PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Universita Studi di Bologna]
On: 17 November 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918546499]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713433350
Gender in the Migratory Process
Helma Lutza
a
Gender Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Germany
First published on: 29 June 2010
To cite this Article Lutz, Helma(2010) 'Gender in the Migratory Process', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36: 10,
1647 — 1663, First published on: 29 June 2010 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2010.489373
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2010.489373
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Gender in the Migratory Process
Helma Lutz
This paper argues for treating gender as a key category in the understanding of migratory
processes. Starting with an illustration of the absence of women in mainstream migration
research, it presents the debate on this phenomenon and its development from a focus on
women to one on gender. Through discussion of the debate on current migration
phenomena it is demonstrated how gender can be used in a conceptual framework which
includes various levels (micro, meso and macro). The paper advocates the analysis of
migratory processes within a broader framework of social change.
Keywords: Gender; Transnational Migration; Care Practices; Gendered Labour Markets;
Transnational Parenthood
La Femme Perdue: (In)Visible Women in the Migratory Process
Number 7 of the ‘laws of migration’ proposed by the social geographer Ernest George
Ravenstein in 1885 reads as follows: ‘Females are more migratory than males’.
Ravenstein then modified this female inclination to migration over short distances.
Unfortunately, it took a whole century before this article was rediscovered and
recognised anew in the 1980s (see Donato et al. 2006; Morokvasic 2003, 2007). The
absence of women in much of the migration research during the twentieth century
caused Mirjana Morokvasic, in her introduction to the first International Migration
Review special issue on ‘Women in Migration’ in 1984, to make the following
comment: ‘Rather than ‘‘discovering’’ that female migration is an understudied
phenomenon, it is more important to stress that the already existing literature has
had little impact on policy making, on mass media representation of migrant women,
but also on the main body of migration literature, where male bias has continued to
persist . . . in spite of growing evidence of women’s overwhelming participation in
migratory movements’ (Morokvasic 1984: 899). Another 25 years later, it seems
appropriate to have a closer look at the examination and theorisation of female
Helma Lutz is Professor and Chair of Women’s and Gender Studies at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University,
Germany. Correspondence to: Prof. Dr H. Lutz, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute for the Analysis of Society
and Politics, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Robert-Mayer-Straße 5, 60054 Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany.
E-mail: lutz@soz.uni-frankfurt.de.
ISSN 1369-183X print/ISSN 1469-9451 online/10/101647-17 # 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2010.489373
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Vol. 36, No. 10, December 2010, pp. 1647Á1663
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
migration and follow this strand into the twenty-first century’s paradigmatic shift
into a focus on gendered migration.
From the perspective of today it would be easy to declare the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries the ‘era of mass migration’ and*according to the main bulk of
research results*consider this a phenomenon in which men were the primary actors,
then followed by the feminisation of migration as a particular characteristic of the
twenty-first century (Castles and Miller 1993; Koser and Lutz 1998). A critical review
shows that this reconstruction is debatable. Historians, re-evaluating migration
processes during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Gabaccia 1996; Harzig
1997, 2003; Moch 1992), have shown that, already in the nineteenth-century
transatlantic mass migration to the United States, almost half of the migrants were
female. Later, during the twentieth century, women became more visible in migration
research, but this occurred in a particular way: they were defined as passive and
followers of their male partners. As Everett Lee put it in his classic paper on theorising
migration, ‘[C]hildren are carried along by their parents, willy-nilly, and wives
accompany their husbands though it tears them away from environments they love’
(Lee 1966: 51; see also Fielding 1993: 53).
In fact, Lee reverted to a conceptualisation of the female migrant as ‘victim’, which
had emerged already in one of the first and still most eminent theories on migration,
Thomas and Znaniecki’s (1996[1918Á20]) The Polish Peasant in Europe and America.1
Within a bi-coded framework of voluntary0male, and involuntary0female and
child migration, there seemed no need to analyse the role of women in ‘mass
migration’; nor were the family reunification schemes investigated or conceptualised
as a tool for women to achieve the aim of active participation in the labour market
which they had been refused access to in the first place (Kofman 1999: 271).
Moreover, it was overlooked that in many mass migration processes women were
often primary migrants themselves (Booth 1992; Kofman 1999; Morokvasic 1987).
In retrospect it can be said that various, often contradictory, developments account
for the long-term absence of women in theoretical (and empirical) studies on
migration. I differentiate between four possible explanations:
1. There has been little interest to investigate Ravenstein’s statement by a
comparative analysis of various data on the migration propensity of women
and men; neither the disproof of Law no.7, nor its confirmation, were regarded as
in need of discussion. Within the dominant gender order of the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, the focus on ‘men’ was considered ‘natural’.
2. Feminist researchers have suggested that the gender bias was a product of the
absence of female researchers in the field and in theory-making. Donato et al.
(2006: 9) suggest that, even at the University of Chicago ‘where an almost entirely
male sociology department co-existed with the casework-oriented School of
Social Service Administration (SSA) with origins in one of Chicago’s Social
Settlement Houses, it was the work of men in the sociology department that
defined those forms of knowledge understood as theory’ (see also Mahler and
1648 H. Lutz
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
Pessar 2006).2
Such a statement is linked to the assumption that theory building
is never dissociated from the gender of the person collecting data and evidence.3
3. A different explanation for women’s absence is given by Jørgen Carling (2005: 4)
who writes that, in studies on mass migration, ‘[W]omen were not considered
because they were seen as following men or behaving like men’ (my emphasis),
thereby proposing that the gendered rule as such need not be revised as long as
female migratory activity is considered a habitual aberration.
4. A fourth explanation goes back to theories about modernity and social change.
As philosopher Hannah Arendt (1958) and historian Carolyn Steedman (2009)
argue, the gendered bias in much of social scientists’ and economists’ work dates back
to the single-edged definition of ‘work’ as gainful employment (waged work) in most
economic and social theories (starting from Adam Smith to Karl Marx and then on to
neoliberal theorists). In contrast care/domestic work, one of the main fields of female
occupation, was and still is defined as non-productive and subordinated to the
importance of productive work. According to Steedman, this asymmetry accounts for
the fact that female domestic servants, making up one of the largest occupational
groups in the society of modern time, were almost entirely neglected as the backbone
of developing modernity. The majority of women participating in mass migration
movements at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century were not occupied
in factories but were rather recruited for domestic work in the cities and the
countryside. The assumption that migrant women’s work was simply overlooked
because of its location in the private sphere and its characterisation as ‘family work’
when simultaneously the ‘real work’ was considered to be performed in factories is
still open to study and confirmation by historians.
From Women to Gender in Migration Studies
The renewed interest in migrant women is closely linked to the establishment of
Women’s Studies from the 1980s onwards in many Western societies and in
international institutions. Without being able to give an exhaustive account of the
various stages research on migrant women underwent, one can at least distinguish
four stages in the development of this field (see also Lutz 2004).
The first*as mentioned above*pledged itself to make women visible in migration
movements; it aimed at demonstrating typical female migration patterns as well as
special aspects of female migratory processes. Seen from a theoretical perspective this
could be called a compensatory approach.
The second can be qualified as contributory, focusing on the contribution of
women to various migration movements. It included research projects dealing with
the specific role of women in the migration context and with their particular
migration experiences.
A third stage starting in the mid-1980s in the US and developing further in the
1990s looked at specific differences in power relations between women. Inspired by
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1649
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
black US-American feminists like Angela Davis or bell hooks, black and immigrant
researchers started to question dominant feminist epistemologies and their (homogenised)
subject. The focus of their project was not so much the search for
commonalities but rather the analysis of differences in social positioning (social
inequalities through citizenship status, economic and cultural inequalities) and
‘racialised or ethnicised’ genealogies of identity formation, separating indigenous
from immigrant women. This approach, which became known as the ‘raceÁclassÁ
gender’ debate, led to many heated discussions between ‘black’ and ‘white’ feminists
and was deeply politicised. Immigrant and minority scholars identified politically as
‘blacks’, a collective identity formation which can be termed the ‘radical resistance’
approach.
The virulence of this debate*in particular in the Anglo-American context*can be
explained as a reaction to the double-edged position of the subject area; migrant and
minority women were neither considered a core subject of mainstream migration
studies nor were they seen as a subject of mainstream women’s studies. They existed
purely as a ‘sub-theme’ or a marginal category, separated or added on as exotic
strangers, eclipsed behind the eminent subject of ‘the male’ (migration studies) and
‘the female’ (women’s studies). Both fields4
contributed to their perception as (ethnic,
cultural or national) ‘others’, thereby reifying the binary of samenessÁotherness and
reconstructing migration as a deviant social phenomenon or the female migrant as
deviant from her male peer. Various studies have deconstructed the representation of
migrant women as ‘others’, a designation which has not only informed stereotypical
commonsense notions but also scientists, administrators and policy-making in
migrant-receiving countries (Kofman 1999; Kofman et al. 2000; Lutz 1991a, 1991b,
1997; Phizacklea 1998).
An important insight from this debate is the understanding that gender relations
are always mediated by other socially constructed categories such as ‘race’/ethnicity
and class etc.; vice versa, various studies have illustrated that the analysis of ‘race’/
ethnicity, class or nationality cannot do without looking at its gendered dimensions
(Anthias and Yuval-Davis 1992). This approach has now received more attention
under the term ‘intersectionality’ (see Phoenix and Pattynama 2006; Yuval-Davis
2006).
The fourth stage, from the mid-1990s onwards, is the paradigmatic change from a
Women’s Studies to a Gender Studies perspective, following the evolution of this
theoretical perspective in Women’s Studies. Gender was introduced in the social
sciences to emphasise the difference between a person’s ‘biological’ (sex) and the
‘socially acquired and performed’ (gender) identity, way of living and role in society.
It exposes the essentialism of a narrow preoccupation with women alone or with
women and men (as statistical variables) in data collections5
but focuses, instead, on
the question of how gender asymmetry is a product of the social order, in institutional
and socio-political processes, and produces it at the same time. The key subject of
concern is the social construction of masculinity and femininity, the differential
meaning of private and public as a workplace, the gender-specific evaluation and the
1650 H. Lutz
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
differential consequences of migration experiences for male and female migrants in
the context of being couples, parents and families (‘fragmented families’, distant
parenting etc.). This approach opens up new ways of theorising because it makes it
possible to distinguish between practices, identity or sex without the urge to identify
this within one single category: a woman is . . . ; a man is . . . Furthermore, it makes
space for moving away from monolithic and universalistic notions of the female and
male by studying gender relations as expressions of asymmetry, inequality,
domination and power not only between the genders but also within one gender
category. A relational perspective can, for instance, show how the work of migrant
domestic and care workers can enable their female employers to pursue their
professional career, thereby ‘undoing’ their gendered obligations in care work to a
certain extent. I return to this particular point below.
In conclusion it can be said that this list of different stages does not imply the
absence of any of the models in current research; in fact, many studies are still using
the compensatory or the contributory approach. The latter are also important in so
far as they can make a contribution to the recognition that gender is not just one
‘aspect’ in the study of people on the move like economy, politics or religion (see
Levitt et al. 2003: 566), but a central organising principle in migration flows and in the
organisation of migrants’ lives. Thus, pushing gender ‘from the margin to the core’
(see Mahler and Pessar 2006) requires a further elaboration and advancement of the
gender approach.
The Gendered Nature of Crossing Borders and Boundaries
The exploration of migration as a gendered process benefits from the paradigm shift
from women to gender as much as from the recent development of masculinity
studies as a strand of gender studies, as will be shown in the following.
When Castles and Miller (1993) declared the ‘feminisation of migration’ one of the
characteristics of the ‘Age of Migration’, they did so on the basis of statistical evidence
that, in processes of international migration, women have outnumbered men, an
observation that has been confirmed by various large-scale studies since (Carling
2005; Global Commission on International Migration 2005; Yinger 2006, 2007;
Zlotnik 2003). While this is partly due to the fact that the majority of refugees and
displaced persons are female, the number of those migrating voluntarily and
transnationally as single migrants (and mothers) has also increased. According to
Yinger (2006) not only does this development account for a dramatic change in
numbers but the reasons why females migrate have also changed. Simultaneously, it
needs to be asked what changes occur in male migration and what implications the
overall changes have for men and women, those who go and those who stay.
Therefore, a gendered approach needs to take into account four aspects:
a) feminised and masculinised labour markets; b) care practices; c) shifting discourses
and practices on gender orders in receiving countries; and finally d) discourses and
practices on gender in sending countries.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1651
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
Labour Markets
The work areas into which women migrate now comprise feminised domains like
domestic and care work, entertainment and prostitution, and also sectors in
agriculture and catering services. The term ‘feminised domains’ (Wetterer 2002)
was coined on the basis of the observation that, when the majority of the workers
becomes female, this links up with low wages, low status and low occupational
mobility. It also concerns work in the service sector and tasks performed in the
private sphere in which workers tend to be isolated and collective organisation is
difficult. In contrast to ‘feminised’ labour markets, there also are those dominated by
male workers like the construction and road-making industries, truck driving,
butchery etc. some of which suffer from the same disadvantages: isolation, low status
and low occupational mobility.6
However, there are also huge differences in the work
and its organisation. One example here is the difference in public attention for the
irregular workers in these sectors. While, for example, construction worker unions in
Europe focus on and shame exploitative working conditions, there are few unions
taking up this case for domestic workers and carers (see Anderson 2000; Schwenken
2005). The classic gendered divide between the public and the private spheres and
their attribution to productive and non-productive labour can be considered an
explanation for this asymmetrical commitment.
As mentioned before, a look at the genderedness of migrant labour markets through
the lens of masculinity studies renders fresh insights into the diversity of gender roles
in labour market sectors for migrant men. As Connell (2007: 57) argues, some groups
of men do not receive a positive but, instead, a negative dividend from the
maintenance of a patriarchal capitalist order. Among those men who pay a price in
terms of oppression, violence, injuries etc. are certainly homosexuals, but also (groups
of) migrant men: those who wish to fulfil their role as male breadwinner through
earning remittances, and who endure racism, heavy exploitation and dangerous
working conditions, while possibly finding their status as head of household contested
during their absence because their wives left behind take up new roles and activities
formerly defined as male tasks (Gulati 1993). As various studies on male migrants in
construction work (Osella and Osella 2003; Walter et al. 2004) show, these men need to
‘perform’ their ability to do this work by conveying physical strength, willingness and
toughness as ‘natural’ male competencies, just as women perform their ‘natural’
capacities when hired for domestic services. Moreover, some studies on Asian men (in
Italy and Germany) working alongside their wives in feminised domestic settings
(Gallo 2006; Shinozaki 2005) are perceived as ‘unthreatening’ because of their physical
appearance and working habits which render them ‘effeminated’.
Care Practices
In contrast to expectations that, when women become breadwinners of their
households, traditional female tasks are taken over by husbands (see Sassen 1991,
1652 H. Lutz
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
1998), the reality is that this did not prove to be the rule*in fact, in many cases, it
did not happen at all. Instead, in the absence of mothers, the re-distribution of care
work in sending households seems to be primarily performed by female family
members such as grandmothers, aunts or oldest daughters, or is outsourced to female
neighbours or friends (Gamburd 2000; Hondagneu-Sotelo 2001; Lutz 2007a; Parren˜as
2001a, 2001b, 2005).
While for a long time it seemed unthinkable that mothers from countries with a
strong motherhood ideology*meaning the general conviction that a child cannot
grow up healthily without being cared for by its biological mother*would be willing
to migrate, now it seems that, even in countries like Poland, the Ukraine and the
Philippines (to name but some), ‘distant motherhood’ is a common phenomenon.
From the emerging literature on ‘transnational mothering and parenting’ it becomes
obvious that the absence of migrated fathers is more widely accepted than the absence
of mothers (Parren˜as 2005). Moreover, some case studies qualify the effects of the
change from male to female breadwinner status as causes for a crisis of masculinity,
the symptoms of which are found in augmented male alcoholism, violence and child
misuse (Gamburd 2000; Lutz 2007a). It is still an open question and pressing issue for
further research on whether those men staying behind and performing caring
practices are in danger of losing their ‘masculinity’ and at risk of being labelled as
effeminate.
Discourses versus Practices in Receiving Countries
As mentioned before, in various studies migrant women have been portrayed as
‘victims’ of migration processes; this perception is not only applied to women
working in precarious sectors but also to those following their husbands as marriage
migrants or on the family reunification scheme. In public and scientific discourses
‘the male perpetrator/villain’ functions as a counterpart of ‘the female victim’. As
Katharine Charsley (2005) has shown, this model is particularly applied to the
portrayal of gender relations among Muslim migrants. Using her own case study
about transnational marriage migration involving a British-born and -raised wife of
Punjabi background and a Punjabi husband migrating to live in the household of his
wife in England, Charsley convincingly demonstrates how the asymmetric power
relation between the partners can lead to the phenomenon of ‘unhappy husbands’;
these husbands, deprived of their kin support, lacking the social knowledge relevant
for their new environment and often dependant on their wives’ (families’) income
and advice, are under enormous tension and suffer greatly from the indignities of life
in Britain. Here, then, it is not the wife, but the husband who becomes frustrated,
depressed and isolated because he cannot live up to his own and others’ expectations
of performing his masculinity adequately. This study shows that the representation of
Muslim men as patriarchal villains is quite often a cherished dominant discursive
figure which obscures a much more complicated portrayal of masculinity or, better, a
multiplicity of masculinities. Within the scope of Muslim masculinity, the patriarch
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1653
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
and perpetrator is but one possible pattern of social practice; others are hardly
investigated and attract little attention.
In order to obtain more insights into changes in the lives of migrant women and
men, the discourses on gender orders in the receiving and the sending societies need
to be investigated and confronted with social practices of migrant actors. An
interesting case study in this respect is the public debate on parenthood/motherhood,
gender equality and care work. In many Western European countries over the last
twenty years the massive integration of ‘native’ women into gainful employment was
not followed by the redistribution of care work and family tasks between spouses;
neither did it cause states to enhance their efforts in the provision of care facilities.
Thus, women’s substitution in the private household is poorly covered by the state’s
allocation of child care and elderly care (see Lutz 2007b, 2008). While women’s
participation in employment became a key goal in the emancipation measures taken
by the European Union, the question of this policy’s repercussion for the organisation
of work in the private sphere stayed in the background. Instead of equal distribution
of care work between the genders, middle-class families prefer the outsourcing of the
three c’s, cleaning, cooking and caring for small children and elderly people, nursing
the disabled and diseased (Anderson 2000), to a migrant woman. Today, in Europe,
the reasons for increased female participation in migration from the sending
countries have to be analysed as a process where (changing) gender relations, welfare
state organisation and economics in the receiving countries intersect.
It is now estimated that at least one out of ten households in several European
countries uses domestic ‘help’; while the majority of workers are women, a small
proportion of men is also found among them, executing tasks in the realm of the
private home, i.e. as gardeners and ‘handymen’ (Kilkey 2009; Ramı´rez and
Hondagneu-Sotelo 2009) and, albeit in rare cases, also performing ‘female’ tasks
(see above). Although the request for migrant workers in this area is pressing, the
different governments of the European Union react in very different ways. Some have
established quota systems (like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece), or have opened their
borders to them (Britain and Ireland).7
Others, such as Germany (see Cyrus 2008),
the Nordic States and the Netherlands, have hardly acknowledged the need for
migrant domestic workers, let alone included this need in their managed migration
policies, thereby creating a large unprotected employment sector. This, however, does
not mean that migrant domestic workers are absent from these countries. In many
countries the work of migrant domestic workers does not fall under labour law,
another indication of the asymmetrical assessment of care work which is not
considered proper ‘work’. The study of domestic workers in Europe illustrates that a
new gender order*once the dream of the feminist movement*is not in sight.
Rather, middle-class women have entered what Jacqueline Andall (2000) has called
the ‘post-feminist paradigm’, reconciling family and work by outsourcing (parts of)
their care work tasks to migrants; to a certain extent it even helps them to mitigate
the pressures of their daily gender performance.
1654 H. Lutz
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
As I have argued elsewhere (Lutz 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2008; Lutz and PalengaMo¨llenbeck
2010), the question of whether or not emancipation discourses and
gender equality policies in the Western World, and in particular in Europe, have
generated a fundamental change of gendered cultural scripts (represented in gender
regimes), is still to be evaluated. A sound analysis has to take into account three
different intersecting ‘regimes’: next to gender regimes, we can consider care regimes as
part of welfare regimes (concerning a multitude of state regulations according to
which the responsibilities for the well-being of national citizens is distributed between
the state, the family and the market), and finally migration regimes, which for various
reasons either promote or discourage the employment of migrant domestic workers.8
A sound analysis using these parameters is still missing.9
So far, from the few existing comparative studies, it can be concluded that the
public debate on gender order in receiving countries is only linked to migration issues
where Muslim gender relations are identified as patriarchal and oppressive and as
threatening for gender equality.10
Where, for various reasons that cannot be
elaborated here, Muslims function as the ultimate ‘others’ in the representation of
gender relations (Lutz 1991a, 1991b), other issues in which migration and gender
regimes intersect, like domestic care work, are rather pushed into the background.
Here it is interesting to realise that traditional care regimes in ‘home-caring’ societies
(Pfau-Effinger 2000) like Germany are maintained by using state allowances for
‘caring family members’11
while employing a live-in migrant carer to do the actual
work. The process of outsourcing is perfectly camouflaged by the state (which can
keep up the image of family care provision), and the employers, many of whom
would otherwise not be able to combine employment and home nursing (for an
analysis of this informal market see Lutz 2009). While debates on women’s
emancipation and gender equality are on the agenda of most European states, they
seem to be detached from discourses on transnational care migration. On the level of
practices, however, it is obvious that the latter helps to resolve conflicts about
gendered task redistribution and it supports the perpetuation of traditional gender
orders in receiving societies.
Discourses and Practices in Sending Countries
The question of how discourses in sending societies react to (massive) out- or
transnational migration of men and women, and whether or not the debate on
gender relations in the sending countries is influenced at all by this kind of mobility,
is still an understudied issue. In the first place sending states are interested in
remittances; in order to make sure that these financial flows are continued, measures
safeguarding health care, social security and pension schemes on return are taken by
various governments. Most states seem to prefer male migration, which in fact fits the
traditional image of the male breadwinner best. As mentioned before, this
expectation has always put much pressure on men who were, and still are, in danger
of paying high prices if they fail to fulfil these hopes (Osella and Osella 2003). Female
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1655
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
migration seems to be seen as unproblematic as long as it is restricted to unmarried,
young and single females, but it is seen as a threat for social coherence where it
concerns mothers of young children; thus the debate on ‘fragmented families’ started
with the outmigration of ‘mothers’ (Hondagneu-Sotelo 2001). One example where
state reaction to mothers’ migration is well-documented is the Philippines. Here, the
state, in collaboration with the (Catholic) Church, has launched various emigrationpreparation
programmes in which women are not only prepared for the hardships of
their work abroad but also taught how to acknowledge and deal with loneliness and
isolation; moreover, they are reminded of their (financial) responsibilities towards
their family members left behind and exhorted to be faithful to their country. To
make sure that migrant women are rewarded for their loyalty, they are officially
designated as ‘heroines’ or ‘ambassadors’ of the Philippines and receive prizes for
their faithfulness during their (rare) visits home (Parren˜as 2005; Shinozaki 2005).
In our ongoing research project on care chains from the Ukraine to Poland and
from Poland to Germany, Ewa Palenga-Mo¨llenbeck and I carried out a press analysis
on migration related issues in the Ukraine and Poland.12
As we found several
inconsistencies in the discourses, we have noticed that the societies of these sending
countries are somehow caught up in contradictions. One characteristic found in
Poland is a ‘laissez-faire’ attitude which one-sidedly portrays Polish labour migration
to EU countries as a success story and tends to minimise or ignore its social costs
altogether. We assume that this tendency has several causes. Firstly, this attitude goes
hand-in-hand with, and is a consequence of, another discourse on labour migration,
which has dominated the overall Polish press since 2003Á04, when Poles could legally
access some Western European labour markets for the first time. It was an
‘enthusiastic’ discourse that framed labour migration as ‘liberating’, and an economic
success for both the state and individuals. Labour migration was officially welcomed
as a solution against unemployment and poverty, especially in the context of a
downsizing welfare state. Above all, this was typical for the liberal-conservative press,
where this view dominates, even until today. Secondly, the ignorance or blaming of
labour migrants obviously depends on the gender and family roles (mother, wife,
husband, daughter etc.) that are ascribed to men and women in the given national or
regional contexts (Lutz and Palenga-Mo¨llenbeck 2010). Interestingly, until the year
2008, the repercussions of labour migration for families left behind were not an issue
in the press at all. Starting in 2008, public discourse switched from complete silence
to a very vivid interest in the issue of children of labour migrants. What can be
observed now is a strong tendency to criticise and scandalise the absence of parents,
in particular of mothers. The pattern we identify in this debate follows the logic of
naming, blaming and shaming.
Naming refers to how some (not all) media, politicians and diverse collective actors
such as NGOs suddenly ‘discovered’ the phenomenon of children living in migrant
households and highlighted their negative consequences. This naming took place
mainly in a negative manner, labelling those who were to be blamed for this situation,
and finally shaming those ‘culprits’. In the case of both countries, Poland and the
1656 H. Lutz
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
Ukraine, two responsible groups were identified: the state and the parents. The state
(and its various social actors, i.e. local and national governments, welfare institutions
such as social security authorities) gets blamed for the weak economy and its (corrupt
and inefficient) policies, while parents are blamed for being irresponsible,
materialistic and egoistic.
One discursive figuration that turned up and had a huge impact was the term
‘orphan’ or, even stronger, ‘Euro-orphan’*a child without parents, or of parents
leaving their country for ‘Europe’, a child being left behind in the care of foreigners, a
victim of the parents’ hunger for Euros. Euro-orphan has strongly pejorative and
normative implications, identifying the children of labour migrants as quasi-orphans.
The term is applied to the situation of children of labour migrants, most of them
living with at least one parent or carer in Poland. The prefix ‘Euro-’ has to be seen
against the background of other discourses on labour migration from Poland after the
country became a member of the EU in 2004 (Euro-migrants and Euro-labour). The
combination of ‘Euro’ and ‘orphans’ as a neologism was allegedly coined by Polish
psychologists dealing with migrant children.
In the Ukraine, the analogous term we found was social orphan which originates
from the discourses on social poverty, street children and abandoned children, often
referred to as social orphans. The term is quite self-explanatory; like ‘Euro-orphan’ it
suggests a state of being a quasi-orphan.
In both countries, this discursive configuration received its strength from scandal
stories according to which parents, migrating to ‘Europe’, had left their children in the
custody of children’s homes. In an effort to underline the strongly normative term
‘orphan’, statistical references are used for emphasis: most articles mention large
numbers and suggest that they can be seen as indicators of a yet undiscovered and
underestimated mass phenomenon. In the absence of concrete figures, however,
constant appeals to count these orphans in order to arrive at a more precise figure is
used in the press coverage.
Although the blaming for this situation is directed at parents in general, in both
countries mothers receive special attention; in the press presentations concrete
examples always scandalise the absence of mothers, not fathers. Thus, the migration
of women (as mothers, wives, daughters-in-law etc.) is seen as more problematic than
that of men. While male migration is portrayed as ‘normal’, female migration is being
constructed as ‘abnormal’. In an extreme version of this picture, migrant women are
‘suspicious’; former Ukrainian president Kuchma’s equation of women migrants with
‘prostitutes’ exemplifies this particularly well.
This case study gives some clues about the incongruous evaluation and portrayal of
male and female migration. The fact that both countries belonged to the former
socialist block where female full-time employment was not the exception but the rule,
and, therefore, women’s inclination to migration can be considered high, the clash
with culturally engrained gendered scripts concerning female and male role
performance seems nevertheless quite serious.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1657
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
Further research focusing on long-term analysis of gender relations in migrant
families is required to illuminate the changes or shifts in gender orders of the sending
countries.
A Model for a Gendered Analysis of Migration Phenomena
In summary, a gender analysis has to take into consideration three aspects which are
described in the following as three levels of analysis, the macro, meso and micro
level.13
Table 1 is a scheme for the following analysis.
On the macro-level, migrants are found in gender-specific labour market segments
in the receiving context, like domestic work or the construction sector, which exert a
pulling power on female or male actors respectively. Moreover, it is not only the sort
of work that is feminised or masculinised, but also its organisation. For example the
construction sector potentially requires regular full-time workers; agriculture needs
seasonal target-earners; domestic work, by contrast, can be arranged more easily in a
frame of rotation (e.g. three-month rotation rhythm, replacement by a colleague or
friend). Therefore, the organisation of work in these three sectors, the meso level, is
strongly linked to gendered models of care and family organisation but also to
networks and opportunity structures.
On the micro-level, individual practices, identities and positions come into sight.
Since migrants live transnational family lives, they have to reconcile work abroad with
family life at home. In everyday life practices, gender-specific characteristics are
mirrored and, simultaneously, the individual migrant’s position in transnational
social spaces is marked by intersections of life-cycle, class and ethnicity that can turn
out to be (more or less) resourceful. When trying to identify these positions, it is
important to investigate the care responsibility of the migrant in the household (as a
spouse, parent or even child); the age of starting migration (young adult or
pensioner) is of great relevance as much as the migrants’ social networks, skills,
abilities, economic resources or/plus their biographical experiences which may be
piling up into biographical resources.
Such an analysis, which is supposed to exemplify how migrants develop genderspecific
(transnational) migration patterns, has several consequences for the way in
which the research is carried out. First, among the methodological consequences is
the need to identify a) the embeddedness of masculinities and femininities in the
respective context of sending and receiving societies, and b) the embeddedness of
masculinities and femininities in the context of gendered labour markets,
Table 1. Scale and gender in migration
Analytical level Gendered social phenomena
Macro level Labour market segments
Meso level Organisation of work
Micro level Individual practices, identities, positions
1658 H. Lutz
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
organisations, care-practices and discourses. Second, among the theoretical
consequences, the need to integrate gender aspects into theories based on
transnational migration, labour market, and network approaches prevails. The
search for gendered motivations and opportunities can highlight the strengths and
weaknesses of these theories. Moreover a closer look at economic theories of
migration from a gendered perspective promises to show a multiplicity of motives
other than purely economic ones for pursuing or refraining from migration
projects.
In summary, it can be assumed that the evaluation of gendered phenomena on the
above-outlined three analytical levels can answer questions about the conditions and
experiences of women and men in migratory processes. It can also be considered a
tool for a deeper analysis of Joaquı´n Arango’s critique of theories which portray the
migrant as a ‘homo economicus’: ‘It is true that almost everything can be translated
into costs and benefits and that a value in monetary terms can be attached to it, but
the price of such effort may often be the practical irrelevance, close to tautology, of
finding that people move to enhance well-being. In practice the cost of overcoming
entry obstacles is often so staggering that it dissuades the majority of those who
might be candidates for migration if economic considerations alone were at play’
(Arango 2004: 20).
Therefore, any effort to exceed economic reductionism in theories of migration
needs to make perceptible migrants’ gender, their gendered obligations, care
responsibilities, loyalties, family ties and the like. This may include submission to
dominant gender orders as well as their modification and transformation.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Ellie Vasta, Katharine Charsley and the anonymous JEMS reviewer
for valuable comments.
Notes
[1] This was partly caused by an uneven collection of empirical data: while ego documents
(personal letters and autobiographies) formed the basis of their analysis on the migration
experiences of males, they did not collect this type of material from women but examined the
records of welfare institutions and courtroom documents on help-seeking women (see Kohli
1981).
[2] Moreover, Donato et al. (2006: 9) make an interesting observation by saying that the Chicago
School started off with a large number of female researchers who later left the department
and found long-term employment as founders and administrators of social welfare and
public health agencies.
[3] Many studies aimed at interviewing the ‘head of household’ have often considered this to be
men; accordingly male researchers talked to male migrants only, resulting in a distorted
picture of decision-making and bread-winning (for various examples see Curran et al. 2006).
In the same manner, Espinosa and Massey (1998) tested different theoretical positions on
transnational MexicanÁUS migration by selecting merely male heads of household for their
interviews (for a critique see Erel et al. 2003).
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1659
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
[4] One could even argue that the conceptualisation of each area as a ‘field’ is hampered by the
fact that both are multi-disciplinarily organised and fragmented*a characteristic, however,
that also contributes to the intellectual wealth and high reflexivity of each field.
[5] Although, until recently, even this breakdown was missing in many international statistics
(Calloni and Lutz 2000).
[6] The sector’s preference for male workers is usually explained with physical strength; however,
the ‘Tru¨mmerfrauen’ (rubble women) in postwar Germany or the ‘tractor women’ in the
former Soviet Union have demonstrated that muscle power is not a male monopoly. Rather,
the question as to whether certain tasks are performed by men or women depends highly on
cultural rules and gender orders.
[7] For an interesting comparison between Britain, Spain and Sweden see Williams and Gavanas
(2008).
[8] The term ‘regime’ as it is used here refers to the organisation and the corresponding cultural
codes of social policy and social practice in which the relationship between social actors
(state, labour market and family) is articulated and negotiated. By introducing the term
‘regime’, Esping-Andersen (1990) explained how social policies and their effects differ
between European countries.
[9] For some exceptions see Anthias and Lazaridis (2000), Kilkey et al. (2010), Williams (1995)
and Williams and Gavanas (2008); Bridget Anderson (2000) published data from different
European countries, collected during the late 1990s, which show interesting differences
between European countries, but these are not analysed systematically.
[10] Various measures have been taken by governments to ban so-called ‘forced marriages’ which
are often equated with arranged marriages. Populist and racist political parties in many
European states, like the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark etc. have now chosen
Islamic patriarchy as the main target for their campaigns, explicitly using (or misusing)
feminist language and feminist demands.
[11] In this case for the home nursing of elderly and sick family members predominantly carried
out by females in the family.
[12] ‘Landscapes of Care Drain’ financed by the DFG 2007Á10. The press analysis covered four
different kinds of (national and regional) newspapers in each country over the last decade.
[13] The following scheme was first elaborated by Ewa Palenga-Mo¨llenbeck in her unpublished
thesis (2010) and later applied in the context of our ongoing research project ‘Landscapes of
Care Drain’.
References
Ahrendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Andall, J. (2000) Gender, Migration and Domestic Service. The Politics of Black Women in Italy.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Anderson, B. (2000) Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Politics of Domestic Labour. London: Zed
Books.
Anthias, F. and Lazaridis, G. (2000) Gender and Migration in Southern Europe: Women on the Move.
Oxford: Berg.
Anthias, F. and Yuval-Davis, N. (1992) Racialized Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour, Class
and the Anti-Racist Struggle. London: Routledge.
Arango, J. (2004) ‘Theories of international migration’, in Joly, D. (ed.) International Migration in
the New Millennium. Global Movement and Settlement. Aldershot: Ashgate, 15Á35.
Booth, H. (1992) Migration Processes in Britain and West Germany. Aldershot: Avebury.
Calloni, M. and Lutz, H. (2000) ‘Gender, migration and social inequality: the dilemma of European
citizenship’, in Duncan, S. and Pfau-Effinger, B. (eds) Gender, Economy and Culture: The
European Union. London: Routledge, 143Á70.
1660 H. Lutz
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
Carling, J. (2005) The Gender Dimensions of International Migration. Geneva: Global Commission
on International Migration, paper no. 35.
Castles, S. and Miller, M.J. (1993) The Age of Migration. International Population Movements in the
Modern World. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Charsley, K. (2005) ‘Unhappy husbands: masculinity and migration in transnational Pakistani
marriages’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11(1): 85Á105.
Connell, R. (2007) ‘Men, masculinity and research on gender justice’, in Lenz, I., Ullrich, C. and
Ferch, B. (eds) Gender Orders Unbound? Globalisation, Restructuring and Reciprocity.
Opladen: Barbara Budrich, 51Á68.
Curran, S.R., Donato, K., Garip, F. and Shafer, S. (2006) ‘Mapping gender and migration in
sociological scholarship: is it segregation or integration?’, International Migration Review,
40(1): 199Á223.
Cyrus, N. (2008) ‘Being illegal in Europe: strategies and policies for fairer treatment of migrant
domestic workers’, in Lutz, H. (ed.) Migration and Domestic Work. A European Perspective on
a Global Theme. Aldershot: Ashgate, 177Á94.
Donato, K.M., Gabbaccia, D., Holdaway, J., Manalansan, M. and Pessar, P.R. (2006) ‘A glass half
full? Gender in migration studies’, International Migration Review, 40(1): 3Á26.
Erel, U., Morokvasic-Mu¨ller, M. and Shinozaki, K. (2003) ‘Introduction: bringing gender into
migration’, in Morokvasic-Mu¨ller, M., Erel, U. and Shinozaki, K. (eds) Crossing Borders and
Shifting Boundaries, Vol. I. Gender on the Move. Opladen: Leske and Budrich, 9Á22.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Espinosa, K. and Massey, D.S. (1998) ‘Undocumented migration and the quantity and quality of
social capital’, Soziale Welt, 12(8): 141Á62.
Fielding, A. (1993) ‘Migrants, institutions and politics: the evolution of European migration
policies’, in King, R. (ed.) Mass Migration in Europe: the Legacy and the Future. London:
Belhaven, 40Á62.
Gabaccia, D. (1996) ‘Women of the mass migrations: from minority to majority, 1820Á1930’, in
Hoerder, D. and Moch, L.P. (eds) European Migrants. Global and Local Perspectives. Boston:
Northeastern University Press, 90Á114.
Gallo, E. (2006) ‘Italy is not a good place for men: narratives of places, marriage and masculinity
among Malayali migrants’, Global Networks, 6(4): 357Á72.
Gamburd, M. (2000) The Kitchen Spoon’s Handle. Transnationalism and Sri Lankan’s Housemaids.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Global Commission on International Migration (2005) Migration in an Interconnected World: New
Directions for Action. Geneva: SRO-Kundig, Report of the GCIM.
Gulati, L. (1993) In the Absence of their Man. New Dehli: Sage.
Harzig, C. (ed.) (1997) Peasant Maids, City Women: From the European Countryside to Urban
America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harzig, C. (2003) ‘Immigration policies: a gendered historical perspective’, in Morokvasic-Mu¨ller,
M., Erel, U. and Shinozaki, K. (eds) Crossing Borders and Shifting Boundaries, Vol. I. Gender
on the Move. Opladen: Leske and Budrich, 35Á58.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2001) Dome´stica. Immigrant Workers Cleaning in the Shadows of Affluence.
London: University of California Press.
Kilkey, M. and Perrons, D. (2010) ‘Gendered divisions in domestic-work time. the rise of the
(migrant) handyman phenomenon’, Time and Society, 19(1): 1Á26.
Kilkey, M., Lutz, H. and Palenga-Mo¨llenbeck, E. (2010) ‘Introduction: domestic and care work at
the intersection of welfare, gender and migration regimes: European experiences’, Social
Policy and Society, 9(3): in press.
Kofman, E. (1999) ‘Female ‘‘birds of passage’’ a decade later: gender and immigration in the
European Union’, International Migration Review, 33(2): 269Á99.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1661
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
Kofman, E., Phizacklea, A. and Raghuram, P. (2000) Gender and International Migration in Europe:
Employment, Welfare, and Politics. London: Routledge.
Kohli, M. (1981) ‘Wie es zur biographischen Methode kam und was daraus geworden ist. Ein
Kapitel aus der Geschichte der Sozialforschung’, Zeitschrift fu¨r Soziologie, 10(3): 273Á93.
Koser, K. and Lutz, H. (eds) (1998) The New Migration in Europe. Social Constructions and Social
Realities. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan.
Lee, E. (1966) ‘A theory of migration’, Demography, 3(1): 47Á57.
Levitt, P., DeWind, J. and Vertovec, S. (2003) ‘International perspectives on transnational
migration: an introduction’, International Migration Review, 37(3): 565Á75.
Lutz, H. (1991a) Welten Verbinden: Tu¨rkische Sozialarbeiterinnen in den Niederlanden und der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt-am-Main: IKO-Verlag.
Lutz, H. (1991b) ‘The myth of the other: Western representation and images of women of so-called
Islamic background’, International Revue of Sociology, 2(2): 129Á37.
Lutz, H. (1997) ‘The limits of European-ness: immigrant women in Fortress Europe’, Feminist
Review, 57(3): 112Á39.
Lutz, H. (2004) ‘Migrations- und Geschlechterforschung: zur Genese einer komplizierten
Beziehung’, in Becker, R. and Kortendiek, B. (eds) Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung.
Theorie, Methoden, Empirie. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 476Á84.
Lutz, H. (2007a) Vom Weltmarkt in den Privathaushalt. Die neuen Dienstma¨dchen im Zeitalter der
Globalisierung. Leverkusen and Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Lutz, H. (2007b) ‘Editorial: domestic work’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 14(3): 187Á92.
Lutz, H. (2007c) ‘‘‘Die 24-Stunden-Polin’’: Eine intersektionelle Analyse transnationaler Dienstleistungen’,
in Klinger, C., Knapp, G.-A. and Sauer, B. (eds) Achsen der Ungleichheit. Zum
Verha¨ltnis von Klasse, Geschlecht und Ethnizita¨t. Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 210Á34.
Lutz, H. (2008) ‘Introduction: migration and domestic work in Europe’, in Lutz, H. (ed.) Migration
and Domestic Work. A European Perspective on a Global Theme. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1Á12.
Lutz, H. (2009) ‘Who cares? Migrantinnen in der Pflege in deutschen Privathaushalten’, in Larsen,
C., Joost, A. and Heid, S. (eds) Illegale Bescha¨ftigung in Europa. Die Situation in Privathaushalten
a¨lterer Personen. Mu¨nchen: Mering, 41Á50.
Lutz, H. and Palenga-Mo¨llenbeck, E. (2010) ‘Care work migration in Germany: semi-compliance
and complicity’, Social Policy and Society, 9(3): in press.
Mahler, S.J. and Pessar, P.R. (2006) ‘Gender matters: ethnographers bring gender from the periphery
toward the core of migration studies’, International Migration Review, 40(1): 27Á63.
Moch, L.P. (1992) Moving Europeans. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Morokvasic, M. (1984) ‘The overview: birds of passage are also women’, International Migration
Review, 68(18): 886Á907.
Morokvasic, M. (1987) Emigration und Danach: Jugoslawische Frauen in Westeuropa. Frankfurt-amMain:
Stroemfeld/Roter Stern Verlag.
Morokvasic, M. (1994) ‘Pendeln statt Auswandern. das Beispiel der Polen’, in Morokvasic, M. and
Rudolph, H. (eds) Wanderungsraum Europa. Menschen und Grenzen in Bewegung. Berlin:
Edition Sigma, 166Á87.
Morokvasic, M. (2007) ‘Migration, gender, empowerment’, in Lenz, I., Ullrich, C. and Fersch, B.
(eds) Gender Orders Unbound? Globalisation, Restructuring and Reciprocity. Opladen: Barbara
Budrich, 69Á98.
Osella, F. and Osella, C. (2003) ‘Migration, money and masculinity in Kerala’, Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 6(1): 117Á33.
Palenga-Mo¨llenbeck, E. (2010) Transnationale Arbeitsmigration Oberschlesischer Doppelstaatler.
Bochum: Universita¨t Bochum, unpublished PhD thesis.
Parren˜as, R.S. (2001a) ‘Mothering from a distance. emotions, gender and intergenerational relations
in Filipino transnational families’, Feminist Studies, 27(2): 361Á89.
1662 H. Lutz
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010
Parren˜as, R.S. (2001b) Servants of Globalization. Women, Migration and Domestic Work. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Parren˜as, R.S. (2005) Children of Global Migration. Transnational Families and Gendered Woes.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2000) ‘Conclusion: gender cultures, gender arrangements and social changes in
the European context’, in Duncan, S. and Pfau-Effinger, B. (eds) Gender, Economy and
Culture: The European Union. London: Routledge, 262Á79.
Phizacklea, A. (1998) ‘Migration and globalisation: a feminist perspective’, in Koser, K. and Lutz, H.
(eds) The New Migration in Europe. Social Constructions and Social Realities. Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 21Á33.
Phoenix, A. and Pattynama, P. (eds) (2006) ‘Intersectionality’, European Journal of Women’s Studies,
13(3): 187Á92.
Ramı´rez, H. and Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2009) ‘Mexican immigrant gardeners in Los Angeles:
entrepreneurs or exploited workers?’, Social Problems, 56(1): 70Á88.
Ravenstein, E.G. (1885) ‘The laws of migration’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 2(52):
241Á301.
Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sassen, S. (1998) ‘U¨ berlegungen zu einer feministischen Analyse der globalen Wirtschaft’, PROKLA,
Zeitschrift fu¨r kritische Sozialwissenschaft, 111(2): 199Á216.
Schwenken, H. (2005) Rechtlos, aber nicht ohne Stimme. Politische Mmobilisierungen um irregula¨re
Migration in die Europa¨ische Union. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Shinozaki, K. (2005) ‘Making sense of contradictions. examining negotiation strategies of
contradictory class mobility in Filipina/Filipino domestic workers in Germany’, in Geisen,
T. (ed.) Arbeitsmigration. WanderarbeiterInnen auf dem Weltmarkt fu¨r Arbeitskraft. Frankfurtam-Main:
IKO Verlag, 259Á78.
Steedman, C. (2009) Labour Lost: Domestic Service and the Making of Modern England. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Thomas, W.I. and Znaniecki, F. (1996) The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press (originally published 1918Á20).
Walter, N., Bourgois, P. and Loinaz, H.M. (2004) ‘Masculinity and undocumented labor migration:
injured Latino day laborers in San Francisco’, Social Science and Medicine, 59(6): 1159Á68.
Wetterer, A. (2002) Arbeitsteilung und Geschlechterkonstruktion. ‘Gender at Work’ in theoretischer und
historischer Perspektive. Konstanz: UVK Verlag.
Williams, F. (1995) ‘Race, ethnicity, gender and class in welfare states: a framework for comparative
analysis’, Social Politics, 2(2): 127Á39.
Williams, F. and Gavanas, A. (2008) ‘The intersection of childcare regimes and migration regimes: a
three-country study’, in Lutz, H. (ed.) Migration and Domestic Work. A European Perspective
on a Global Theme. Aldershot: Ashgate, 13Á28.
Yinger, N.V. (2006) Feminization of Migration. Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau,
online at: http://prb.org/Articles/2006/TheFeminizationofMigration.aspx, accessed March
2010.
Yinger, N.V. (2007) The Feminization of Migration: Limits of the Data. Washington DC: Population
Reference Bureau, online at http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/FeminizationofMigration
LimitsofData.aspx, accessed March 2010.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006) ‘Intersectionality and feminist politics’, European Journal of Women’s Studies,
13(3): 193Á209.
Zlotnik, H. (2003) The Global Dimension of Female Migration, online at http://www.migration
information.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID0109, accessed April 2007.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1663
DownloadedBy:[UniversitaStudidiBologna]At:11:3817November2010