Oh FFS. I am so sick of the gender invisibilisation that is going on around Jeremy Hunt's call for families to look after elders

[BasilBabyEater]

I'm listening to Jeremy Vine on R2 atm and there's this whole thing about how we as a society should look after elders, can we learn from Asian families etc. and the massive elephant in the room is not being mentioned - that when men talk about how "families" look after elders, what they mean is, the women in the families look after elders. Men have no intention of doing the actual work - they blithely know they won't have to do it, because the automatic assumption is that women will do it.

And yet these 2 men on the radio are talking about this with narry a mention of this fact.

And before the weakheads come on and say "oh but I know a man who does it" - yes dear, that's nice, but he's in a minority. It's generally women who do this labour and that's why cabinet ministers like Jeremy Hunt can have the bloody cheek to stand there and lecture "families" that they should be doing it while meaning women.

actually my uncle does do far more than my mother for my grandfather - always has done. obviously I'm a weak-head for mentioning this.

If you read all the personal anecdotes here, there are patterns emerging that 1) men are more likely to arrange transport/money/admin as their part in the caring role rather than personal care and 2) men may be involved in caring BUT the more distant the relationship, the less likely they are to be carers, whereas for women, even when the relationship is a distant one (ie they are not a blood relative etc) they are still likely to be the carers over a nearer male relative.

I think it's cultural assumption. When my grandmother was in a nursing home, I regualrly popped in to see her wheras my brothers didn't. In the last two weeks of her life, although it had been clear that she had been deteriorating for some time, my brothers were very upset by the news that her death was imminent and only then did a sort of panicked rush to visit her. My brothers are not uncaring, horrible men, I just don't think it ever occured to them that it was their role to visit an old relative. I didn't see it as my "role" either, but I thought it was the kind thing to do. Our society conditions women to think of others, be kind etc and conditions men to think of themselves primarily and sort out practical things.

So I agree with OP and it frustrates me but for the two Jeremys it probably wasn't an elephant in the room - it's so obvious to them that it's women who will be doing the caring, they don't feel a need to mention it.

I agree with the OP and this is all very personal for me. My dad died last year and my Mum is 70 next year. Her mother lived into her 90's. Mum is selling up and moving closer to us which is what I want as much as she does as I want her to be a day to day part of my DC's lives. However when she becomes less mobile and needs more care it's inevitable who will be providing it. My brother is fucking useless and can barely look after himself.

I still work as a freelancer but have 3 young DC's who I look after now, and realistically I can't see how going back to work full time is going to be an option for a few years - by which time my Mum will probably be on the decline.

It's all so inevitable and to be honest I do feel trapped and a bit resentful. When I heard JH's views I thought "how convenient - women should care for their elders so the state doesn't have to." This is a gendered issue and anybody who thinks it isn't is in cloud cuckoo land.

Been thinking about this today and I think actually, there's a bigger issue that's being missed, a whole tranche of the free family help from woman is dying out.

Take my family, when my nana needed care, she went to live with my mum, her dd - but my mum was retired by then and both of her dcs (me and my db) had finished uni and left home. My mil similarly looked after her own mother and fil, but my mil was the last of woman who had to resign when pregnant (if dh was 6 months younger mil would have been entitled to mat leave), she did occasional work for "pin money" but never worked ft again or really needed the money.

If my mum needs care at the same age as her mum did, I will have my youngest dc still at secondary school, and uni to potentially pay for. It's not going to be as simple as just stepping up, far more of the woman in the generation after baby boomers went back to work after dcs and have careers they neither can afford to give up nor will want too. It's unlikely that I'll be able to retire as early as my mum did (early 50s), and even if I could, as she had me later than her mum had her, that might be too late anyway.

Previous generations of woman have been available to do care for elderly relatives (their own or their dhs) because of career sacrifices made in order to care for their own dcs. As woman are increasingly able to stay in work after having dcs, with an expectation that most will be back working ft once dcs are secondary age, there's going to be a lot less woman who's primary job is already family care to take on older family care. An increase in working mothers is a decrease in available free labour for care. I might pay out for care for my own dcs while I'm at work, but I am not going to be able to pay for someone else to pick up the bill for parents/pil care I might have done for free if I was a SAHM.

Agree. Dstepmum effectively stopped work at 50 to look after her mother who had alzheimers - she cared for her in her own home for a decade until her death. It was as good as it could be given the diagnosis - her mum had very good quality of life until the end and Dstepmum was willing and able to put in the necessary time (no children of her own, plenty of cash). I'll be 50 in five years - and will still have primary age children. Plus will be working for another twenty years because no pension to speak of. So I just won't be free to down tools and provide the sort of care that Dstepmum did, to my own mum who looks quite likely to need a lot of care.

DH and I both work, we need to do so to live. I won't be able to retire until I'm 66 and live 100+ miles from my mother, 87. DM would not want to live with us, she doesn't like my cooking, my house (newish, built to eco standards) is "too cold" for her, she doesn't want to watch what we watch on telly, but doesn't want to watch alone in another room. It would be hell for all of us. At least we have a spare room if there is an emergency that can't be dealt with any other way, the "bedroom tax" and the current price of housing means few people will have the space anyway.

I agree with Basil's comments about why Rach was responsible for her mother's care, despite having a small child and being pregnant, while her brother (single with no children, has a full time job) was not.

My sisters and I have shared looking after our mother since her health started to decline a few years ago. My sisters have children and work part-time, I don't have children and work full time. It is expected that in any kind of emergency, I will be the one who has to drop everything and rush to see mum - I live the closest (2 hours drive), but I suspect it would be the same if one of my sisters lived closer to mum.

I had a very stressful conversation with my aunt once because she expected me to be able to come up to deal with one crisis, and really could not understand that I had a report to finish to meet external deadlines and as my manager was on leave, I needed to finish it and could not rush up there (it was a case of needing another day at work to get it done, not weeks). I remember her saying 'of course your sisters can't come up' and me thinking 'well, actually, it would be easier for them even if they had to bring the baby'.

It's depressing to think that if I was male, that probably wouldn't have been the case.