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.

 

 

Counting on Marilyn Waring: Valuing care, housework, subsistence production and Nature

by Margunn Bjørnholt

 In a recent blog-post Donatella Alessandrini discussed the ”Wages for housework” campaign, referring to its main activists, among them Selma James. It seems that, when struggling to solve the problem of valuation of care and subsistence work, there is much to learn by revisiting the work and good thinking of feminist pioneers decades ago. I have recently had the pleasure to revisit another pioneer, Marilyn Waring and her critique of the system of national accounts in Counting for nothing/If women counted, originally published in 1988.

With the late Professor Ailsa McKay, I have co-edited an anthology on the impact and resonance of Waring’s groundbreaking work a quarter- century later. The resulting collected volume, Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, published by Demeter Press, Canada, March 2014, maps new advances in theories and practices in feminist economics and the valuation of women, care and nature since Marilyn Waring’s Counting for nothing. The breadth and range of topics and perspectives covered in the anthology highlights the impact and endurance of Waring’s work, in the shaping of the discipline of feminist economics and in influencing women’s lives across the globe. In the foreword to the collection Professor of economics Julie A. Nelson, University of Massachussetts, Boston, points out how Marilyn Waring’s If Women counted ”encouraged and influenced a wide range of work on ways, both numerical and otherwise, of valuing, preserving, and rewarding the work of care that sustains our lives”. At the same time, Waring’s original critique of the system of national accounts for ignoring the value of care and subsistence work is still sadly relevant. Despite the development of feminist economics as a field of academic research and activism over the past decades, economic policies are still informed by economic theory and models that ignore the value and importance of care and that of Nature. The book is a contribution to the continued struggle for valuing care as well as an attempt to bring the field forward.

The publication of the book sadly coincided with the death of my co-editor, Ailsa McKay, who passed away, far too early, at the age of 50, on 5.March. Ailsa was herself a pioneer in feminist economics. She was Professor of Economics at Glasgow Caledonian University, and a founding member of the Scottish Women’s Budget Group. She combined her role as a renown academic and a leading authority on gender budget analysis with a strong community involvement for change. She has had a lasting impact on the field of feminist economics and the struggle for valuing care.

As an irony of fate, illustrating the persistent and recurring devaluation of care and motherhood, our publisher, Demeter Press, now struggles to stay in business, after being denied a much needed and anticipated government publishing grant. The argument was that its focus on mothering and motherhood was a liability, and that it needed to broaden its focus. Demeter Press has just launched a fundraising campaign. Hopefully many will support the only publishing house dedicated to publishing on motherhood and mothering.

Revaluing Care Workshop 2: September 2013, University of Adelaide, Australia.

At the beginning of September 2013 our Revaluing Care network had its second workshop, following an earlier workshop at Keele University, UK, in September 2012. This second meeting over two days at the University of Adelaide, in South Australia was marked by its attention to analytical concerns that had been raised in the 2012 session. It was also marked by much convivial discussion over food and wine at the end of each day.

We met in a room with views of the city all around us and, fortunately, the sun shone almost all of the time. What I recall most clearly was the very high standard of the papers, the sense of an extraordinary level of conversation within a group which has now forged a strong identity. The degree of confluence of ideas, of substantive and strongly supportive debate was striking. It is rare to attend such an event and feel constantly engaged by an extremely stimulating exchange of views. The event was both inclusive and demanding in the very best sense.

The workshop looked at a wide variety of existing services around care and their impacts on social interconnection (such as services around HIV/AIDs, young people and dementia care), as well as a range of existing legal and policy frameworks. This international orientation informed extensive discussion around new ways of conceiving care (for instance, in relation to social activism, migration and cross-national mobilities). However, it also enabled us to consider where the term care begins to fall away, or seems insufficiently recognised or activated. Consequently there was a significant interchange over the two days concerning the analytical and practical boundaries of care (for example, in relation to sexualities, diverse families, the notion of the human, marginalised services and public institutions seemingly distant from care including parliaments and courts).

These deliberations led to a range of theoretical and terminological discussions around the continuing usefulness of the notion of care, around what it covers and its limits.

The success of the workshop was not only evident in the strengthening of the network as an active, participatory and supportive research community, but also obvious in the final discussions around building research teams, projects and publications across the world and across disciplinary constraints. We aim as a result to produce articles, books of collected works, and grant applications. Many of these aims are now in process. The group was also firmly of the view that further workshops would be very worthwhile and assist in the development of these aims. So, watch this space.

In sum, I can only say that I, for one, gained immensely from the workshop and now have an even stronger sense of the considerable research capabilities of the group. This is a group with much to gain from our continuing association! It is one of the few research clusters that I have been involved in which shows ongoing promise of generating important intellectual exchanges and innovative new work .

Professor Chris Beasley

Discipline of Politics & International Studies (POLIS)
School of Politics and History
 
Co-Director, The Fay Gale Centre for Research on Gender

Care in the first two years of life: OXPIP and the emerging discipline of parent-infant psychotherapy

By Adrian Sell, Executive Director, OXPIP: The Oxford Parent Infant Project

OXPIP is one of the organisations pioneering parent-infant psychotherapy. Founded in 1998 we have been working in Oxfordshire to provide support to parents who are struggling to form a secure attachment to their baby. In the last three years we have worked with over 900 families and consistently improved mental health and the quality of the parent-infant relationship[1]. We work with babies up to the age of two and their parents, normally the mother but we have worked with many fathers as well.

Parent-infant psychotherapy is distinguished by the attention it brings to the mother’s mental health, the baby’s mental health and, crucially, to the quality of the relationship between parent and baby. This focus on the quality of the care that comes from this early experience is critical to our success in addressing intergenerational cycles of disadvantage. We all have a tendency to default to parenting our children as we were parented, even if those relationships were withdrawn, unpredictable or harmful.

Our clinicians are skilled at enabling parents to build and sustain closer relationships with their children. One of the therapeutic tools for achieving this is through modelling thoughtful, empathic ways of relating within the therapeutic relationship. For some of the parents we work with this is the first time they have really experienced being thought about and related to in this way; it can be a powerful tool for change, opening up new possibilities for how they in turn can relate to their babies.

Our team of psychotherapists come from a range of backgrounds including Child Psychotherapy, Adult Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology as well as including prior qualifications in Health Visiting, Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work and Teaching. All have undergone Infant Observation training, and are trained in the use of video through the (NICE approved) Video Interaction Guidance approach. This mix of backgrounds and approaches gives our work a strength and rigour that forces us to constantly challenge our own preconceptions and viewpoints.

We are part of a growing national movement of people and organisations who are bringing greater focus to the first years of life. Our Executive Director, Adrian Sell is a trustee of PIP-UK a new national charity seeking to support similar services to develop elsewhere. We have backing from Impetus – The Private Equity Foundation where we are one of twenty-five organisations they see as critical social game-changers supporting disadvantaged children to develop to their full potential. We are a member of the Centre for Social Justice Alliance where we are recognised for our effectiveness in tackling the root causes of poverty and disadvantage. We are supporters of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Conception to Age 2 – the first 1001 days

We all instinctively know that the first few years of our life are formative. There is also considerable neuroscientific evidence that has emerged to support this. OXPIP are now at the forefront of developing an evidence base for the positive impact that parent-infant psychotherapy can have. If you want to find out more then please look at our website, get in touch or leave a comment below.

OXPIP: The Oxford Parent Infant Project
Suite J
The Kidlington Centre
Kidlington
OX5 2DL
T: 01865 371080 or 01865 778034
info@oxpip.org.uk
www.oxpip.org.uk

 

Recent publications on researching older lesbians

Two new articles by Sue Westwood have recently been published on researching older lesbians. The first was a very brief essay in a compilation a compendium edited by Sally-Marie Bamford and Jessica Watson, entitled ‘Has the sisterhood forgotten older women?’ Sue’s piece, ‘We are Older Women Too’ highlighted the marginalision of older lesbians from discourse about older women and ‘LGBT’ ageing research. Sue has also just had a paper published in the Journal of Lesbian Studies‘Researching Older Lesbians: Problems and Partial Solutions’ explores practical and ethical issues arising from Sue’s empirical research with older lesbians as part of wider PhD research project on LGB ageing and equality. The article highlights the difficulties and power dynamics involved in researching older lesbians, and suggests a more collaborative way of working:

Abstract: There is a lack of research about older lesbians, who can be considered not only a “hidden population” but also a population in hiding. Yet older lesbians hold vital historical and cultural narratives which are, in turn, the heritage of younger lesbians. They also have much to contribute to understandings about gender, sexuality and ageing, and to their currently unmet needs in terms of age-related housing, health and social care provision. This article reflects on some of the issues that make it difficult to access older lesbians for research purposes. It identifies four problematic areas in researching older lesbians: definitions, access, representative sampling, and ethical issues.  It suggests that participative action research  might offer a means of widening access and engaging with older lesbians in a more collaborative way.

For more information, please contact Sue Westwood (s.westwood@keele.ac.uk).  The article can be accessed on the Journal of Lesbian Studies or by contacting Sue.

Jane Traies is another researcher also publishing about older lesbians. Jane is working on a research project about older lesbians, based at the University of Sussex,  building the first-ever comprehensive picture of older lesbian life in the UK. Jane has also recently had a chapter published,  ‘Women Like That: Older Lesbians in the UK’ in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Ageing : Biographical Approaches for Inclusive Care and Support, edited by Richard Ward et al. For more information about Jane’s project, see her website:  ‘Women Like That.’

Why we should care about the menopause

A couple of months ago I was telling a younger woman about some of the problems I was experiencing with the menopause. She appeared to be listening with what has to be called grudging tolerance, at best, until I came to the bit about hot flushes. I was only mentioning them in passing, while explaining about some new medication that was helping. But when I said ‘hot flushes’ she sniggered. Yes, sniggered is the only word for it. She sniggered as if there was something really absurd and ridiculous about hot flushes. She sniggered in a conspiratorial way as if I should snigger too. I did not. For me, there is no sniggering about hot flushes.

I have discovered that there is still silence, stigma, and  taboo, about the menopause that is both widespread and, most worryingly, prevalent among women, even right-on feminists. If you broach the subject, women ten years younger – fellow lesbians, or bi or straight –  hastily do the maths to work out how long before it is their turn, and then, with anxious relief (or concern), tell you. Women two decades younger look uncomfortable, as if you’ve just broken wind. Older women seem reluctant to discuss the menopause, once over, either declaring breezily ‘Oh I sailed through mine’ (never has such a less empathic thing been said between two women, in my view) or, with a slight shudder, ‘it will pass’ as if half-remembering horrors now consigned to memory. Then there are the women who point out that in Japan there is no word for menopause, or the marvels of HRT (not mentioning its risks and that it is contra-indicated for some women, including me), or who helpfully suggest some homeopathic remedy a friend of a friend said was ‘simply marvellous.’ There is always the sense that there is something I could, and should, be doing to fix my menopausal symptoms.

There is no public space for menopause, apart from  books and magazine articles usually exhorting, ‘successful ageing’- style, women to enjoy our menopause (preferably ‘naturally’). ‘Enjoy’ is another way of saying ‘cope with it discretely and don’t complain about it’ and is a view not shared by all. Other than that it is privatised, hidden away. There is no place – apart from jokes, or self-help websites or conspiratorial chats between fellow menopausal women – for the impact of the menopause, particularly chronic sleep deprivation and effects on concentration and memory, to be recognised. Not at work, not in education, not in the provision of goods and services (beyond medicine). ‘Pregnancy and maternity’ is a protected characteristic under the UK Equality Act, because of discrimination pregnant women and mothers (especially nursing mothers) can experience. Perhaps ‘Menopause’ should be too, not simply as a gender discrimination issue.

The marginalisation is undoubtedly rooted in ageism – in mainstream society and between women – and sexism, the menopause being inextricably linked to loss of fertility and women’s (heteronormative) reproductive social value. If I hear anything more about the ‘male menopause’ I shall scream, and not because of hormonal changes. Heterosexual men going through the ‘male menopause’ often trade in their original wives for younger models, starting a family all over again. Women going through the (real) menopause are saying goodbye to their chances of ever having any (more) birth children, whether they want them or not.

In the 1970’s a man shop assistant said, when I was being mildly assertive, ‘don’t worry about her, her period’s probably due.’ And this menopause issue feels somehow similar, something very sexist, but with the added dimension of ageism. It feels like social exclusion from/by a world geared up for young, virile, things who have no limits, and don’t want anything to do with someone who reminds them that there are limits, that our bodies change, and that, in the end, we die. It feels like another aspect of the false (masculine) denial of vulnerability as part of the human condition.  All (cisgender) women go through the menopause, for now at least. While for some it is plain sailing, for others it is not. We should embrace each other in care and solidarity before, during and afterwards, not leave women to go through the menopause silently, on the margins, and alone.

House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005

The House of Lords has established a Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The terms of reference for the committee are to “consider and report on the Mental Capacity Act 2005”.The Committee has been taking oral evidence,  and has also published a call for written evidence submissions. For more details on the committee, and the questions that are being asked in the call, see the Parliament website. The deadline for responses is 2 September 2013, during our next ReValuing Care workshop ‘Caring about Social Interconnection‘ in Adelaide. As such, we will aim to have a final version of our response completed before the end of August.

As an interdisciplinary and multi-sector network of academics, activists, carers and third sector professionals with interests in care, the ReValuing Care Network is well placed to put together a response to this call for evidence. I will coordinate a response to the questions asked by the committee, and have set up a few discussions on the private network members forum to facilitate this. All network members are warmly invited to contribute to the response, and any other interested parties are warmly invited to join the network. To join us, simply fill in the form.

The Call for Evidence covers all aspects of the operation of the MCA, including the overall context, implementation, decision-making, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the Court of Protection and the Office of the Public Guardian, regulation and the interface with other legislative provisions, as well as devolution and international issues, including compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

Please do get involved and join in the discussions on the forum. Between the network members, we have an unrivalled breadth of knowledge and experience of the regulation of care. By responding to this call for evidence we can attempt to have an impact on the lives of those giving and receiving care who are affected by the MCA 2005.

Rosie Harding, July 2013