<HTML>I have been debating whether to wade back into this one, and I have not been meticulously reading some of the longer posts, so apologies if I duplicate stuff other people have already said. There is a thread in Ehrenreich's critique of lifestyle choices that to me seems to imply that women are the ones responsible for cleaning up global inequalities. That the book does not take on wider dynamics of immigration policy for both sexes and all divided families of immigrant labor seems like a major weakness to me. But writing about policies that deliver millions of people to US shores for exploitation and cream-skimming of local professional classes such as health care workers is probably a whole separate book I agree with the posters who called her book an ethnography. As such the book states a lot that is painfully gruesomely obvious to anyone who has ever worked in the service industry or talked for more than 10 seconds with people who do this work. Since other people do not automatically think of these points unless the info is smeared focibly in their faces, an ethnography has important functions. However, I think the postings below and Ehrenreich as represented on this list are both being consarnedly patronizing. Who the hell is Barbara Ehrenreich or anyone on this list to tell a desparately poor woman from another country that we are "polluting" her life with filthy cash? As many posters have noted, there are lots of ways we could pollute her life with MORE  filthy cash, better working conditions, more opportunities for her children.... But to me it is a complete no-brainer that both sides of the cash for housework transaction can be better off, the one because of getting the housework done, the other because doing, say, housework in most households might be far preferable to other work options either in the US or in other countries. And I imagine that housework like many other activities benefits from some level of increased expertise over time and with repetitions. Speaking for myself, I respect people who know what they are doing. I sure as heck am not going to take up a wrench and go try to build a bridge. In fact, I am sort of a hopeless clutz about some things that SHOULD require only a screwdriver, and I am happy to show that respect in the form of cash. (But if we're all going to get hung up on rigid gender roles, I am married to a hopeless clean queen. In contradiction to many stereotypes of Russian men, my spouse is way more of a household hurricane than I am. Most of the time I am really grateful, but one downside is I occasionally get to wonder whether he feels exploited!) And one more point in this tirade: Barter housing for housework?  --How many of YOU live where you work and like it? --Housing for Mom does NOT buy housing, food, uniforms, books and school fees for Mom's kids, siblings, parents in (name that random maid's country of origin.) DoreneC In a message dated 8/22/2003 2:23:38 AM GMT Daylight Time, mschiller@pobox.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> a msg from mpollak@panix.com on 8/21/03 1:44 PM included ... >>How can you evade the cash nexus? > >When it comes to domestic help, by doing it yourself or making other >people do it by applying the pressure of family obligations. There is also a barter opportunity if the domicile owner and the domestic helper are so inclined - housing for housekeeping. ___________________________________ </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>