It is indeed encouraging to see such an article by Tanja Kovac. From my reading of political history the trailblazers in the political arena were women whose concern was first and foremost the plight of women and children. Edith Cowan (married with 5 children), Dorothy Tangney (unmarried but a fierce advocate for women and children all of her life), Edith Lyons (married with 11 children). They were women dedicated to the social causes that strengthened society and issues that went to the protection and dignity of women. Dorothy Tangney in particular was ferocious in her championing for university funding, for education as the foundation stone of a good life, and the need for state support to women “whose work in caring …prevented them from entering paid labour…”

The Labor party in the last thirty years has used women as a political tool, not to better their circumstances but to fill a purely political vacuum. Labor established a quota system to get women into parliament something I find inherently insulting and inherently patronising because, let's be honest here, it was the blokes who decided it should be so.

Tanja Kovac is absolutely right that the creation of a care economy is the unfinished business of the women's revolution. And it is business that has been left unfinished by the feminists who've held sway since the 1950s and 1960s. Feminism lost its caring heart and abandoned women in caring roles in no-man’s-land when a ceasefire in the battle of the sexes was called.

In an article "Care as a Basis for Radical Political Judgments" Joan Tronto says that the ethic of care supports a "climate for good political judgments". Her definition of care is all the things we do to "maintain, continue, and repair our world so that we can live in it as well as possible". Care reflects the lived experiences of people and "entails a basic value: that proper care for others is a good, and that humans in society should strive to enhance the quality of care in their world".

Whilst I agree with the contention that caring is undervalued in our society and because of this the people who care are losing economically and socially, it concerns me that the leap has been made that because women are the majority of carers, caring is a female responsibility.

I do not believe progress will be made whilst this attitude is prevalent. I suggest the two are kept separate. If the loss of value for caring is looked at for it's own significance would this not lead to change in societal appreciation of caring? Could it not then follow, once caring is given value, that the strength and empowerment of the female gender, a separate but intertwined issue, would also flourish? And, forgive me for dreaming, there may be a possible evening of the involvement of the sexes in the carer roles due to the new found value.

Feminism is an important concept, which must continue to be pushed and upheld vehermently but I don't believe we are helping anyone by confusing the issues

However, whilst caring is a female responsibility and whilst the community is shaped as if this is the norm, perhaps an attempt to de-gender the issues so as to include men (where they are not currently involved) might have mischievous results? If action is to be taken to enshrine the value of caring work, surely that action will include male workers

I am sorry but the statistical data stated in the article shows that caring does involve men, and to a significant level, that is greater than 10%. The numerics are similar, if reversed, to those of our female judges. Do we consider that judging is men's work, or do we feel that judging is an occupation that currently has significantly more men working in the role, but is not men's work per se? I know I am an advocate of more equality in both industries.

All I am trying to say is both the undervaluing of carers, and feminism and equality for women are important aspects of our society but that they should be considered separately even though there is an obvious overlap. We do not need to exclude men in order to include women.

Yes, unpaid caring work is sometimes done by men. Paid caring work is also sometimes done by men. However, Kate Bambrick-Browne of the UNSW (Sunday Telegraph Oct. 2010) says that the majority of unpaid caring work is undertaken by women. Further, this continues even where women are involved in paid work as well. Kay Kociumbas, in her fascinating book "Australian Childhood A History', describes how caring work was made into paid labour (or under paid labour) in the twentieth century, when there grew a need to keep working class women content, whilst creating them work.

Drawing attention to the fact that sometimes men undertake this work does nothing for the status quo, for either the male or female who is doing the work. The thing that is demeaned, is the value of the work, and the value of the object of care, the child, aged or otherwise infirm person. Were this to be properly addressed, perhaps our view of the value of these people would increase, leading to improved working conditions for anyone undertaking care.

“The creation of a care economy is not just women's work.”

Where has the author been all these years?

We have wide ranging legislation that was once under the umbrella of “duty of care” legislation, but now resides under “Risk Management” legislation.

This legislation overrides all other legislation.

No other legislation can override risk management legislation, and risk management legislation is the basis of not just the economy, but of most of our society.

Sorry to break this news to the author and her rather suspect group, but women do not have a monopoly on “care”.

Duty of care and risk management legislation has been around for many decades, and the vast majority of the regulations, standards and codes of practice incorporated were implemented by men.

Why?

Because they care.

It is beyond all comprehension how the author can be a lawyer, and has not heard of “duty of care” or “risk management” legislation.

I would think that this portrayal of women as being the only “carers” is yet another attempt at negative portrayal of the male gender.

I have been concerned with research on the early years after the birth of an infant over recent years. During this time I came across a substantial report called 'Transitions for the EU framework' (2005) Nilsen and Brannen - which drew from both quantitative and qualitative studies in eight european countries. In this they identified the 'transition to parenthood' as a critical tipping point on the road to gender equity. Research demonstrates that the vast bulk of couples are attempting to achieve a form of gender equal or egalitarian family form and yet this ambition is being held back by an institutional framework that has been unable to adjust.

I agree, this is a new 'high water mark' in trends towards gender equity. These 'brave new families' are pioneering new ways of being and we need to assist rather than hamper their efforts. The privatization of care via the gendered family form (male breadwinner female carer) is a legacy of the twentieth century. The state and the market rely on the family for care that has been historically privatized. We need to think outside the square. This project began with the second wave women's movement but the challenge is at a conceptual level whereby we adequately respond to the need to care at a policy and practice level. In the UK there has been talk of 'social care' a concept that could be usefully deployed here.

A society can be rightly judged by the extent to which it facilitates the care of dependents. This work is increasingly being recognised of high social value. Moves to detach gender from care are centrally related to democratizing trends that are based on the recognition that all persons need, give and receive care. Autonomy is a joint project that is importantly connected to our developing understanding of intersubjective dynamics.

Joan Garvan