Masculinities and Work Relations in the Home

  • Ester Gallo
  • Francesca Scrinzi
Part of the Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship book series (MDC)


This chapter explores the social construction of hegemonic and subordinate masculinities in the home, by considering work relations between migrant male workers and their employers in cleaning and elderly care services. The chapter considers the practices and experiences of male and female employers of different backgrounds to provide insights into the shifting of dominant models of gender in Italian families. Further, the chapter compares the practices of middle-class and working-class male employers, analysing how class impacts personalism in the domestic service relationship. Finally, it analyses whether and how religion is mobilised by employers as a criterion for recruitment and in the construction of the proximity or distance between them and their male employees.


Migrant Worker Elderly Care Employment Relation Migrant Woman Moral Panic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson, B. 2000. Doing the dirty work? The global politics of domestic labour. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. 2003. Just another job? The commodification of domestic labour. In Global woman: Nannies, maids and sex workers in the new economy, ed. B. Ehrenreich and A.R. Hochschild. London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. 2007. A very private business: Exploring the demand for migrant domestic workers. European Journal of Women’s Studies 14(3): 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, B., and O’Connell Davidson, J. 2003. Is trafficking in human beings demand driven? A multi-country pilot study. IOM Migration Research Series, no. 15, Geneva.Google Scholar
  5. Chavez, L.R. 1992. Shadowed lives: Undocumented migrants in American society. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  6. Cox, R., and N. Rekha. 2003. Playing happy families: Rules and relationships in au pair employing households in London. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 10(4): 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Da Roit, B. 2007. Changing intergenerational solidarity within families in a Mediterranean welfare state. Current Sociology 55(2): 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickey, S. 2011. The pleasure and anxieties of being in the middle: Emerging middle-class identities in urban South India. Modern Asian Studies 46(3): 559–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durin, S. 2013. Varones en el servicio doméstico en el Área Metropolitana de Monterrey: Ideologías de Género en la organización del trabajo. Trayectorias 15(37): 53–72.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrenreich, B., and A.R. Hochschild. 2003. Introduction. In Global woman. Nannies, maids and sex workers in the new economy, ed. B. Ehrenreich and A.R. Hochschild. New York: Henry Holt & Company.Google Scholar
  11. Gallo, E. 2006. Italy is not a good place for men. Narratives of place, marriage and masculinity among Malayali migrants in Rome. Global Networks 6(4): 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallo, E. 2010. The dilemma of Harlequin. Migrant children and the fear of contamination in Central Italy. Secondary Schools. Unpublished Research Report – COFIN/University of Perugia.Google Scholar
  13. Gallo, E., and F. Scrinzi. 2015. Outsourcing elderly care to migrant workers: The impact of gender and class on the experience of male employers. Sociology. Online before print 15 Apr 2015. Available at: Google Scholar
  14. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. 2001. Domestica: Immigrant workers cleaning and caring in the shadow of affluence. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kaye, L.W., and J.S. Applegate. 1994. Older men and the family caregiving orientation. In Older men’s lives, ed. E. Thompson. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Kramer, B.J. 2002. Introduction. In Men as caregivers, ed. B.J. Kramer and E. Thompson, 1–19. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Lopez-Garza, M. 2001. A study of the informal economy and Latina immigrants in greater Los Angeles. In Asian and Latino immigrants in a restructing economy: The metamorphosis of Southern California, ed. M. Lopez-Garza and D.R. Diaz. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lundstrom, C. 2012. I didn’t come here to do housework. Relocating Swedish practices and ideologies in the context of the global division of labour: The case of expatriate households in Singapore. Nordic Journal of Migration Research 2(2): 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacKenzie, R., and C. Forde. 2009. The rhetoric of the “good worker” versus the realities of employers’ use and the experiences of migrant workers. Work Employment and Society 23(1): 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macklin, A. 1992. Foreign domestic worker: Surrogate housewife or mail order servant? McGill Law Journal 37(3): 681–760.Google Scholar
  21. Mahler, S.J., and P.R. Pessar. 2006. Gender matters: Ethnographers bring gender from the periphery toward the core of migration studies. International Migration Review 40(1): 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moras, A. 2008. The private home as a public workplace: Employing paid domestic labor. Journal of Workplace Rights 13(4): 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Näre, L. 2013a. Migrancy, gender and social class in domestic labour and social care in Italy. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39(4): 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Näre, L. 2013b. Ideal workers and suspects. Employers’ politics of recognition and the migrant division of care labour in Finland. Nordic Journal of Migration Research 3(2): 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parreñas, R. 2001. Servants of globalisation: Women, migration, and domestic work. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Romero, M. 2002. Maid in the USA. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Sarti, R. 2006. Domestic service: Past and present in southern and northern Europe. Gender and History 18(2): 222–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sarti, R. 2008. The globalisation of domestic service. In Migration and domestic work, ed. H. Lutz. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  29. Schizzerotto, A. 2013. Mutamenti di lungo periodo delle strutture di classe e dei processi di mobilità in Italia. Quaderni di Sociologia 57(62): 127–145.Google Scholar
  30. Scrinzi, F. 2010. Masculinities and the international division of care: Migrant male domestic workers in Italy and France. Men and Masculinities 13(1): 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scrinzi, F. 2013. Genre, migrations et emplois de care en France et en Italie. Paris: Editions Pétra.Google Scholar
  32. Triandafyllidou, A., and S. Marchetti. 2014a. The employers’ perspective on paid and domestic care work. In Employers, agencies and immigration: Paying for care, ed. A. Triandafyllidou and S. Marchetti. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Triandafyllidou, A., and S. Marchetti. 2014b. Paying for care: Advantages and challenges for the employers. In Employers, agencies and immigration: Paying for care, ed. A. Triandafyllidou and S. Marchetti. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  34. Williams, C.L. (ed.). 1993. Doing ‘women's work’: Men in nontraditional occupations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Williams, F. 2010. Migration and care: Themes, concepts and challenges. Social Policy and Society 9(3): 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ester Gallo
    • 1
  • Francesca Scrinzi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyGediz UniversityMenemen (Izmir)Turkey
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations