Society itself forces women into roles they may not wish to take on - be it unpaid care or anything else. I'm interested in what society needs to do in order to give women, and consequently also men, greater choice and the real ability to exercise that choice.
I don't want to rehash old arguments from elsewhere but I am interested in views relating to this topic and resolutely refuse to accept the argument that women are naturally better at providing care and therefore they should be the ones to take on this role.
Even if women are better at providing care (purely for arguments sake) should they be forced to do that for free, with no compensation for loss of opportunities or earnings with not much to look forward to but an old age of poverty?
Another thing we could look at is what has happened to our communities? This especially strikes home for me after having visited a good friend in hospital following a very bad stroke. The community he is a part of has meant that he has visitors every day, it meant that he was found within a short while of having had his stroke upstairs in his home where he lived alone and he's not going to be left in the system with nobody caring about his dignity or quality of life.
The loss of these kind of networks, where neighbours do things for one another, look out for each other, has been hugely damaging. Ad astra per aspera
But what was missing was any plan for some men to be drawn into the "care economy." But (2) reminds us that this is not just about gender balance. Previously we had hypothetically a 50/50 split between the "paid economy" and the "unpaid care economy" but now it's like, 70/30.
One response is that there's no room in our economy for people to work less (men or women) so they are not going to go back to the "unpaid care economy."
The response? Let's create the "paid care economy." So now you can get paid for giving care... but... caring for the elderly is just not "economically productive..." so it's hard to see how our current economic system can make it happen.
The really fun bit is that we don't have full employment, so there are people around who could do some caring... but right now we have no means to pay them to do so at all.
[Good care is a classic example of Baumol's cost problem so that's an extra difficulty.]
One solution is to increase taxes. Then there would be money to employ people to care for the elderly. But the figures are pretty hard to grasp...
Pay for care provided, and that person has some disposable income, perhaps they have better access to leisure opportunities, keep themselves healthier, and have a pension they can live on when they retire.
But still, I agree with you that there is no easy way to create a paid care economy, especially for adults and elderly people - especially at a time when calls for cutting taxes are getting very loud. Ad astra per aspera
A decade ago I ended up looking after sick relatives at home. Not exactly unpaid, but the paltry UK benefit payment to the carer was a mere £40 per week - deducted from the disability benefit of those you're looking after.
You could call that a comprehensive approach. Comprehensively degrading and cheap. And there were Kafka-esque ordeals in accessing agencies and services which were all but concealed from mortal view.
On the positive side, the teams of 'home helps' attending at various junctures during the day were an absolute godsend. Almost exclusively women, overworked and low-paid. But so good that I've since wondered whether improved wages, staffing and caseloads would be enough to transform this shoestring local service into a universally-applicable best practice.
That however would mean adequate funding of services. And we all know that people exist only to serve financial markets. It would be just crazy if markets existed to serve humanity.
As one of those apparently rare male carers, I can testify to the subsequent loss of opportunities. The state has an awful long way to go before it even begins to address such inadequacies. Besides, corporate welfare comes first...
Again, the same experience of some truly excellent carers who are so overworked and screwed out of being paid properly (private and public sector) through every possible loophole that can be used. The contracting out of services to the private sector has resulted in a real drop in the standards of the service provision through the way it is run and resultingly the undue pressure on the carers themselves. But carers do such an important job.
Then there are other carers who feel hugely resentful of doing work they aren't being paid properly for, or they are far too rushed and have to run off to the next job without doing all that needs to be done. Then the standards suffer and so does my relative. Ad astra per aspera
You resolutely refuse the argument that women are naturally better cares - on which grounds, precisely, Is there any serious range of studies showing that men and women are equally competent carers? The opposite is a matter of common sense that I wouldn't dismiss with a simple statement, given that I experienced that each and every single time I needed a doctor, a nurse, or help, or I witnessed someone else do.
But I agree with the second part of your statement: women should not automatically be the ones to assume caring roles. Absolutely not. And of course they should not be forced to do that for free - but I don't think this is the case when caring about one's own children. It is a personal choice to have children, not an imposed responsibility that the society should help one get rid of.
Compensation for loss of opportunities or earnings? But how can one estimate that? It's a bit like someone divorcing after 30 years of marriage and demanding compensation for all those great things one could have done during those 30 years, had he/she chosen to remain single!
This is what the French rightwing calls a society of socially-assisted, for helping the vulnerable turns into paying for every inconvenience in someone's life, even those not due to any unfair cause. The other problem besides lack of funds, is that there actually are people that do not fit into any kind of vulnerable category, and will actually be paying for the other half with their long hours, medium salaries become small after taxes, and who might actually find the thing quite unfair after all.
This is why the problem of what really is unfair inequality, and vulnerability, what really is need, and the problem of the solidarity of the society in this regard, must be very carefully considered and balanced, and not only seen from one side of the pond.
Society itself forces women into roles - generalization. Is there any proof about this?
What I didn't want was for this diary to get bogged down in the same old argument of women are biologically geared up to be X,Y,Z and therefore they should be that. Do people bring up girls in exactly the same way as boys? No. Do we dress girls and boys in the same way? Do we equally encourage them to do the same things, do we assume they will want to do different things? Do we bring up girls to take on the role of housewife, carer - without even meaning to often? These things may be starting to change but it hasn't reached my generation significantly yet, gender roles are still ingrained. Everything about our society keeps drumming home that men and women are different and we should do different things. Yes in some ways we are naturally different, not just physically but psychologically too, but people play up these assumptions of difference without evidencing them.
And again, you have a pop at me for generalising when you keep doing that. 'women are better carers' - not all of them are. Not all women are natural mothers, not all women are intuitive. Some men are much better with their kids than the mothers are.
But overwhelmingly caring responsibilities land on women. And there is so much evidence to show this, you can't keep bleating that there's no evidence as your argument against my points. This diary refers more specifically to adult care but it does just as well apply to childcare. As long as there is such a significant gender pay gap, it doesn't make financial sense to share childcare more evenly or for men to become the main carers.
No it isn't like that at all. Do people choose to care for relatives because they really want to or because they feel they are obliged to and can't see a good alternative that would ensure that their relative would still be looked after properly?
We have a male contributer further up the thread who can testify to the loss of earnings and opportunities when he was a carer. Some of this could have been alleviated by him having a decent income to live on while he was a carer. Perhaps access to free education and training to keep his skills levels up and to be more easily employable once his caring responsibilities were no longer an issue - rather than having spent 10 years as a carer, with inadequate income and no opportunities to keep skills levels up to date even if he wasn't gaining direct work experience in his chosen career. 10 years of career development lost. What about the fact that 10 years of pension and NI contributions are lost? We punish him for not offloading his relative onto the state to look after?
Have you ever been in any of these situations we are talking about? Do you have kids, do you have relatives to care for, have you been discriminated against - because everything you say here just really makes me think that you do not see how many levels there are to these issues. You've said that things aren't as black and white as me and Linca suggest re gender roles and societal discrimination - what I have been trying to show you is that there is nothing simple about it. If it was simple you'd be able to see it and you can't. Ad astra per aspera
Not bringing up boys and girls in the same way is a matter of old wisdom, or common sense. We can discuss that, but we risk to fall into discussions about transgendering and homosexuality, which are very delicate, and where I wouldn't want to go.
Otherwise, girls and boys are educated in the same classes and with the same programs today, they are more and more aware of opportunities available, and the borderline between teaching girls "girl stuff" or boys "boy stuff" and pressuring them into doing that and blocking anything else, this borderline is much more fluid and fuzzy than you seem to imagine. It's not 100% relevant to generalize your own experience, or that of all people discriminated against, to the whole of the society.
I do certainly not assume all women would be better carers than all men. What I said, was that not all women carers are forced into it, it is not all social conditioning: many prefer it, many show inclinations too. And I agreed with you that while genders are different, this should not automatically force someone into pre-defined roles. Education (which today is neutral and quite comprehensive) changed that already, adults do have a good degree of free will, and people with rigid, 19th century principles are less and less.
When you say overwhelmingly caring responsibilities land on women, I said that I suspect there is more than just imposed gender roles. I never said anything else, and I did not see something opposing this suspicion.
It is very well that you detailed what you understand by compensation for loss of earnings. In the case you state, I would be absolutely for counting those 10 years for pension, just as they do for superior education, if I'm not mistaken.
By the way, I've been myself many times in situations like the one you told about - supervisors arbitrarily preferring someone, with no reason related to work competence or performance. I reject any claim that for women would be different. At the same time, I saw many women refusing certain types of studies and jobs for others more into communication, care, or art, in spite of great work conditions and warm welcome from the guys.
Asking me whether I have been in that situation myself is irrelevant, btw. This is precisely why I told you before that all citizens, basing on their wider life experience, are entitled to give an opinion on social issues. Social debates belong to everybody, not just those who had gone through that, and who might lack a certain distance, sometimes necessary for a proper judgement to be made.
I never said it would be simple, but I did get the impression here and there, for instance when I read your phrase about gender gap monitoring, or your quite established opinions about socially imposed gender roles. I'm not contesting Left ideology, or your own opinions, and I'm not here taking it on progressives or propagating my ideas. I'm just outing my doubts about this or that issue, when I feel there is quite clear place for doubt to be acknowledge. Far from that being done against any one, or to convince any one my own ideas would be better, I honestly doubt some of these approaches are ok and I'm open to discussion, because I think social policies should be discussed rationally, by people of all sensibilities.
And it seems like we say many things that broadly mean the same but we are saying them from a different direction as though in opposition to each other. Where I generalise, I am usually referring to established evidence that shows how proportionally one group may be more likely to experience a certain type of disadvantage than another. That proportionality is an important thing. It doesn't mean that I make assumptions but I seek to deconstruct and find a cause if there is one. And where inequalities are concerned, societal attitudes, institutional discrimination, gender roles etc are frequently shown to be part of the cause. That doesn't mean there is no element of genuine choice on the part of some of that group but we can't just assume that this is what women generally prefer to do and that is ok, we won't look any further into it.
It is not irrelevant to ask you what your personal understanding through experience of a situation is because I know from experience that even if people try to understand, there are some things you have to experience to really 'get'. I'm not trying to be patronising or dismissive when I say that. And if I am trying to get my message over to you then I need to tap into something you can identify with and if I don't know what that might be, then I'm never going to be able to show you what I mean so that you 'get' it.
You think the left generalises, but the right does, with no evidence very often. This is where prejudice stems from - reinforcing stereotypes about groups whether they are true or not. Are all young black boys vicious thugs? No, but the media likes to portray them that way, and when that is the dominant message about young black boys, the drip drip drip effect really takes hold. And nobody is saying where is all the evidence that makes it ok to hold these negative attitudes about black boys and young men?
The left have to provide the evidence to prove what they are trying to raise awareness of, all the right ever seem to need to do is keep saying it and if they say it often enough it becomes the truth.
You also demonstrate some misconceptions about where some of these opinions of the 'left' come from and why we discuss them with the framing that we do and that is why I've tried to break things down in my discussions with you.
I've always been well aware that my personal experiences do not represent any whole group but they do provide insight and anecdotes are a really powerful way of demonstrating the real life impact of inequality on people. There is plenty in my experiences that can be translated across to highlight key points about discrimination and inequality in wider society. Ad astra per aspera
Btw I do think the right exaggerates just the same, my post on ideology was giving examples from all directions, from left to right to neoconservatories and economical libertarians. My whole point was that all ideologies tend to behave a bit like religion, and rational debate (fueled by a search for the factual truth) and pragmatic measures (for the debate to not go sterile, but to end by addressing the real life situation) seem to impose themselves today.
