Dr. Pauline Cullen:

Absolutely. The participants, and particularly the women participants, were very sensitive to the issue. The household means test was deeply gendered in its logic. The notion is, of course, is that the policy in itself, as well as the way in which it is administered, reinforces deep gendered assumptions about who should care. The gender pay gap is, obviously, an external structural issue that means that it will be women who will be the ones to care. There is a great sensitivity to that. This was considered to be the normal natural function of women. This is not to say that there are no male carers, but this is a predominately female phenomenon. That definitely came across in the research as a very clear outcome in that sense. The value of that feminist ethics of care approach, which we took, was to bring that to the surface in real ways. Also, it was not to make the analysis into a sentimentalised vocational notion of care, but to raise the issue of its social value. As it is deeply feminised, its value is very low. We know that from looking at the formal workforces where if an occupation becomes feminised, its value is lowered. Certainly, that is something we were keenly aware of. It connects to broader intent to make sure that any changes that happen, such as bringing equality-proofing to the surface. It is very sensitive to the issue of how this can also improve gender equality and justice outcomes as well. I will hand over to Professor Murphy to deal with that.