"You mean Barbara Bergmann employs cleaners, nannies, and other servants or that she has statistical evidence that confirms that feminism caused a larger proportion of American families to hire cleaners, nannies, and other servants than before? I'm interested in finding out if Ehrenreich or anyone else can provide evidence to support her argument (if it can be called an "argument")."
Good point Yoshie. One of the great changes of modernity was the change from a nearly-universal "servant" culture to one restricted to the upper classes. Before WW1 nearly everyone could "afford" some kind of servant. For example, my grandmother nearly illiterate, poor, married to a train porter, could "afford" a servant to help with the cooking/cleaning/washing up. Meaning, someone from the country who wanted to get a foothold in the city would come to the city and do domestic work in exchange for room/board/pittance. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying that the servant class existed long before feminism. I'm surprised that Erenreich is using this to bash "feminism." Another example that comes to mind is Manil Suri's description of an urban microcosm in Calcutta ("Death of Vishnu") -- in which all inhabitants of an apartment building fall into a hierarchy of masters and servants -- where even the meanest servant has a servant.
I'd hazard that the vaunted "service" industry is nothing more than the universalization of this servant hierarchy -- only taken out of a social continuum and made to serve and expand the capitalist order. The servitude is better concealed but the living conditions are the same; the exploitation, the same.
Joanna