Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Studying Strip Club Work -- 2. "Keeping the Dancers in Check" -- 3. "It's a Nice Place to Hide, and It's Safe" -- 4. Tradeoffs and Troubles -- 5. Dollar Dances and Stage Dances -- Postscript -- Appendix 1 -- Appendix 2 -- Notes -- References -- Index -- About the Author

AbstractBabysitting cooperatives offer reciprocity‐based short‐term childcare for members. In practice, the babysitting cooperative (co‐op) under study has contradictory outcomes that both relieve and burden its participants. This study is based on ethnographic methods: 4 years of participant observation, 28 in‐depth interviews with 18 members and 10 spouses and an analysis of babysitting co‐op texts. This research extends the ideology of intensive mothering to include collective‐intensive mothering, a group form of intensified caregiving reproduced by the babysitting co‐op's gendered organization of care. To accomplish collective‐intensive mothering, babysitting co‐op members employ intensive mothering beliefs and practices in conjunction with other group members. What is more, co‐op members collectively intensify their mothering practices with other members' children in addition to their own. Given need for more (and better) caregiving alternatives, the lack of scholarly attention to unpaid cooperative caregiving groups, like babysitting co‐ops, is surprising. This research seeks to address this gap.

Evidence for Christine Williams's 'glass escalator' effect documents how professional men entering female-dominated occupations may advance more quickly toward authority positions and higher salaries. However, studies of men's benefits from occupational segregation have neglected low-wage and diverse groups of workers. Using the representative US National Nursing Assistant Study (NNAS), the article examines organizational measures of inequality and discrimination – wages, benefits and working conditions – to understand whether a glass escalator exists among nursing assistants and how it is affected by gender, race, citizenship and facility characteristics. Though gender inequalities were present, citizenship, race, facility type and size emerged as the most important factors in determining advantages for workers, suggesting a revision of the glass escalator metaphor may be in order. NNAS results imply that identity characteristics like nationality and contextual factors like workplace matter and underscore the importance of using an intersectional approach to examine inequality.

Feminized care work occupations have traditionally paid lower wages compared to non–care work occupations when controlling for human capital. However, when men enter feminized occupations, they often experience a "glass escalator," leading to higher wages and career mobility as compared to their female counterparts. In this study, we examine whether men experience a "wage penalty" for performing care work in today's economy, or whether the glass escalator helps to mitigate the devaluation of care work occupations. Using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation for the years 1996-2011, we examine the career patterns of low- and middle-skill men in health care occupations. We found that men in occupations that provide the most hands-on direct care did experience lower earnings compared to men in other occupations after controlling for demographic characteristics. However, men in more technical allied health occupations did not have significantly lower earnings, suggesting that these occupations may be part of the glass escalator for men in the health care sector. Minority men were significantly more likely than white men to be in direct care occupations, but not in frontline allied health occupations. Male direct care workers were less likely to transition to unemployment compared to men in other occupations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the material and social foundations of the world more than any event in recent history and has highlighted and exacerbated a longstanding crisis of care. While these challenges may be freshly visible to the public, they are not new. Over the last three decades, a growing body of care scholarship has documented the inadequacy of the social organization of care around the world, and the effect of the devaluation of care on workers, families, and communities. In this volume, a diverse group of care scholars bring their expertise to bear on this recent crisis. In doing so, they consider the ways in which the existing social organization of care in different countries around the globe amplified or mitigated the impact of COVID-19. They also explore the impact of the global pandemic on the conditions of care and its role in exacerbating deeply rooted gender, race, migration, disability, and other forms of inequality