The nanny problem is important for feminists because the job of a domestic worker, most of whom are overwhelmingly female, emphasizes once again that the place for women to be at is in the house. Although the upper-class women are not at the house doing household chores, the fact that they hire other women to do their chores instead of dividing the chores between the wife and the husband confirms the fact that cleaning and cooking are duties of women. Ehrenreich calls this "a symbolic enactment of gender relations" (88). Thus, feminists should address this gender issue in order to eradicate sexist stereotypes.
This issue also has moral repercussions. Children living in a house where maids, usually women of a minority group, are always cleaning up after their mess and doing the "dirty work," will begin noticing the white superiority that this hierarchy within the household highlights. As Ehrenreich mentions in "Maid to Order" children may even associate the job of a maid with their race. For example, one white child once said to her mom when she saw a child of color, "Oh look, Mommy, a baby maid" (92). Moreover, as Tronto states, "Children may well come to expect that other people, regardless of their connection to them, will always be available to meet their needs" (40). Simply said, children will become spoiled and stuck-up. They will expect others to always clean their mess for them and will take these things for granted. Feminists should deal with this moral issue by "making work visible," meaning that they should let people realize that the job of a domestic worker is an occupation too, although their workplace is a private home for the employer. Thus, the employer and the other family members should treat the domestic worker with respect as you would your employee in a company.
In some ways, I think it is important to gender-neutralize the term "maid" by employing more male maids. If this term is gender-neutralized, the subordination of women by men will no longer exist because domestic workers will no longer be mostly female. Also, establishing a retirement program through the government and providing bonuses for these workers will also help make household work visible because the occupation of a domestic worker will be treated the same as other jobs.
I like that you point out the "spoiled child" aspect of housecleaning and connect it to sexism, classism, and racism. I think this is not only a feminist issue, but an issue for any member of society. As a member of the so-called “me” generation, I have seen how an overly strong sense of entitlement can damage both the entitled and the disenfranchised. For example, we college students can be tempted into freely pointing out a professor’s faults and blaming his/her teaching style for bad grades, without mentioning the fact that we didn’t study as much as we should have. Raising children to be assertive and feel empowered in their own ideas is certainly a good idea, but I think this should be tempered by reminding our children (and ourselves) that we should also empower others in our interactions. Dependence on others can be stagnating, but interdependence serves to strengthen all of those involved.
The repercussions of becoming accustomed to being "cleaned up after" that Tronto discussed in her piece really struck a chord with me- I remembered an anecdote that just happened over winter break, when I walked into a friend's house and tracked some snow in (it was her parent's house- she was home from college). When I apologized for the mess and offered to wipe up the snow, she shrugged it off and said "no, the cleaning ladies will get it tomorrow."
It seems that my friend is probably one of these people that Tronto refers to- she has grown up with people to clean up after her, leading her to neglect cleaning up after herself, and go to the extreme of insisting that one not do it because someone else will. It is easy to imagine other children growing up in these two-income- plus hired help households learning that one needn't clean up after themselves, and to make the leap that women (and perhaps women of color and lower class status) should be the ones doing this work, whether or not they are the "mother" of the household.
I'm glad that you mention issues of "feminizing" domestic work, and the normative behaviors that this can perpetuate-I too think that by addressing the field of domestic work in terms of evening out its classed, racialized and gendered aspects, it will slowly become less problematic. That, coupled with the government regulations that you suggest, could make the field more legitimate and safe.
I agree that a solution is to de-gender house work. I also believe that class is a huge issue. I was considering hiring someone to clean my house every other week because both my husband and I go to school full-time and work, and it is one of those things that never gets done. I was uncomfortable with the idea of hiring a minority worker, and then I saw a cleaning service advertised as a group of cleaning gay men. The way that they felt more professional, legitimate and guilt free bothered me. If it ok for white gay men to do it, then wouldn't it also be ok for a minority worker? I never did hire a cleaning person, I couldn't settle my feelings on the issue. I think it is more about the respect we give people in these positions. If a white gay man seems more legitimate, then it must be a class and race issue. James Baldwin wrote about feeling free and respected in France because of the equality between the classes. A waiter could be proud of his job and demand respect just as much as any businessman, and people in service industry jobs could relate to upper class individuals on an equal footing. We have nothing like this, and I think maybe part of the reason that it seemed so much more professional for a gay white man to clean my house is because we do not yet give women doing traditionally woman-like roles (and other service industry jobs) the respect that they deserve.
I understand your viewpoint that you didn't feel comfortable with the idea of hiring a minority worker, but wouldn't that also lead to more class inequalities? Minority workers probably had no other choice than to work as a domestic worker to earn money and if you decide to not even hire them, in some ways I think you are disadvantaging them without meaning to.
If you really feel bothered by the poor treatment these domestic workers receive, you could hire them and provide them with the treatment they deserve, with the same kind of benefits other workers receive. Then, wouldn't you be "making work visible" by acknowledging their effort and rewarding them for their hard work?