To think that if th corrie storyline involved a female carer instead of a male one the reactions would be different.

[carernotasaint]

There is a storyline in Coranation Street at the mo involving a man called Paul who is a carer for his wife who has Alzheimers and Paul is having a relationship with someone else.
I am a carer for my husband who has been disabled for the past 6 years.
We havent slept together for 16 years. His choice.
9 years ago i had an affair and my OWN mother blamed me saying that the reason that my husband didnt want to touch me is cos i had an affair even though i made it very clear that he hadnt touched me for 7 years previous to the affair.
I guess what im saying or asking is why is much more expected of female carers than male carers.
Female carers are expected to keep thier legs closed and their mouths shut as well as shut down all their emotions.

I dont know the answer to that but I do know that someone very close to me has been with a man for ten years. He is a carer for his wife. They were in the middle of a divorce when she had her accident and he stayed with her. They are all in their 70's. I dont know what wouldve happened if it had been the other way around.

I agree that in general, male carers tend to be lauded more than female ones. I think the assumption is that caring for another person is just part of the 'ordinary female role. When a man does it, it's deemed extraordinary and he's held in high regard for doing something seen by many to be 'beneath a man.'

Can you point to evidence of that statement KRITIQ?

The storylines of Corrie are all about the female: and this one is about Eileen.

I have to say, the writing for Corrie has been simply dreadful for some time now; and I can quite see why introducing these characters essentially only in relation to Eileen is unfortunate (with the actual plot line of the Paul/Eileen relationship weak to the point of unbelievable - the only plausible (and rather good bit) being the exchanges between them when Eileen broke it off).

I doubt the writing team mean to be insensitive - but they are beginning to pile up an unfortunate track record. There are (plot relevant) legal inaccuracies, and the handling of the stillbirth of Tracy's twins - which they still call a miscarriage FFS - marked a new low.

Why are you calling traceys miscarriage a still birth? I lost a baby at 20 weeks (which was further along than Tracey was supposed to be) and the hospital call it a miscarriage as do I. Still birth happens after 24 weeks of pg in the uk.

kritiq you're right - my dp is my carer; I can't use kitchen or bathroom independently so he does all cooking. Often it's to my 'instructions' but of course he gets all the medal awarding for making a cake because he is inherently incapable as he is male. He is also remarkable for taking dd shopping for the same reason. Hard to say which one of us is ptronised more by this.

Aside from the fact that corrie is shite and you have only yourself to blame if you watch it and then get annoyed by it, I think that different people will judge differently in different circumstances.

I really don't think there is any anti woman agenda here - I really don't.

Fwiw I can see why someone in the storyline would embark on a relationship with someone else, be they male or female. Maybe morally it's not right, but I can still see how it could happen.

And Tracy had a miscarriage not a stillbirth - it is not considered a stillbirth until 24 weeks.

Tracy was 26 weeks when the babies died. That is why it should have been both called a stillbirth, and handled in terms of both the actions of the hospital and subsequent legalities as a such. (also, as someone living with a transplant, she should have remained in hospital for longer, possibly in a specialist unit as she would have required close monitoring for recalibration of anti-rejection drugs post-delivery).