為何職業婦女決定離職？結構限制下的母職認同與實踐

Why Working Women Quit? The Mothering Identity and Practices under Structural Constrains

10.29816/TARQSS.201112.0006

唐文慧(Anna Wen-Hui Tang)

工作與照顧衝突 ； 建制民族誌 ； 選擇差距 ； 照顧者認同 ； 母職實踐 ； work-care conflict ； institutional ethnography ； choice gap ； carers ； identities ； mothering practices

台灣社會研究季刊

85期（2011 / 12 / 01）

201 - 265

繁體中文

許多研究者認為，台灣的兒童照顧制度公共化程度低，勞動市場對母親不友善，而導致許多婦女因親自育兒的壓力，而決定離開職場。然而，過去研究多從結構面，較少從母親個人的角度出發，探討她們面對衝突時，為何決定離職，以及離職後的生活與照顧安排。本研究透過訪談十五位中產階級母親，採建制民族誌視角，檢視這群母親面臨衝突時，在結構限制下的認同和行動的選擇。研究發現她們強調離職是「自願的選擇」，但作者分析其面臨的是結構限制下的「選擇差距」。離職後她們會展現自主性並操演認同，採「密集母職」扮演社會所期待的「好媽媽」角色。另外，她們以兼職工作或參與志工的方式，來逃避社會對「傳統家庭主婦」的負面標籤，以建立自我的正向認同。值得注意的是，從制度的層面來看，其母職認同與離職的選擇，卻間接地鞏固了台灣性別化與市場化的兒童照顧體制，加深兒童照顧是個人與家庭責任的社會氛圍。對於推動照顧與工作共容的社會運動與政策制訂者來說，這群離職母親的真實聲音，值得被慎重地考量。

Most of the studies in the past had stressed the disadvantages of mothers in lobor market when encountering work-care conflict from a structural point of view. Yet, this research, adopting narrative method and institutional ethnography perspective, explores and analyzes the identity construction and action of middle-class mothers under the same situation from a different viewpoint. Through interviews with 15 stay-at-home mothers, it is found that they identified themselves' choice to quit is a voluntary one, while we argued that it is a choice gap under structural constrains. They would practise intensive mothering in order to preserve the social image of a good mother. Meanwhile, to avoid social stigma as a traditional housewife, they would also work part-time or as a volunteer which helps establish positive self-identification. Yet, on the other hand, it is worth noting that this action has consolidated the traditional gender roles as well as encourages low state intervention on child care. This paper emphasized the group of middle-class mothers' real voices should be taken into account seriously by the public child care policy makers and activists in Taiwan.

1. 伊慶春、簡文吟(2001)。已婚婦女的持續就業：家庭制度與勞動市場的妥協。台灣社會學，1，149-182。
   連結：
2. 林津如(2007)。父系家庭與女性差異認同：中產階級職業婦女家務分工經驗的跨世代比較。台灣社會研究季刊，68，1-73。
   連結：
3. 唐文慧(1999)。國家、婦女運動與婦女福利：一九四九年後的台灣經驗。社會政策與社會工作學刊，3(2)，143-179。
   連結：
4. 唐文慧、吳佳羚(2006)。瑞典育嬰假制度之研究：共同照顧的價值。政大勞動學報，19，75-117。
   連結：
5. 潘淑滿(2005)。台灣母職圖像。女學學誌：婦女與性別研究，20，41-91。
   連結：
6. Kröger, Teppo (2007) The Proposal ”WoCaWo: Carers and Caring Workers in Finland, Britain and Sweden, 2008-2011”. University of Jyvaskyla, Finland; Consortium members: Prof. Sue Yeandle, University of Leeds, the UK, Prof. Lena Robinson, University of Paisley, the UK, and Prof. Marta Szebehely, University of Stockholm, Sweden..
7. 行政院主計處（2006）〈婦女婚育與就業調查〉。台北：行政院主計處。
8. 行政院主計處（2009）〈就業、失業調查〉。台北：行政院主計處。
9. Blankenhorn, David(1995).Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem.New York:Harper Collins.
10. Bock, Gisela,Thane, Pat(1991).Maternity and Gender Policies: Women and the Rise of the European Welfare States, 1880-1950s.New York:Routledge Press.
11. Cha, Youngjoo(2010).Women's Employment in Dual-Earner Households.American Sociological Review,75,303-329.
12. Cha, Youngjoo,Thebaud, Sarah(2009).Labor Markets, Bredawinning, and Beliefs: How Economic Context Shapes Men's Gender Ideology.Gender and Society,23,215-243.
13. Cook, A.(2009).Connecting Work-family Policies to Supportive Work Environments.Group & Organization Management,34(2),206-240.
14. Daniels, C. R.(1998).Lost Fathers: The Politics of Fahterlessness in America.New York:St. Martin's Press.
15. Dienhart, A.(1998).Reshaping Fatherhood: The Social Construction of Shared Fatherhood: The Social Construction of Shared Parenting.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
16. Elvin-Nowak, Y.,Thomsson, H.(2001).Motherhood as Idea and Practice: A Discursive Understanding of Employed Mothers in Sweden.Gender and Society,15,407-428.
17. England, Paula(2005).Emerging Theories of Care Work.Annual Review of Sociology,31,381-399.
18. Folbre, Nancy(1994).Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structure of Constraint.New York:Routledge Press.
19. Foucault, M.(1978).The History of Sexuality.New York:Pantheon.
20. Glenn, E. N.(Ed.),Chang, G.(Ed.),Forcey, L.(Ed.)(1994).Mothering: Ideology, Experience, and Agency.New York:Routledge.
21. Gornick, Janet C.,Meyers, Marcia K.(2003).Families that Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment.New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
22. Griffith, Alison I.,Smith, Dorothy E.(2005).Mothering for Schooling.UK:Routledge Falmer.
23. Griffith, Alison I.、Smith, Dorothy、呂明蓁審訂(2007)。母職任務與學校教育的拔河。台北:高等教育。
24. Hanson, Shirley M. H.,Bozett, Frederick W.(1987).Fatherhood: A Review and Resources.Family Relations,36,333-340.
25. Hattery, A.(2001).Women, Work and Family: Balancing and Weaving.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
26. Hays, S.(1996).The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
27. Hill, E. J.(2005).Work-family Facilitation and Conflict, Working Fathers and Mothers, Work-family Stressors and Support.Journal of Family Issurs,26,793-819.
28. Ho, Petula Sik-ying(2007).Eternal Mothers or Flexible Housewives? Middle-aged Chinese Married Women in Hong Kong.Sex Role,57,249-265.
29. Hobson, Barbara(Ed.)(2002).Making Men into Fathers: Men, Maschulinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood.Cambridge University Press.
30. Hochschild, A.,Machung, A.(1989).The Second Shift.New York:Viking Press.
31. Johnston, Deirdre D.,Swanson, Debra H.(2006).Constructing the "Good Mother": the Experience of Mothering Ideologies by Work Status.Sex Role,54,509-519.
32. Johnston, Deirdre D.,Swanson, Debra H.(2007).Cognitive Acrobatics in the Construction of Worker-mother Identity.Sex Role,57,447-459.
33. Lareau, Annette(2003).Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life.US:University of California Press.
34. Lewis, J.(1997).Gender and Welfare Regimes: Futher Thoughts.Social Politics,4(2),160-77.
35. Marsiglio, William,Amato, Paul,Day, Randal D.,Lamb, Michael E.(2000).Scholarship on Fatherhood in the 1990s and Beyond.Journal of Marriage and the Family,62,1173-1191.
36. OECD(2005).Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life.Paris:OECD.
37. OECD(2005).Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life.Paris:OECD.
38. OECD(2005).Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life.Paris:OECD.
39. OECD(2005).Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life.Paris:OECD.
40. Ong, A.(1999).Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality.London:Duke University Press.
41. Repo, Katja(2004).Combining Work and Family in Two Welfare State Contexts: A Discourse Analytical Perspective.Social Policy and Administration,38(6),622-639.
42. Ribbens, Jane(1994).Mothers and Their Children: A Feminist Sociology of Childrearing.UK:Sage Publications.
43. Richer, S.(Ed.),Weir, L.(Ed.)(1995).Beyond Political Correctness: Toward the Inclusive University.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
44. Smith, D.(1990).Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling.New York:Routledge.
45. Smith, D.(1990).The Conceptual Practices of Power.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
46. Smith, D.(1987).The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
47. Smith, D.(1999).Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations.Toronto:University of Toronto.
48. Stone, Pamela(2007).Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home.University of California Press.
49. Tang, Wen-hui Anna(1997).Harvard University.
50. Webber, Gretchen(2009).Book Review: Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home.Gender and Society,23,125-127.
51. 王連生(1998)。親職教育：理論與應用。台北:五南。
52. 王舒芸(2003)。新手爸爸難為？。台北:遠流。
53. 周玟琪(1996)。從勞工階級動員觀點看母性保護立法：台灣與瑞典的比較。勞資關係論叢，4，130-170。
54. 唐文慧、王怡君(1999)。女性參政者之角色扮演與政策議題：以一九九八年立法委員選舉為例。國立政治大學社會學刊，29，75-114。
55. 翁麗芳、黃怡貌(1995)。台灣幼兒教育發展之研究：托兒所的演變在台灣幼兒教育發展上的意義。史聯雜誌，25，30。
56. 張晉芬(2002)。找回文化：勞動市場中制度與結構的性別化過程。台灣社會學刊，29，97-125。
57. 潘淑美(2008)。荳芽‧不上安親班。台北:奧林。
58. 蕭新煌編、林國明編(2000)。台灣的社會福利運動。台北:巨流。

1. 唐孟廷(2016)。年輕女性生涯圖像：從工作與家庭探討。淡江大學未來學研究所碩士班學位論文。2016。1-59。