombe, Wally. 1974. The housewife and her labour under capitalism. New LeftReview 83:3-24.

Sutherland, Daniel E. 1981. Americans and their servants: Domestic service in theUnited States from 1800 to 1920. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When work disappears: The world of new urbanpoor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Woodrow-Lafield, Karen A. 1998. Undocumented residents in the United Statesin 1990: Issues of uncertainty in quantification. International Migration Review32 (1): 145-73.

Mignon Duffy is an assistant professor of sociology and a faculty associate ofthe Center for Women and Work at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.



/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

gender & society 2007 duffy 313 36

Documents