Stearman 1
Nicole Stearman
Professor Kathy L. Rowley
English 201
17 April 2012
Rhetorical Analysis: The Politics of Housework
In “Maid to Order: The Politics of Other Women’s Work,” the speaker, Barbara
Ehrenreich, discusses the politics of housework. Not only does she write about it, she also
experiences it herself. According to Greene, “[Ehrenreich] went under cover, getting hired and
working as a waitress, hotel maid, Wal-Mart employee, nursing home aide, and housecleaner,
struggling to live only on the wages she earned” (Greene 480). In speaking from experience, in
addition to reporting on housecleaning, the audience is more willing to read and believe what
Ehrenreich is writing.
Ehrenreich is a journalist with a PhD in cell biology (479). Despite her scientific
background, Ehrenreich “learn[s] and writ[es] about topics far beyond science” (479). In this
essay, Ehrenreich establishes ethos by citing different housecleaning sources and statistics. She
discusses “feminist theories of the Sixties and Seventies” to introduce the audience to the history
of housecleaning (481). She goes in-depth by providing statistics of both the past and the present,
offering her readers to conceptualize the differences between then and now. Although Ehrenreich
informs the audience of housecleaning, she also reports on her own experience with working for
various housecleaning companies, such as The Maids International and Merry Maids (483, 488).
To be fair, Ehrenreich decides to practice housecleaning as a part of a housecleaning
franchise, so she can taste the industry for herself. This makes Ehrenreich out to be quite
Stearman 2
knowledgeable, allowing her to elaborate on her own experience. With personal experience,
Ehrenreich is then able to justly appeal to her desired audience.
The title of this essay hints at the intended audience of Ehrenreich. “Ehrenreich is
writing for those who might not have thought much about low-wage work” (480). To help her
readers think more about housecleaning and its relationship with class structures, Ehrenreich
uses vivid descriptions: “Here you find elaborate dust structures held together by a scaffolding of
dog hair; dried bits of pasta glud to the floor by their sauce; the congealed remains of gravies,
jellies, contraceptive creams, vomit, and urine” (Enrenreich 481). In these graphic portrayals of
what a housecleaner may see on the job each day, Ehrenreich is able to capture the attention of
her audience by appealing to the pathos that they hold. Readers can understand, feeling as though
someone else will pick up after them; tidying up is bound to be someone else’s job. A secondary
audience may be college students or city-dwellers: “Another version of the essay appears in her
best-selling book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (2001), which has become
a popular choice for university and city one-book reading programs, in which many people read
and gather to discuss the same text” (480). Ehrenreich is attempting to teach her readers about
the politics of housework, hoping to spread awareness.
In writing this essay, Ehrenreich has a purpose: “Her objective: to help us see the world
from her two perspectives – as a maid scrubbing on her knees and as a scholar at the keyboard,
plenty angry about what she has learned” (480). This essay discusses the politics of housework,
including the effects of gender, race, ethnicity, and society as a whole. When considering the
different ethnicities of housecleaners, “…Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 36.8 percent [of
private household cleaners and servants] were Hispanic, 15.8 percent black, and 2.7 percent
‘other.’ Certainly the association between housecleaning and minority status is well established
Stearman 3
in the psyches of the white employing class” (485). Ehrenreich reasons that most housecleaners
are of the minority. This perspective could prove the existence of a fine line between
housecleaners and servants.
With respect to finances and job perks, housecleaners are barely any different than
servants. The Maids International has a “straightforward starting rate of $6.63 an hour…this rate
[being] conditional on perfect attendance” (488). This is just below the federal minimum wage in
the US. And, if housecleaners do not have perfect attendance, their wage is dropped a bit lower,
“to $6 an hour for two weeks, a rule that weighed particularly heavily on those who had young
children” (488). It is nearly impossible to have perfect attendance for a job, especially if people
have children. With that, it is fair to say that housecleaners make around six dollars an hour.
In addition to having below a minimum wage, cleaning-service employees are not “likely
to receive any of the perks or tips familiar to independents – free lunches and coffee, cast-off
clothing, or a Christmas gift of cash” (489). Cleaning-service employees also do not expect to
have any breaks during a working day: “At The Maids, there were no breaks except for a daily
ten-minute stop at a convenience store for coffee or ‘lunch’” (489). Housecleaners do not make
much, they do not have any perks, and they do not get any breaks, yet they are expected to have
good, if not perfect, attendance. Society does not understand the housecleaning industry, and
“the customers of cleaning just don’t know their cleaning people…plus, customers probably
assume that the fee they pay for the service…goes largely to the workers who do the actual
cleaning” (489). Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, the money customers pay for
cleaning services do not go largely to the housecleaners. The audience would be able to infer that
by the way Ehrenreich conveys the information.
Stearman 4
In this essay, Ehrenreich reports information and also tells a story: “Although much of
this essay is autobiographical, Ehrenreich puts her experience in context with research on politics
of housework, statistics about the housecleaning industry, mention of forced labor, and a global
perspective on who does what kind of work, for whom, and for what wages” (480). By being
both a journalist and a storyteller, Ehrenreich is able to reach all aspects of the readers’ interests:
logos, pathos, and ethos. The form in which this essay is written complements the content,
making Ehrenreich’s writing all the more amusing. The readers’ enjoyment of the essay opens up
their minds to be able to learn as well as to delight in the writing. This is exactly what Ehrenreich
set out to do: to teach people about the housecleaning industry.
Ehrenreich is able to educate her readers and to make them more aware of the politics of
housework through her writing. By experiencing being a housecleaner herself, Ehrenreich
effectively fit her message to the current circumstances, times, and audience. At present, it is
common for both husbands and wives to be of working-class. As such, time is of the essence,
neither the wife nor the husband having any time to even think about cleaning the house
themselves. Having a strict schedule may also be associated with students. According to
Ehrenreich, one NOW (National Organization for Women) member said, “‘like many young
women today, I am in school in order to develop a rewarding career for myself. I also have a
home to run and can fully conceive of the need for household help as my free time at home
becomes more and more restricted” (483). People today are too busy to pick up for themselves.
Since they have no time for it, they hire a maid: a simple solution. Thus, Ehrenreich sets out to
spread awareness about the housecleaning industry.
Ehrenreich’s purpose for writing this essay is clearly visible when her audience reads the
essay. After reading, the audience understands housework politics to a fuller extent. Ehrenreich’s
Stearman 5
general notion is that people never thought about the housecleaning industry in the first place:
“Spill syrup on the floor and the cleaning person will scrub it off when she comes on
Wednesday” (495). Ehrenreich’s mission is to teach the public about the housecleaning industry,
namely the middle class and upper class, to which the industry is invisible. Ehrenreich writes to
make these people aware, and to get them thinking. It is easier for the audience to read the essay
because it is interesting and easy to read. Ehrenreich does well to write in the present, appealing
to current audiences. She does not simply tell her audience about housework, she describes it.
Having been a housecleaner in the industry herself, Ehrenreich is able to connect with the
industry. This helps the audience to better grasp the topic at hand, making it easier to consider
housework politics at depth. Regarding the politics of the industry may make a person think
twice about permitting sticky messes of syrup to harden on the floor, waiting for the maid to
clean it up.
Stearman 6
Works Cited
Greene, Stuart and April Lidinsky, eds. From Inquiry to Academic Writing. Boston:
Bedford St. Martin’s, 2008. Print.