Doyle Saylor wrote: > > Greetings Economists, > In general care-giving work, strong ties of that sort limit the range > of women's actions. One can of course if one is rich take the path of > nannies, and assorted hired care givers to free oneself from that sort > of obligation. There are chains in care giving based upon the > emotional ties to children, parents, siblings, etc. that usually have > so loosened for most men it does not matter. Women on the whole do > very much like taking care of a child, while recognizing it takes > enormous amounts of their attention, as does a husband, or other > family.
This may be so (that women "like" this or that), but it is a dangerous and possibly false premise to proceed on. Women are pushed into care-giving; there is no evidence that their liking for it accounts for the role. Men are certainly conditioned to do the pushing. I think psychology is most apt to lead us astray in considering the condition of women. We need to look at social factors, if only because it is only social factors (and not individual psychology) that we can affect by political action. Carrol
