Invincible Summer
16th October 2009, 01:10
This is going to be sort of a rant, and I'm not sure if it's the right section, but here goes:
My Sociology of Inequality class was discussing foreign domestic workers (e.g. Filipina live-in caregivers) and the inequalities they face. During the discussion, a few groups had the gall to mention how "These workers come here and may make below minimum wage (here it's $8 CDN/hr) but it's still better than what they would have made at home, so they're very glad and happy to work for less. They're happy that at least they can send money back home and support their family."
It absolutely disgusted me that sociology students in a class about inequality were justifying the subordination of immigrant workers with the "better than nothing"/"better than in their home country" argument. Lots of these immigrants have degrees from back home that are just not recognized in N. America, so would taking care of some rich family's spoiled kids be a "happy" thing? The whole argument has a deep Eurocentric bias that "West = best." Plus, saying that getting paid something is "better than nothing" wouldn't fly if it was a member of the majority. I argued that that kind of logic is used to support sweatshop labour and a "race to the bottom," as well as slavery; A slave working on his/her master's land that gets some semblence of food & shelter is "better" than being homeless.
I finished by saying that as students who are studying societal inequality, we shouldn't be apologists for exploitation, but rather find ways to pretty much raise the standard of living for every single person.
Another group replied by saying how "It's cheaper to hire these people than send your kid to a nice daycare, and at least you're giving them employment and opportunities in the work force, and it's not like we're treating them badly." I don't think live-in caregivers (or anyone for that matter) would appreciate being talked about like a commodity.
People don't get it. Even amongst sociology students, who are supposed to be, IMO, some of the more "progressive" students at uni. Sigh.
Anyways, other than venting, I was wondering what people's opinions are on the whole "better than nothing" argument? Are members of the majority justified in hiring foreign domestic workers in their home? Is it a form of subordination/discrimination? Or is it "okay" because they're providing them with employment?
My Sociology of Inequality class was discussing foreign domestic workers (e.g. Filipina live-in caregivers) and the inequalities they face. During the discussion, a few groups had the gall to mention how "These workers come here and may make below minimum wage (here it's $8 CDN/hr) but it's still better than what they would have made at home, so they're very glad and happy to work for less. They're happy that at least they can send money back home and support their family."
It absolutely disgusted me that sociology students in a class about inequality were justifying the subordination of immigrant workers with the "better than nothing"/"better than in their home country" argument. Lots of these immigrants have degrees from back home that are just not recognized in N. America, so would taking care of some rich family's spoiled kids be a "happy" thing? The whole argument has a deep Eurocentric bias that "West = best." Plus, saying that getting paid something is "better than nothing" wouldn't fly if it was a member of the majority. I argued that that kind of logic is used to support sweatshop labour and a "race to the bottom," as well as slavery; A slave working on his/her master's land that gets some semblence of food & shelter is "better" than being homeless.
I finished by saying that as students who are studying societal inequality, we shouldn't be apologists for exploitation, but rather find ways to pretty much raise the standard of living for every single person.
Another group replied by saying how "It's cheaper to hire these people than send your kid to a nice daycare, and at least you're giving them employment and opportunities in the work force, and it's not like we're treating them badly." I don't think live-in caregivers (or anyone for that matter) would appreciate being talked about like a commodity.
People don't get it. Even amongst sociology students, who are supposed to be, IMO, some of the more "progressive" students at uni. Sigh.
Anyways, other than venting, I was wondering what people's opinions are on the whole "better than nothing" argument? Are members of the majority justified in hiring foreign domestic workers in their home? Is it a form of subordination/discrimination? Or is it "okay" because they're providing them with employment?