Care Paid and Unpaid: Social, Economic and Human Rights Concerns

by Dr Joan Garvanwww.maternalhealthandwellbeing.com

Attempts to achieve gender equity have reached a new high water mark and the recognition and redistribution of care, both paid and unpaid, stands at the centre of this arena. The Australian secretariat – Economic Security 4 Women – have produced landmark reports, both scoping and quantifying the value of the ‘care economy’ and, more recently, Professor Marilyn Waring addressed the topic of care and dignity in the annual Pamela Denoon Lecture Series. Here below are key points from these papers and central messages made by Waring.

Two significant Australian reports on the care economy have been produced over recent years: Scoping the Australian Care Economy A Gender Perspective (2010) and Counting on Care Work in Australia (2012). These projects are concerned with the lifelong economic well-being of women. Though they are particular to Australia and reference local government policies, programs and strategies, they draw from an international body of research and deal with common concerns.

The first report references the importance of data collection and brings attention to landmark work in the Massachusetts case study that used United States Census and Time Use data to measure both paid and unpaid care work [1]. The author Valerie Adams notes tensions between unpaid work, voluntary work and paid work. She draws attention to the ‘relational’ nature of care work, and references the concept of ‘provisioning’ for human need. The report used the notion of ‘care work’ to depict both the paid and unpaid sectors. Adams considers definitions and current issues in the Australian care economy. She surveys relevant government policy and makes numerous recommendations for further research and data collection.

Counting on Care Work in Australia (2012) further develops this arena by quantifying the value of the paid and unpaid care sectors to the Australian economy. In 2009-10 twenty per cent of all paid employment in Australia was in the care sector. Care workers receive 96 cents for every dollar earned by the average Australian worker, and female workers earn on average 84 cents in the dollar to male care workers. The report valued the unpaid care sector at $650 billion with sixty per cent of this contribution being made by women aged 25 to 64. The report furthermore outlined and quantified government investment in the care sector. The authors make recommendations for further work in light of: demographic change; inter-generational concerns; and the continuing economic and life course implications for women.

Marilyn Waring prefaced her recent lecture Care and Dignity: Major challenges to economics and human rights (transcript and video available online: http://pameladenoonlecture.net/) with the proposition that over millennia care has been the primary responsibility of women. She has changed her emphasis since the publication of Counting for Nothing: What men value and what women are worth (1988) [2] and now frames these concerns within a Human Rights perspective.

Waring raised problems for the use of ‘care’ as an analytical category, arguing that most often carers are responsible for a myriad of associated tasks that could be lost through a continuing association with unpaid work. Nevertheless, drawing from studies from British Colombia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the United Kingdom, she sets out a strident case whereby the human rights of care givers are being flouted. She and others set up a questionnaire for a Commonwealth report drawing from Amartya Sen’s capability approach to human rights which references choice, rest, health, meals, work and political involvement, and found multiple breeches.

With governments around the world withdrawing from social and welfare programs these kind of arguments are critical if we aren’t going to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Care, both paid and unpaid, are clearly significant to the health and well-being of the community, but further to this gender equality will remain allusive if we don’t see transformational change. Unfortunately the issues are complex and though there is increasing reference to the work of unpaid care in terms of achieving gender equity, there is a need to bolster and popularize the debates.

References

[1] Albelda, R., Duffy, M., Folbre, N. (2009), Counting on Care Work: Human Infrastructure in Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts, MA, Massachusetts

[2] In a recent anthology, Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjornholt and Ailsa McKay, 31 authors from nine countries outline the wide ranging impact and resonance of Professor Waring’s work as well as the current frontiers of feminist economics.

 

 

Crisis Compounded? Legal Aid, Feminist Advocacy, and the Budget Cuts in British Columbia, Canada

By Agnieszka Doll

Since 2002, the successive governments of the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) have enacted large-scale budget cuts to state-funded legal aid. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives researchers reported that in 2002 provincial funding for legal aid has been cut by 40 percent (Brewin & Stephens, 2004; Govender & Milne, April 9, 2013) The most severe reductions were implemented in areas of family law, poverty law, and immigration legal aid. In fact, by the 2010 the legal aid representation in poverty and immigration cases was completely eliminated, while in family law, such representation has been limited to high risk cases (Brewin & Govender, 2010; Brewin & Stephens, 2004). In addition to difficulties in receiving legal representation, access to legal information has been also limited by changing eligibility threshold, substituting direct contact with lawyers with online and telephone service, and reducing the number of legal clinics. While legal aid in BC was considered insufficient even before the reductions, the cuts further deepened the crisis by limiting access to justice for the most marginalized populations (Morrow, Hankivsky, & Varcoe, 2004).

Feminist scholars (Morrow et al., 2004) have specifically argued that the cuts have a clear gender dimension. Firstly, prevalence of poverty among women, including those who experience intimate violence, renders women particularly disadvantaged by legal aid cuts as they often rely on state-resources for their access to justice (Sarophim, 2010). Secondly, the implemented cuts predominately targeted services related to family, civil or poverty law, which women tend to use more often that, for instance, services related to criminal law that received no similar cuts and that tend to be more frequently utilized by men. Third, concurrent implementation of changes limiting state funding for women’s organizations and subjecting funding to competitive distribution model, shattered existing infrastructure of research and advocacy-based organizations that are often unable to compete with for-profit organizations for service provision (Knight & Rodgers, 2012).

In the midst of those changes, I conducted (between 2008-2009) a qualitative study in one B.C women’s organization through which I explored how the organization’s staff experience delivering law-related services to women or helping these women access justice in the context of the budget cuts. I was also interested in learning about the extent to which existing legal services meet specific needs of immigrant women who experience intimate violence.

My interviews with the organization’s frontline staff and its administrators, as well as a focus group and hours of observations revealed three major findings regarding the consequences of government cuts on service offered by the organization:

1)      The organization went through severe employment shifts. For example, at the time of my research, the Victim Assistance Program – designed to assist women who experience abuse in navigating their criminal cases through the criminal justice system – lost all of its previous employees and was run by a new staff. Such shifts in the staff composition complicate the organization’s court presence; the previously established relations with the court personnel often need to be rebuilt, which takes significant amount of time and effort. Thus, the cuts contributed to shattering the organization’s credibility as legal advocates by affecting its ability to remain visible to justice and police administration.

2)      The organization became dependent on volunteer work. For example, the women’s center, which is often the first contact point for women seeking legal services, was forced to substitute the loss of three fourth of its professional staff with work of volunteers. This restructuring has consequences on the quality of information received by women who come for legal guidance. Since volunteers provide their help occasionally, their skills are mostly used to support the basic functioning of the center not to provide information about legal aid service to women in need. Often, they do not have the related professional training.

3)      Given changes in priority areas funded by the government, the organization adjusted their own services accordingly. Previous focus on feminist political awareness raising about the nature of gender inequalities or feminist advocacy gave way to emphasis on short-term relief services provided to the victims of gender violence. As organizations became forced to compete with each other for resources, they started to internalize the idea of self-sufficiency as their key for survival. Thus, instead of sharing resources such as translation services, etc. with other organizations, applying for own funding came to be regarded as a strategy of ensuing inflow of additional money to the organization.

One important implication of my study I would like to highlight is the impact of budget cuts on feminist organizations’ potential to pursue advocacy for women in the courts, in the police, and in other law enforcing institutions. While the budget cuts to legal services evidently degenerated the position of women experiencing violence who need to represent themselves in courts and often surround their rights, truly successful legal representation amounts to more then just having a lawyer. It would not be novel to say that the gender stereotypes still prevail in the criminal justice system; the domestic violence cases are considered of a lower importance to other criminal cases, and the knowledge of intimate violence by court, police authorities, but also by lawyers is often not sufficient. Thus, survivors-centered advocacy shall be considered as complementary to prosecution or to other legal procedures resulting from or linked to gender violence so the needs of women are addressed by judicial decisions (Nichols, 2013). I would like to also suggest that individual-level advocacy pursued on the ground by feminist advocates is instrumental for fair and equal access to justice for women, similar, as it is to the needs-based access to legal aid. The structural –level feminist advocacy needs to continue to expose the link between the gendered socio-structural inequalities and gender violence. Those important dimensions of women’s and anti-violence movements have been seriously jeopardized by the discussed budget cuts. The quest for funding had the effect of pushing women’s organizations to depoliticize and subvert feminist ideas about the relationship between gender, violence, and structural inequalities and, instead, adopt “a Band-Aid” solution to gender violence and channel their advocacy efforts. This way, by undermining the potential for feminist advocacy through budgets cuts, the B.C. governments made effective steps towards reinforcing gender order through legal means and within legal system.

Bibliography:

Brewin, A., & Govender, K. (2010). Rights-Based Legal Aid: Rebuilding BC’s Broken System. Retrieved from Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives website: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC Office/2010/11/CCPA_Legal_Aid_web.pdf

Brewin, A., & Stephens, L. (2004). Legal Aid Denied: Women and the Cuts to Legal Services in B.C. BC Office: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and West Coast LEAF.

Govender, K., & Milne, K. (April 9, 2013). BC’s Publicly Funded Legal Aid is in Crisis. Retrieved from Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives website: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/bc%E2%80%99s-publicly-funded-legal-aid-crisis

Knight, M., & Rodgers, K. (2012). “The Government Is Operationalizing Neo-liberalism”: Women’s Organizations, Status of Women Canada, and the Struggle for Progressive Social Change in Canada. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 20(4), 266-282. doi: 10.1080/08038740.2012.747786

Morrow, M., Hankivsky, O., & Varcoe, C. (2004). Women and Violence: The Effects of Dismantling the Welfare State. Critical Social Policy, 24(3), 358-384. doi: 10.1177/0261018304044364

Nichols, A. J. (2013). Meaning-Making and Domestic Violence Victim Advocacy: An Examination of Feminist Identities, Ideologies, and Practices. Feminist Criminology, 8(3), 177-201. doi: 10.1177/1557085113482727

Sarophim, J. (2010). Access Barred: The Effects of the Cuts and Restructuring of Legal Aid in B.C. on Women Attempting to Navigate the Provincial Family Court System. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 26(2), 451-472.

No Room at the Inn? Older LGBT individuals’ unmet housing needs

Stonewall Housing, in conjunction with Age UK, Opening Doors London and Rainbow Hamlets, is holding a major Older LGBT Housing conference on 18th June 2014. Entitled ‘Bona Latties’ (Polari for Good Housing) it aims to give voice to older LGBT individuals’ housing wants and needs and create a space to discuss them with providers. Older LGBT unmet housing needs are a problem in the following ways:

  • Mainstream housing provision for older people is perceived as heteronormative, homophobic, biphobic and transphobic(1)(2)(3);
  • There is a lack of specialist housing, i.e. housing run for older LGBT individuals, by LGBT individuals (4)(5)(6);
  • There is a lack of specific housing choices for older LGBT, e.g. those who want gender specific housing (e.g. men/women only), which many older individuals, especially older lesbians, want (7). It’s an outdated ‘one size fits all’ (8) approach;
  • There is a lack of specialist domiciliary care for older LGBT people, with the exception of Pride in Care UK. Many older lesbians and gay men in particular re-closet themselves in their own homes, for fear of prejudice from carers (9);
  • There is a lack of services to support older LGBT in setting up housing cooperatives where they provide one another with reciprocal support and/or buy in care which is respectful of, and meets, their needs.

As a result of these unmet needs, older LGBT individuals are left with a stark choice: ‘the prospect either of living alone without support or having to enter [sheltered housing and] care homes which will not meet their needs.’ (10) We say ‘it gets better’ to younger LGBT people. And for many that may be true. But the sad the truth is that in older age it gets worse. As much as we should address the needs of LGBT youth, we also need to address the needs of older LGBT individuals as well. Schools are a problem for LGBT youth. Sheltered housing and care homes are a problem for LGBT older people. We must tackle both.

References

(1) Ward, R., Pugh, S. and Price, E. (2010) Don’t look back? Improving health and social care service delivery for older LGB users. London: EHRC;
(2) Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., et al (2013) ‘Physical and Mental Health of Transgender Older Adults: An At-Risk and Underserved Population.The Gerontologist doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt021First published online: March 27, 2013;
(3) Jones, R. (2010) ‘Troubles with bisexuality in health and social care.’ In Jones, Rebecca L. and Ward, Richard (eds) LGBT Issues: Looking beyond Categories. Policy and Practice in Health and Social Care, pp 42-55, Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.
(4) Musingarimi, Primrose (2008). Housing Issues Affecting Older Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People in the UK: A policy brief. London: The International Longevity Centre – UK (ILCUK)
(5) Carr, S. and Ross, P. (2013) Assessing current and future housing and support options for older LGB people. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
(6) LGBT Movement Advancement Project (MAP) and Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders (SAGE) (2012) Improving the Lives of Transgender Older Adults: Recommendations for Policy and Practice. New York: Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders and National Center for Transgender Equality.
(7) Westwood, S. (submitted): ‘“We see it as being Heterosexualised, being put into a Care Home”: Residential care concerns and preferences of ageing sexual minorities.’ Ageing and Society.
(8) Eaglesham, Phil (2010) ‘The Policy Maze and LGBT Issues: Does One Size Fit All?’, in R. Jones & R. Ward (eds) LGBT Issues: Looking Beyond Categories, pp 1-15. Edinburgh: Dunedin.
(9) Knocker, S. (2012) Perspectives on ageing lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
(10) Guasp, A. (2011) Lesbian, gay and bisexual people in later life. London: Stonewall.

 

‘Counting the Costs? Resources, Austerity and Older LGBT People’

The ‘Minding the Knowledge Gap’ ESRC funded seminar series held its fourth seminar at the University of Surrey last week. This seminar, called ‘Counting the Costs? Resources, Austerity and Older LGBT People’ addressed the material, financial and social resource implications of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) ageing, particularly in times of austerity. It was well-attended by participants from a range of backgrounds: LGBT individuals (in all their diversity, including some in older age); advocates and activists; academics; social policy makers; and the police. There were two speakers. Dr Noah Uhrig, from the Institute for Social & Economic Research, University of Essex, gave a fascinating talk on ‘Poverty and Material Well-being of LGBT elders’, somehow managing to make some very complicated statistic not only accessible but also enjoyable. Audience members gazed in avid fascinating and still wanted more at the end. The second speaker, Dr Martin Mitchell, NatCen Social Research presented on ‘Not just “a nice thing to do”: Marginalisation and hardship for LGBT older people in the context of austerity cuts.’

Noah spoke of recent research project on poverty and sexual orientation (constrained by the usual problems with representative sampling of a ‘hidden population’) which suggested significant material differences in later life for LGB individuals compared with heterosexual individuals, and between one another. A key feature was the suggestion that older lesbians were materially advantaged compared with both older heterosexual individuals and older gay men. Noah’s data – which he bravely presented, anticipating the response it would meet – were, not surprisingly, hotly contested by many of the lesbian members of the audience. They found the idea of older lesbian material advantage counter-intuitive. Discussions raised issues of: women’s relative lower earnings to men; women’s greater representation in (lower paid) public services work, especially care work; women (including lesbians!) taking time out of work to have children, and to perform other informal unpaid care work (including for parents and grandchildren); women being much more likely to be in part-time paid work (rather than full-time work) while also performing unpaid informal care work (1). Noah acknowledged the tensions provoked by the data, and plans on conducting further analyses. We look forward to hearing more!

Martin then spoke of the double-edged sword of austerity cuts. Older LGBT individuals are more likely to need support from those public and voluntary sector services (health and social care, informal and formal social support) which are currently subjected to drastic cuts in funding (2). Those cuts in services impose increased pressures on an already pressured cluster of minoritised individuals, meaning they have a greater need for services, at the very time when there are fewer services available. Lack of material and social resources have profound implications for the well-being of older LGBT individuals (3) (4).

Afternoon discussions returned to the issue of gender (again unsurprisingly) and to the need to continuously unpack the ‘LGBT’ acronym (5), to appreciate how older lesbians, gay men, bisexual women and men, and trans individuals are particularly affected by the material and social resource implications of later life. The plight of the Opening Doors London project, supporting 1,000 older LGBT individuals in the London area, and which has lost all of its funding, highlighted the lived realities of the implications of austerity cuts. Towards the end of the day two distinct responses to resourcing projects for older LGBT in later life: the neoliberal model of private and national state engagement; a more localist, communitarian approach involving local LGBT groups and local government. It was mentioned that in Australia and some parts of the USA, older LGBT have been designated a ‘special needs group’ (with all the complications of such a categorization) and as such are eligible for state funding for local projects.

Much food for thought, and much work to be done, but all-in-all, it was a stimulating and thought-provoking day, made so by the contributions of all who attended.

(1)    Arber, Sara (2006) ‘Gender and Later Life: Change, Choice and Constraints’. In J. Vincent, C. Phillipson and M. Downs (eds) The Futures of Old Age, pp. 54-61,London: Sage.

(2)     King, Andrew (2013) ‘Prepare for Impact? Reflecting on Knowledge Exchange Work to Improve Services for Older LGBT People in Times of Austerity.’ Social Policy and Society / FirstView Article / November 2013, pp 1 – 13 DOI: 10.1017/S1474746413000523, Published online: 19 November 2013

(3)    Fredriksen-Goldsen, et al (2013a) ‘Physical and Mental Health of Transgender Older Adults: An At-Risk and Underserved Population.’ The Gerontologist doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt021First published online: March 27, 2013

(4)    Fredriksen-Goldsen, Karen I., et al. (2013b). ‘The physical and mental health of lesbian, gay male, and bisexual (LGB) older adults: the role of key health indicators and risk and protective factors.’  The Gerontologist, 53(4):664-675.

(5)    Ward, Richard, Rivers, Ian. and Sutherland, Mike (eds) (2012). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Ageing: Biographical Approaches for Inclusive Care and Support.  London: Jessica Kingsley

 

 

 

Paid Housework? Wages for, Wages Against.

Lawyer and ex parliamentarian Giulia Bongiorno is proposing the introduction of a salary for women who do housework as a way of “changing the direction” of the domestic violence debate in Italy. The original impetus behind the initiative is the acknowledgement that for many women lack of economic independence remains an important factor affecting their decision to leave an abusive relationship. “Obviously”, the proposal adds, “the salary cannot be guaranteed to women only as victims of domestic violence… The issue is another one: it is necessary to rethink the housewife’s role tout court: it is necessary to gratify and not humiliate the woman who chooses to be one”.[1] Hence the proposal for a salary to be provided either by the state or, in the case of very affluent households, by the well-off partner. Beyond domestic violence, Bongiorno’s hope is that the economic and social recognition bestowed on housework will in time enable it to be become “gender-free”.

There is much to be said about the link made here between domestic violence and women’s “invisible” labour but I’d like to briefly reflect on another aspect of the proposal, that is the fact that while referring to the normative, jurisprudential and administrative recognition that housework has received in Italy in the past three decades, the proposal is silent about an apparently similar initiative. This is the Wages for Housework campaign of the 1970s, which Italian feminists promoted for over a decade and was in turn linked to similar campaigns in Britain and the United States. I said apparently because these are very different initiatives in terms of both the premise on which they are based and the arguments they make. The common point is the recognition of domestic labour as work but this is where the similarity ends.

For the Wages for Housework campaigners, this work was certainly not a woman’s “choice”: it corresponded to a particular division of labour under capitalism which separated the sphere of production from that of reproduction, assigning (capitalist) value to the former while considering the latter unproductive. Hence, the point was to make domestic labour visible and show how crucial it was to capitalist accumulation rather than celebrating it as a woman’s choice. As Federici (1975) put it

“To say that we want wages for housework is to expose the fact that housework is already money for capital, that capital has made and makes money out of our cooking, smiling, fucking. At the same time, it shows that we have cooked, smiled, fucked throughout the years not because it was easier for us than for anybody else, but because we did not have any other choice”.

The title of her essay, Wages Against Housework, conveyed the struggle that recognising this labour as work comported, that is the need to valorise it while subverting the processes that made it “work”, thus starting to address the separation between production and reproduction. Examples of such provocations included, in addition to the demand of wages for housework, the demand that social services be organised at community level while paid by the state so to retain control and autonomy over their nature and quality (Dalla Costa and James, 1972). One such demand in England took the form of community-run nurseries, the same communities which are currently been dismantled under austerity (Barbagallo and Beuret, 2012).

Thirty years later both Dalla Costa and Federici have reflected on the limits of the wage struggle as conducive to “women’s liberation”, while also dispelling the myth that “due to increased women’s employment, unpaid domestic work and gender based hierarchies have vanished”, pointing instead to the need for self-valorization initiatives outside the logic of the market and capital (Federici and Barbagallo, 2012). This is not to say that domestic and care labour should no longer be considered work. Indeed, as Selma James has recently pointed out ‘The refusal of feminists toˇacknowledge that work enabled Tony Blair to call mothers “workless” and made way for welfare reform’s definition of aˇgoodˇmother: she goes out to a job, even below the minimum wage, with whatever childcare she can afford’ (The Guardian, 7 March 2014). The point is rather to show how problematic it is to argue for wages for housework without a political perspective that sees it as part of a system of capital accumulation which is based on the separation between the productive and reproductive spheres.

At a very basic level, providing wages without confronting the isolation, repetition and relentlessness this labour comports (and therefore without affecting the underlying social relations) is likely to reinforce the view of housework as women’s work. And the suggestion in the proposal that the wealthy spouse pays for the housework carried out by the less well-off certainly points in this direction, not in that of housework becoming “gender free”. But at a time when austerity is squeezing the costs of social reproduction to the bare minimum, it is even more important we look at the ways in which the social reproductive field is being re-configured, particularly at the new division of reproductive labour worldwide and its relationship to the productive sphere. To argue that domestic and care labour is work means to acknowledge and trace the multifarious ways in which it contributes to making (capitalist) value. Arguing for the remuneration of such labour without challenging the basis on which it contributes to capitalist processes of valorisation is a very different kind of politics from that envisaged and practiced by Wages for Housework activists.

1 http://www.doppiadifesa.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Proposta-_Stipendio-antiviolenza_.pdf

Sexual identity and care home provision: some reflections on the research process

My colleagues and I at Swansea University have recently completed a mixed-methods study into the provision of inclusive care to older lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people in residential and nursing care environments in Wales – an elongated title for saying, ‘how well are older LGB recognised and cared for in care homes?’ We know from the literature that heterosexism in residential care provision can mask the sexual health needs, diversity and desires of older LGB residents. Prior research from Australia and the United States has identified institutional and historical barriers that prevent older people ‘coming out’, or identifying as LGB to care providers (Barrett, 2008; Jackson, Johnson & Roberts, 2008; Knockel, Quam & Croghan, 2010; Tolley & Ranzijn, 2006). Our research was funded by the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (NISCHR) and had a unique focus on Wales as a UK nation with devolved responsibility for providing health and social care to its citizens, including older people. Residential and nursing homes (private and local authority-owned) from across Wales took part. Two methods were used to gather staff perspectives on inclusive care —self-completed questionnaires (121 respondents), and focus groups with care staff and managers (5 groups) from 32 organisations. Other methods included: content analysis of Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW) Inspection reports (383 reports) to identify content pertaining to sexuality, sexual health and LGB identities; and, semi-structured interviews with 29 older LGB-identifying adults about their hopes and expectations for future care. The final report is available online and provides an overview of the key findings and recommendations: http://www.swan.ac.uk/humanandhealthsciences/research/research-impact/lgb-residential-care-report/

What follows are some brief reflections on the process of involving care organisations in the research – reflective comments on the research process that do not always make the final edit of reports and papers but may help steer future research in this domain.

Willingness to participate and learn – We initially anticipated that seeking care home participation would be the biggest challenge in recruitment because of the politically-charged nature of the topic and our concern that staff and managers would interpret our research endeavours as a critical appraisal of their practice.  Instead, we were struck by the enthusiasm of staff and managers to participate. Using a random sampling method, we invited 51 organisations to participate with 19 declining. Most of these homes declined because of impeding closures that created logistical barriers to their involvement. For some staff groups, participation in a focus group was framed as an informal learning opportunity into an area that receives little time and attention, an unexpected but positive outcome. Across focus groups, there was general agreement of a ‘need to know more’ about sexual difference and LGB histories. Participating staff members conveyed an awareness of progressive shifts in legislation and social attitudes but in equal measures expressed a willingness to be more mindful of the sexual biographies of residents in their care.

Sexuality, dementia and everyday care – While our research focused on sexual identity and social inclusion, a connected and equally pertinent topic that frequently emerged in focus groups was the complexity of balancing issues of sexual expression, dementia and informed consent. Staff elaborated on the challenges of negotiating sexual relationships and intimate contact between residents with declining mental capacity alongside responding to the often divided opinions of family members. Listening to these accounts of complex care deepened our appreciation for staff members’ commitment to respecting the rights and choices of residents in their care and to continually ‘do the right thing’. It also brought home the ethical complexity of providing care in these settings for employees who were in receipt of a low financial reward just above the minimal wage with little professional recognition.

Missing voices from the research – Staff views and accounts conveyed through the research represent predominantly White perspectives. The majority of participating staff and mangers were white, heterosexual women born in Wales and of mainly Christian background. This clearly did not match our observations of staffing groups when entering homes – we noticed many participating homes employed staff from black and ethnically diverse groups, including individuals from African and Asian migrant communities. We were limited to the staff available to speak to us between rotating shifts and group membership was often facilitated by senior staff members operating as ‘gatekeepers’ for their organisations. It is difficult to pinpoint whether individual staff from migrant and ethnically diverse communities opted not to participate for personal or religious reasons or whether they were not approached to participate; we can only speculate about possible barriers to participation. Ethical requirements prevented us from actively approaching individual staff to participate. Finally, we did not anticipate the eagerness of ancillary staff members (such as cleaners, kitchen staff etc.) to have a say in the research. It became increasingly clear that their various duties involved regular contact with residents and their views were of equal importance in the provision of inclusive care. We confess to underestimating the validity and contribution of these staff members’ perspectives; food for thought for future research.

I hope the above reflections are of some benefit to other researchers and practitioners engaged in research in an area of increasing interest. Putting these observations to paper has been valuable for me in capturing the often sidelined messages about research into organisations providing care to others.

Barrett, C. (2008). My People: A project exploring the experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex seniors in aged-care services Retrieved 16th October 2009, from http://www.matrixguildvic.org.au/MyPeopleReport2008.pdf

Jackson, N.C., Johnson, M.J. & Roberts, R. (2008). The potential impact of discrimination: fears of older gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals living in small- to moderate-sized cities on long-term health care. Journal of Homosexuality, 54(3), 325-339.

Knockel, K.A., Quam, J.K. & Corghan, C.F. (2011). Are Old Lesbian and Gay People Well Served? Understanding the Perceptions, Preparation, and Experiences of Aging Services Providers. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 30(3), 370-389.

Tolley, C. & Ranzijn, R. (2006). Predictors of heteronormativity in residential aged care facilities. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 25(4), 209-214.

About the author: Paul Willis is Senior Lecturer in social work in the College of Human and Health Sciences at Swansea University. His research interests include ageing, sexuality and social care; wellbeing and identity construction of LGBT youth; and social inclusion in organisations. Email: P.B.Willis@swansea.ac.uk

Intergenerational programmes and LGBT people

How can LGBT people of different age groups support each other? This is a key question that the ESRC seminar ‘Intergenerational issues and LGBT people’ held at Oxford on 9th September 2013 aimed to address. The seminar brought together around 40 people – including academics, policy-makers, service providers, third-sector organisations, and advocacy groups – among them younger and older LGBT people.

Older and younger LGBT people have grown up under vastly different socio-historical circumstances. The priorities of needs and concerns of different age groups would be different. Even within the ‘community’ itself, especially among gay men, the focus on youth means that ageism against older people can be rampant. At the same time, reverse ageism against younger people, characterizing younger people as shallow and worry-free, is not uncommon. All these can lead to an impression that younger and older people are marked by ‘differences’ and different generations of LGBT people are torn apart from each other.

However, it needs to be recognized there are similar difficulties both groups face. Despite the speed and extent to which society has progressed on LGBT issues, both older and younger LGBT people still face minority stress on a daily basis, which is related to a range of mental health issues, such as social isolation, discrimination and depression. Service providers, be they educational and employment providers in the case of younger LGBT people, or care homes or day care centres in the case of older LGBT people, still work on heteronormative assumptions. Staff in such settings generally remain ignorant and unaware of, if not hostile towards, LGBT issues.

The International Longevity Centre (ILC) thus argued the case for intergenerational projects as a way to bring older and younger LGBT people together. It was argued that the range of benefits can include:

•    Unifying a diverse community;
•    Reducing age stereotypes;
•    Development of social skills and confidence;
•    Development of practical skills;
•    Exposure of young LGBT people to older LGBT role models;
•    Improved understanding of the needs of older and younger LGBT people;
•    Preservation and increased awareness of LGBT history;
•    Sharing lifecourse experiences and providing social support. (ILC 2011: 5)

It has been repeatedly pointed out in previous posts (http://revaluingcare.net/older-peoples-day-including-older-lgbt-people/, http://revaluingcare.net/a-darker-side-to-care/ ), that older LGBT people can be particularly in need of formal care because they are less likely to have children and more likely to live alone than their heterosexual counterparts. On a point related to this, The ILC argued that intergenerational projects can provide older LGBT people with the opportunities ‘to develop informal relations with younger LGBT people that could ultimately lessen the need for heavy reliance on social care providers, or may help in negotiating relationships with these’ (ILC 2011: 10).

Of course this is not to say it is easy to bring different generations of LGBT people together. But if intergenerational projects could help to bring about a more caring LGBT community that is defined more by empathy and mutual understanding across age groups, how it can be done would deserve more discussions.

Reference:
International Longevity Centre (2011) Celebrating Intergenerational Diversity An evaluation of three projects working with younger and older Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. http://www.ilcuk.org.uk/files/Report_1.pdf

Yiu Tung Suen is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (E-mail address: suenyiutung@cuhk.edu.hk).

WeAreOne by Ambreena Manji

Who Cares?

And behind me I hear the footfalls of countless generations and ancestors. And around me the living community of my people, whose woes are my woes; whose moments of joy are mine.

Kofi Awoonor, Ghanaian poet murdered at Westgate, Nairobi on 21st September 2013

On 19th September 2013, at the Annual Lecture of the British Institute in Eastern Africa in Nairobi, Dr Ann Stewart delivered a lecture entitled ‘Caring about care: Recognising and regulating body work in a global market’. Based on her recently published book, Ann gave a compelling and wide ranging talk about forms of care and asked the question ‘who do we care about and how’? The discussions that followed the lecture were vibrant and engaged, the sorts of critical conversations about labour and about gender that I had hoped would come about in my time at the Institute.

On 21st September, at lunchtime, a terrorist siege began of an upmarket shopping mall in Nairobi, Westgate, a mile or two from the Institute. Everyone reading this will have seen the terrifying images. For well-off Kenyans who have become used to hearing the occasional distant grenade explode in the east of the city, in a crowded church or bar or bus station, the events mark a sea change. Here Kenya’s wealthy elite and the international community are the target and terror is at the heart of our lives. I’ve heard it said countless times this week that, looking at photographs of the attack taken in the mall, many of us recognised shop fronts, escalators, sweet stalls, even marble tiles on which we have trodden. As elsewhere, the mall is at once a response to, and a perpetuation of, a city segregated between the wealthy and the destitute. Reborn each day, sparkling clean, its shelves restocked with international branded goods, the Nairobi mall succeeds in making invisible the messy reality of life in a third world city. It would be deeply dishonest to deny that those who clean the mall, serve its meals, guard it – in short, those who provide us with our accustomed care and comfort – go unseen, unknown, unheeded.

Yet in the past three days we have heard stories of supermarket staff, faced with terrified customers running into the shop when the grenades and gunfire began, shepherding people into store rooms, barricading them in to conceal them from the attackers, hiding them behind boxes in stock rooms. Despite our own bleak assessment of ourselves as deeply divided along ethnic lines, as a society riven by long running racial divisions, in the terrifying and traumatic siege of Westgate mall many have commented on the intersecting unities we have discovered this week. An elderly Indian lady, recently returned home from England to care for her elderly mother in Nairobi, and desperate to do something to help, went down to the perimeters of the mall to serve tea and food to the police and media who have worked without a break for days. There she met an African woman who for many years has come to the mall everyday to sell tea and food to its cleaners, waitresses, guards. For the past three days, these two women have teamed up to cook and bring food to those working outside, plastic bags on the ground, car boot full of supplies wide open and elderly mother, still needing to be cared for, in the front seat watching them work.

But the events of the past three days have also made visible that which the well-off and the comfortable work so very hard not to see. The private security guard paid the minimum wage carried our children to safety through a pool of blood; the waitress whom we never greeted in three years of coffee drinking hid us in the cafe kitchen; the cleaner whom we never knew of ushered us to safety through a back exit.

This past three days, Ann’s question at the BIEA lecture – who do we care about – has been constantly in my mind. And as we slip back into our mutual distrust and distance, perhaps we might remember to ask, who cares about (and for) us?

Ambreena Manji

http://www.biea.ac.uk/director-professor-ambreena-manji/

 

 

Older lesbians in residential and nursing care

A central feature of care in the fourth age is the medicalisation of ageing bodies, the emphasis on collective bodily care and the power dynamics involved in that care1. An aspect of these dynamics that has not yet been explored is the intersection of age, gender and sexuality in the provision of personal care in residential settings for older people. Single, childless, older women are most likely to populate these settings2. These women are also more likely to be lesbians, both because older lesbians and gay men are earlier and disproportionate users of formal social care, and because older lesbians are more likely than older heterosexual women to be single and childless3. Lesbians have often found the processes of self-disclosure in health contexts a treacherous terrain to navigate in earlier life, many avoiding screening/treatment and/or choosing not to disclose their sexual identities to medical professionals, particularly during intimate physical examinations4. Some younger(er) lesbians also report feeling vulnerable to the heteronormative gaze in those gay commercial contexts frequented by heterosexual women5.

Residential care for older people – heteronormative at best, homophobic at worst6, is situated at the intersection between these two sites of vulnerability. It is also a site of social exclusion where ageing bodies are hidden away and where dependency can mean it is less likely someone will complain about their care or otherwise assert their rights, especially people from minority communities7.

Care spaces in the home or in sheltered accommodation or residential care have long been recognised as complicating the notion of the public-private divide, being both public work spaces and private home spaces. For an older lesbian this becomes even more complicated. Home care which goes public no longer affords the sanctuary of private identity performance and management. Yet at the same time, because it is home care, often in care spaces where the very old older person is hidden away from the public eye, some of the legal protections which she might have been able to mobilise for herself also do not apply, when the disciplinary norms of social relationships dominate. In this way an older lesbian can be disadvantaged in multiple ways by a home that has gone public and a public space that operates on private, heteronormative, lines.

(1)  Twigg, Julia. (2004) ‘The body, gender, and age: Feminist insights in social gerontology.’ Journal of Aging Studies 1891): 59-73.

(2)  Arber, Sara (2006) ‘Gender and Later Life: Change, Choice and Constraints’. In J. Vincent, C. Phillipson and M. Downs (eds) The Futures of Old Age, pp. 54-61, London: Sage.

(3)  Heaphy, Brian Yip, Andrew and Thompson, Debbie (2004) ‘Ageing In A Non-Heterosexual Context’, Ageing & Society, 24(6): 881-902; Stonewall (2011) Lesbian, Gay Bisexual People in Later Life, London: Stonewall.

(4)  Hunt, Ruth, and Julie Fish. “Prescription for Change: Lesbian and bisexual women’s health check 2008.” Stonewall and De Montford University (2008).

(5)  Casey, Mark (2004) ‘ De-dyking Queer Space(s): Heterosexual Female Visibility in Gay and Lesbian Spaces’, Sexualities, 7(4): 446-461

(6)  Ward, Richard, Pugh, Stephen and Price, Elizabeth (2011) Don’t look back? Improving health and social care service delivery for older LGB users, London: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

(7)  Aronson, Jane and Neysmith, Sheila M. (2001) ‘Manufacturing Social Exclusion in the Home Care Market’, Canadian Public Policy – Analyse De Politiques, 27(2): 154-165

Children and Families Bill 2013: Helping Parents to Reconcile Paid Work and Care?

The Children and Families Bill 2013 has just had its second reading in the House of Lords. One of the aims is to encourage fathers involvement in childcare and accordingly, fifty weeks of the twelve months maternity leave is to become available as parental leave to eligible parents (see the Bill 032 2013-14 as bought from the Commons, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0032/14032.pdf, s89(1)). Increasing flexibility for parents may seem positive, but it is unlikely to result in a huge increase in fathers’ involvement in childcare. Indeed, it has been predicted that only 2% of eligible fathers will use any of the parental leave (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/childrenandfamilies/130307/pm/130307s01.htm, column 137).

With such small predicted uptake, it is questionable if the Bill could approach the reconciliation of work and care differently to better encourage fathers’ participation in childcare. The legislation currently considers care as something that needs to be accommodated in the workplace only occasionally, mainly during pregnancy and childbirth, and then fleetingly throughout the rest of childhood. However, these are obviously not the only times when people will need to combine paid work and their caring responsibilities. As has often been noted in the care literature, caring is an everyday and universal occurrence (see for example, M. Fineman The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency (The New Press, 2004)). Acknowledging this may allow and encourage fathers and others to become more involved in providing care. Therefore, an overarching change to the regulation of employment which would better accommodate caring responsibilities may have been more beneficial for fathers and all carers.

Recognising the universal nature of care may ensure that its importance is acknowledged. Generally, paid work is seen as the priority and any caring responsibilities are considered obstacles to this. Indeed, although much work has been done in regards to the reconciliation of paid work and caring responsibilities, most of it comes from an employment centric vantage. If the workplace is to better accommodate carers, the importance of care must be recognised. Caring can no longer be seen as an obstacle to employment, but as an everyday occurrence that will inevitably affect the workforce. Nicole Busby’s A Right to Care? Unpaid Care Work in European Employment Law (Oxford University Press, 2011) has been a vital contribution in this regard. She advocates a right to provide care alongside paid employment. Accordingly, rather than begrudgingly accommodating care when it cannot be avoided, it would be recognised as vitally important work which will regularly impact upon all people’s lives.

Better accommodating care and acknowledging its impact upon paid work may encourage more men, including fathers to increase their involvement in care. If caring is rightly acknowledged as an unavoidable part of normal life, the penalties associated with taking time out of employment will have to be removed. Accordingly, all people would feel more able to take leave from paid work. After all, leave will only be helpful if people feel that they can actually use it (S. Eaton ‘If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies, Organizational Commitment, and Perceived Performance’ (2003) 42 Industrial Relations 145). Therefore, a re-evaluation of paid work and the workforce is vital. If labour law is to better accommodate carers and challenge gender stereotypes regarding care, rather than introducing more sound-bite legislation, the acknowledgement of the importance and universality of care must fundamentally change the nature of paid work.