after reading many insightful & impressive comments in this thread, I came to this – i laughed out loud in delight & recognition – thank you for making this personal in such a nice way! :)

This is flawed because you assume that “stereotype” to be by definition true until proven false, which is typically not the case. To stereotype is just that: take one simplistic example/opinion/idea of someone and apply it on an entire group of people over and over. There’s nothing to be said about that idea being statistically significant or representative of said group, only that idea “feels right” and meshes with the biases/assumptions/beliefs of the one doing the stereotyping. If someone “feels” that a group of people is subhuman and should be subjected to wholesale violence upon their person, land, and possessions, holding onto that stereotype until “evidence of the contrary” is destructive, dangerous, and vile.

That’s stereotyping. Then there is generalizing. Generalizing, while also simplistic, is a rough representation of a group of people, based not on a person’s “feelings” but on common (that is representative) attributes of the group that can be verified. Inherent in a generalization is that it doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone. The generalization that humans are social animals that tend to create networks and hierarchies among themselves not a stereotype, it is a generalization that can be verified as representative of most humans, but there are exceptions.

How to properly stereotype the women:

skin color – although this is the most obvious, it may also be the most deceiving. The author may have chosen counter-norm maid/employer pairs to employ a false sense of reality (much like the American media).

muscle mass – I believe this may actually be the best indicator of who does the work. Take a look at this first 2 photos and you will notice that both darker colored women have significantly more muscle mass than there counterparts. This would be indicative of harder and more work performed. However, this may also be deceiving since the employer may have more time to work out.

Facial information – This is another really good cue. Notice how in the second picture the woman on the right looks more charismatic. Notice her facial expression employs an authoritative look. Contrast this with the maids, “submissive” expression.

Overall health – By examining the skin quality, weight, hair quality and facial structures one can easily determine who is “taken care of” more.

There is nothing wrong with stereotyping. In fact, stereotyping is a sign of higher intellect. I believe it is an evolutionary advantage for humans to be able to recognize, analyze and predict results before we know the actual results. This is the basis of all scientific fields. For example, we use mathematics through the known theories of physics to predict whether a plane will fly before we actually build the plane.

Some will argue that stereotyping is only destructive. I would argue that it is only destructive if the stereotype is continued to be held even in spite of evidence of the contrary. Much like science, if a theory is empirically shown to be wrong than we must trash that theory and start a new. If our previously held stereotype of an individual is called into question based on observations then we should quickly reevaluate the situation.

And,to allude to what someone else mentioned, when there are feelings of shame on the part of the employer, it is the female who bears the burden. The woman who is shirking her duties and hiring a nanny,the woman who doesn’t clean and do what a proper woman should do.

I’m thinking now of Mary Poppins in the movie. I liked her because she respected herself and her position and seemed to feel more like she was a professional that the family needed, than a “servant”. And any sense of superiority she felt was toward BOTH parents, not simply the mother.

And thanks for being the only commenter so far that I’ve seen who recognizes the sexism underneath classism.