Trafficking of women, chasing away our own demons and women’s rights

By Igor Bosc

 

We have all heard the shocking accounts of women seeking jobs, who are subsequently tricked and trapped into sexual slavery, sweatshops, domestic bondage and other forms of abuse.  While human trafficking is of enormous concern, perhaps, on this day that recognises the rights of women, we need to think about whether the way we are framing the problem of “trafficking in women and girls” fuels further or poses different problems for aspiring female migrants.

Might there be something insidious about what these accounts of trafficking in women say and do not say?

The discourse that warns us about the risks related to trafficking starts at home with stories of the little red riding hood, Sita and the laxman rekha, or women advised to stay at home and avoid engaging with “non muhrams” if they do venture outside. A similar discourse emerges in popular culture. For instance blockbuster movies show villains and creeps kidnapping and abusing women seeking to earn a living. Again the same discourse emerges in media: news services and newspapers routinely feature stories of women who were pimped into prostitution, domestic workers who were beaten, raped or killed. Police and politicians report to the media their latest crack downs on human traffickers. Aid agencies issue press releases highlighting the staggering numbers of women who are regularly trafficked across the globe.

Many narratives about human trafficking have something in common. In a closer reading, a common implicit message appears to be that women who venture out are treading into a dangerous world where they risk violence or sexual abuse. While in some cases, these reports may be true, these tales or the way the issue is framed rarely give a full and complete picture of female migration. For example, the narratives rarely delve into why women might leave their homes (e.g., devastating poverty, hopes for a better future, restrictions or even violence at home). These perspectives seldom explain what motivates middlemen and employers to seek out and employ them. Violence and sex is brought to the fore while making a living and employment are glossed over. Patriarchal archetypes seem to frame many perceptions.    

We may think we’re familiar with hearing about this violence and that we therefore know how to address it, but do we? Violent images and text that we remember from such accounts can have powerful lasting effects on the way we view the world and what we chose to do about it. It stokes visceral fears of what might happen and it fuels search for protection—maybe ‘over-protection’. Accounts of violence shape our feelings, our behaviours and the moral discourse of how to respond to the perceptions of vulnerabilities of women who seek to improve their lives and the lives of their families.

Imagine a different way of framing the discourse: how about approaching trafficking in women by addressing women’s need for employment, focusing on issues such as domestic violence, women’s rights, gender equity, unemployment and under-employment of women in home communities, by looking for solutions to these problems in both source communities as well as destination areas. While such reporting does exist, more of it is necessary.

Unfortunately a lot of the efforts to combat trafficking of women are in fact rooted in deep patriarchal biases. According to research by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Global Alliance against Trafficking of Women (GAATW), bans on women migrating actually make it more difficult for women to seek a living—and do not necessarily reduce their risk of abuse. Governments have used bans on women migrating in the belief that this will protect them and increase their safety. However in a recent policy brief for Governments in South Asia, the ILO in fact recommends measures to uphold the human rights of migrant women, emphasizing women’s right to mobility to reduce their vulnerability to human trafficking. Other policies that restrict women’s mobility include sponsorship policies inciting employers to limit the mobility of migrant domestic workers outside their homes. On this day when we celebrate women, it is important to confront many of the social and gender stereotypes about efforts to combat trafficking of women and reframe these dialogues in terms of women’s rights to gender equitable home lives, mobility and employment.

Women who work with the ILO in the Work in Freedom Programme

______________________________

Igor Bosc is Chief Technical Adviser at the International Labour Organization (ILO) working on the Work in Freedom Programme - a UK Aid funded partnership initiative to find effective ways of preventing trafficking of women in South Asia and the Middle East. See also his questions and thoughts on the framing of the human trafficking discourse, Why framing the discourse on human trafficking is important - some thoughts.

Migration as a route out of poverty in Zimbabwe: remittances and gender

by Julie Litchfield

This year on International Women’s Day, 8 March 2016, I will be speaking at a conference on migration at the National Gallery of Zimbabwe in Harare, presenting some of the Migrating out of Poverty research undertaken in collaboration with the Centre for Applied Social Sciences (CASS) at the University of Zimbabwe.[1]

Colleagues at CASS have carried out extensive qualitative fieldwork in migrant-sending communities across the country and one of the observations they have made is that families often describe women migrants as the “saviour of the family”, less likely to forget their families at home and more likely to send a range of cash and goods than male migrants.

Just over a year ago in April 2015 we carried out a fairly large survey of households to probe deeper into migration and remittances. We have been able to collect data on the type of remittances sent home by individual migrants, the frequency and value of remittances as well as data on each household’s living standards, and I have been using this data to investigate the belief that women are the saviours of the family.

First I wanted to explore if families regard migration as a positive or a negative development. We asked households several questions about their perception of migration as a route out of poverty and were surprised that only around half felt that households with migrants were generally better off than those without. Digging deeper, I found that migration is seen as a good thing by those households who receive remittances, especially among female headed households.

Looking at who remits, I discovered that what migrants remit differs. Male migrants are slightly more likely to remit cash than female migrants, a large proportion of whom send goods, such as food, clothing and school items. Interestingly however, proportionately more women than men migrants send both cash and goods, and while the cash they send is lower in value, the value of goods is higher. This resonates strongly with findings of our CASS colleagues in the qualitative research. Perhaps this mixture of remittances suits households’ needs better and that is why women migrants are described as saviours.

To explore the idea deeper, I estimated a simple econometric model of remittance receipt. This helps me to explore what factors affect the probability that a household receives remittances. As my independent factors, I included variables on the household size and composition, whether the migrant has left behind children at home and also variables that capture the household’s assets and current living conditions. The theory behind this model is that remittances might be motivated by altruistic reasons (concern over aging parents, younger siblings for example) or for exchange reasons (for example the need to continue to contribute to the household and protect inheritable assets, or to maintain a certain social standing within the home community).

My results suggest that the independent factors that affect whether or not a household receives remittances differ between male and female migrants. Remittances to households from male migrants depend heavily on the assets of the household: households with bigger houses or a higher standard of living are more likely to receive remittances than those households we might regard as poorer. In contrast, remittances from female migrants are unaffected by these factors. Instead, female remittances depend almost entirely on the demographic make-up of the household: older heads of households, larger households and households where the migrant has left children behind are the only factors that appear to play any role in the remittance model. These factors also affect remittances receipt from male migrants[2] but what is striking is the absence of any relationship between female remittances and household wealth and living standards: female migrants remit regardless of whether the household is rich or poor. 

What does this tell us? We need to be careful about jumping too quickly to the conclusion that women care more about their families than men. One interpretation is that what underlies these differences is a complex set of rules and norms that are highly gendered and work at numerous levels within the household and the wider community. Male migrants may need to send remittances home to maintain their social standing not just within their own household but also in the community. Perhaps more is at stake the better off their household, both in terms of what they might inherit or the role they might be able to fulfil when they return.  A preference for sending cash might help with this aim. Women on the other hand may be seeking only the approval of their household as a caring, dutiful daughter for example, and thus send goods which they believe the family needs and demonstrates thoughtfulness and concern.

Understanding this complex set of rules and norms is difficult and warrants further research, especially when designing policy. Policies to reduce the transaction costs of sending formal cash remittances for example may have little effect on remittances from women if they continue to place value on sending remittances in the form of goods. A so-called diaspora bond may only be attractive to male migrants. What is clear is that policy on migration in general and on remittances in particular needs to be informed by a deeper understanding of these gendered patterns of behaviour.

Julie's presentation slides can be accessed here.

---

[1] I would like to thank the National Gallery of Zimbabwe for their kind invitation to speak at their conference and the British Council (Zimbabwe) for generously funding my visit.

[2] Their remittances are very responsive to whether they have a child at home, much more so than female migrants. 

Dr Julie Litchfield is the Theme Leader for Quantitative Research for the Migrating out of Poverty Research Programme Consortium (MOOP) and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Sussex. The Working Paper discussing aspects of the findings of the Zimbabwe survey is now available. See also Eva-Maria Egger's presentation of the preliminary findings of MOOP's household survey conducted in Zimbabwe  and her related blog discussing the context:  Migration in Southern Africa: A Visit to the City of Migrants.

Yes ma’am

by Kellynn Wee

“Yes ma’am”: the words a migrant domestic worker in Singapore repeats most -- but they can mean much more than simple subservience.

The words that a migrant domestic worker in Singapore repeats most are probably “yes ma’am.”

“Pick up the kids at 3 pm after school.” “Yes ma’am.”

“Put less salt in the chicken next time.” “Yes ma’am.”

“Eat instant noodles for breakfast and dinner every day for the next year.”

Yes, ma’am.

But while marking #InternationalMigrantsDay, we investigate the meanings of “yes ma’am”, and how domestic workers are able to re-negotiate the terms of their employment by using the “yes ma’am” script to serve their own needs.

James Scott, an anthropologist writing about village status hierarchies in Malaysia, outlines his concept of the ‘theatre of power’. In this theatre, Scott argues, ‘public transcripts’ — commonly occurring patterns of communicating such as the “yes ma’am” dialogue — reflect expected social and cultural norms. They are used where one group (in this case, the employer) has power over another (here, the worker).

The public transcript of “yes ma’am” indicates a performance of deference, obedience, and submissiveness: standing in an attitude of listening and attentive politeness; ensuring that one’s tone of voice is quiet and respectful; and endeavouring never to contradict or argue with one’s employer.

We speak to two experienced Taiwan-bound domestic workers at a training centre in Jakarta.

Public transcripts occur alongside what Scott calls "hidden transcripts”: “offstage speeches, gestures, and practices that confirm, contradict, or inflect what happens in the public transcript” (Scott 1990: p. 4).

These hidden transcripts develop best when they are shared amongst those who are not in power. Domestic workers teach each other hidden transcripts to deal with difficult situations. These might include insufficient food, no/few days off, late payment of salaries, overwhelming workloads, lack of sleep, and expectation from the employer that they will  work in multiple households.

Without obvious instances of physical, verbal, or sexual abuse, and the need to pay off hefty loans ranging up to SGD $3000 (USD $2123) during the first 6-8 months of her contract, a migrant domestic worker may not wish to seek help from external authorities which might cost her her job.

So they turn to each other for advice instead. Experienced domestic workers say that there are ways to effectively communicate their needs to their employers — you just have to do it right. They know very well what an employer expects — and they are able to use the expected ‘public transcript' to their advantage.

“You need to be ‘down’ when you’re taking to the employer,” explains Nuraini, an Indonesian domestic worker who has been in Singapore for 14 years. “Make sure you make eye contact, don’t look away. The voice is not hostile, not like, 'HEY MA’AM'!”

Tinah, a Filipino domestic worker who has been in Singapore for 23 years, recalls the advice she gave to a friend, who had been employed to work in two houses. This is illegal under Singaporean law, which stipulates that domestic workers are allowed to work only at the address stated on their Work Permits:

"If you‘re unhappy about this [situation], then talk directly to your employer. You can say: ‘Ma'am, this is not really a legal thing to do. I‘m so scared if I‘m going to work there, what if the Ministry of Manpower visits and they see me and they report me, then what will happen to me? I am not only jeopardising my stay here to work, but also you, because how much is the fine?’”

When Tinah relates the script that she suggests the migrant worker should use, she does not simply utter the words: she performs them. Her voice takes on a tone of uncertainty and fear, and she spreads her hands out in a conciliatory gesture. This is in keeping with the expected ‘act’ that should play out between maid and madam — a migrant domestic worker should refrain from being too forward and should be keen to put her employer first.

This is not a confrontational approach; it does not invoke a rights-based discourse — however, it subtly articulates a worker's knowledge of the legislation that has been put into place to protect her, presents her complaints in a socially acceptable way, and seeks to improve the conditions of her work.

Had she spoken to her employer in a way that deviates from the public transcript (such as with a tone of aggression or anger), she might have risked openly transgressing her ‘appropriate’ social location in relation to her employer; by couching it in a performance of subservience, she might be able to win benefits without reprisal.

Nuraini suggests that workers ‘set the stage’ in the theatre of power by ensuring that conditions are ideal for employers to be receptive to workers’ requests. Surroundings should be tidy; employers are best approached after a well-cooked meal and some rest. Respectful addresses like ‘ma’am’ or ‘sir’ should be frequently employed.

“Say 'please' and 'thank you', always, ‘yes ma'am'; explain nicely. Don‘t make your body language hostile. Stay professional. Don't back down, keep your hands down, don't gesture too much […] Talk to them when they’re in a good mood, not during their meal. Say, 'ma'am, can I speak to you about my salary, how come you haven't paid me, it's due already... the rule is after seven days, it is the deadline...' […] 'Hi ma'am, can I take an off day, just from 9-6'; if your employer would like to deduct from the salary, then that‘s fine... It‘s a negotiation.”

Leaders from the Filipino Family Network conduct a briefing. The domestic worker run organisation conducts classes and organises social gatherings helping newcomers to Singapore develop networks.

Nuraini suggests that workers adopt a posture of professional politeness (such as maintaining steady eye contact and not appearing overly uncertain), while keeping to expectations of the public transcript — explicitly acknowledging the superiority of the employer, building an overall impression of humility, taking the initiative to circumscribe the boundaries of ‘privileges’ (such as a day off) in order to indicate a willingness to compromise. Like Tinah, she suggests that the worker display her knowledge of protective legislation, such as deadlines for salary payments.

Scott says that a mastery of the “theatre of power” may “become an actual political resource of subordinates […] what may look from above like the extraction of a required performance can easily look from below like the artful manipulation of deference and flattery to achieve its own ends” (Scott 1990: p. 35).

Migrant workers independently undertake a range of strategies to improve their working conditions within the countries in which they work. This may range from protests, creating unions, participating in campaigns – to giving each other pragmatic advice about delicately navigating through tensions at work.

While these ‘transcripts’, taught by experienced workers to fresher faces, may not fundamentally transform the state of migrants’ rights, they are a concrete and practical tool to secure advances in what a worker eats, when a worker sleeps, and where a worker goes — items of negotiation fundamental to day-to-day life.

Migrant workers are not always passive victims of abuse or sacrificial heroes, as they are often presented in the media; they, too, are employees like many others — caught within structural forms of disempowerment, but able to strategise their way through with mutual help and support.

ARI and the Migrating out of Poverty team wish all migrants a happy International Migrants’ Day!

Kellynn Wee is Research and Communications Officer at the Asia Research Institute (ARI) at the National University of Singapore. This blog post is a slightly amended version of the text originally published on ARI's blog at: https://arimoop.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/yes-maam/ on 19 December 2015. It draws on Kellynn's personal research, conducted in 2014 for her undergraduate thesis:‘Work Permitted: Foreign Domestic Workers‘ Collective Strategies of Negotiation in Singapore’. With many thanks to the Indonesian Family Network, the Filipino Family Network and Transient Workers Count Too for their help in facilitating the fieldwork.

References

Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: hidden transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.