Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
13 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
A moving, cross-national account of working mothers' daily lives-and the revolution in public policy and culture needed to improve themThe work-family conflict that mothers experience today is a national crisis. Women struggle to balance breadwinning with the bulk of parenting, and stress is constant. Social policies don't help. Of all Western industrialized countries, the United States ranks dead last for supportive work-family policies: No federal paid parental leave. The highest gender wage gap. No minimum standard for vacation and sick days. The highest maternal and child poverty rates. Can American women look to European policies for solutions? Making Motherhood Work draws on interviews that sociologist Caitlyn Collins conducted over five years with 135 middle-class working mothers in Sweden, Germany, Italy, and the United States. She explores how women navigate work and family given the different policy supports available in each country.Taking readers into women's homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces, Collins shows that mothers' desires and expectations depend heavily on context. In Sweden-renowned for its gender-equal policies-mothers assume they will receive support from their partners, employers, and the government. In the former East Germany, with its history of mandated employment, mothers don't feel conflicted about working, but some curtail their work hours and ambitions. Mothers in western Germany and Italy, where maternalist values are strong, are stigmatized for pursuing careers. Meanwhile, American working mothers stand apart for their guilt and worry. Policies alone, Collins discovers, cannot solve women's struggles. Easing them will require a deeper understanding of cultural beliefs about gender equality, employment, and motherhood. With women held to unrealistic standards in all four countries, the best solutions demand that we redefine motherhood, work, and family.Making Motherhood Work vividly demonstrates that women need not accept their work-family conflict as inevitable
In: Qualitative sociology, Band 44, Heft 1, S. 1-29
ISSN: 1573-7837
In: The American journal of sociology, Band 125, Heft 5, S. 1432-1434
ISSN: 1537-5390
In: Men and masculinities, Band 23, Heft 3-4, S. 788-789
ISSN: 1552-6828
In: Political science quarterly: a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study and analysis of government, politics and international affairs ; PSQ, Band 133, Heft 3, S. 587-589
ISSN: 1538-165X
In: American behavioral scientist: ABS, Band 65, Heft 12, S. 1671-1697
ISSN: 1552-3381
The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified families' struggles to reconcile caregiving and employment, especially for working mothers. How have different countries reacted to these troubling circumstances? What policies have been implemented to alleviate the pernicious effects of the pandemic on gender and labor inequalities? We examine the policies offered in Denmark, Germany, and the United States, three countries that represent distinct welfare regimes. We find important differences among the policy solutions provided, but also in the "cultural infrastructures" that allow policies to work as intended, or not. In Denmark, a social-democratic welfare state, robust federal salary guarantee programs supplemented an already strong social safety net. The country was among the first to lock down and reorganize health care—and also among the first to reopen schools and child care facilities, acknowledging that parents' employment depends on child care provisioning, especially for mothers. Germany, a corporatist regime, substantially expanded existing programs and provided generous subsidies. However, despite an ongoing official commitment to reduce gender inequality, the cultural legacy of a father breadwinner/mother caregiver family model meant that reopening child care facilities was not a first priority, which pushed many mothers out of paid work. In the U.S. liberal regime, private organizations—particularly in privileged economic sectors—are the ones primarily offering supports to working parents. Patchwork efforts at lockdown and reopening have meant a lengthy period of limbo for working families, with disastrous consequences for women, especially the most vulnerable. Among such varied "solutions" to the consequences of the pandemic, those of liberal regimes seem to be worsening inequalities. The unprecedented nature of the current pandemic recession suggests a need for scholars to gender the study of economic crises.
The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified families' struggles to reconcile caregiving and employment, especially for working mothers. How have different countries reacted to these troubling circumstances? What policies have been implemented to alleviate the pernicious effects of the pandemic on gender and labor inequalities? We examine the policies offered in Denmark, Germany, and the United States, three countries that represent distinct welfare regimes. We find important differences among the policy solutions provided, but also in the "cultural infrastructures" that allow policies to work as intended, or not. In Denmark, a social-democratic welfare state, robust federal salary guarantee programs supplemented an already strong social safety net. The country was among the first to lock down and reorganize health care—and also among the first to reopen schools and child care facilities, acknowledging that parents' employment depends on child care provisioning, especially for mothers. Germany, a corporatist regime, substantially expanded existing programs and provided generous subsidies. However, despite an ongoing official commitment to reduce gender inequality, the cultural legacy of a father breadwinner/mother caregiver family model meant that reopening child care facilities was not a first priority, which pushed many mothers out of paid work. In the U.S. liberal regime, private organizations—particularly in privileged economic sectors—are the ones primarily offering supports to working parents. Patchwork efforts at lockdown and reopening have meant a lengthy period of limbo for working families, with disastrous consequences for women, especially the most vulnerable. Among such varied "solutions" to the consequences of the pandemic, those of liberal regimes seem to be worsening inequalities. The unprecedented nature of the current pandemic recession suggests a need for scholars to gender the study of economic crises.
BASE
In: Qualitative sociology, Band 40, Heft 2, S. 191-214
ISSN: 1573-7837
In: Annual review of sociology
ISSN: 1545-2115
This methodological review starts one step before Small's classic account of how many cases a scholar needs. We ask, "Which cases do I need?" We argue that a core feature of most qualitative research is case construction, which we define as the delineation of a social category of inquiry. We outline how qualitative researchers construct cases and observations and discuss how these choices impact data collection, analysis, and argumentation. In particular, we examine how case construction and the subsequent logic of crafting observations within cases have consequences for conceptual generalizability, as distinct from empirical generalizability. Drawing from the practice of qualitative work, we outline seven questions qualitative researchers often answer to construct cases and observations. Better understanding and articulating the logic of constructing cases and observations is useful for both qualitative scholars embarking on research and those who read and evaluate their work.
In: Family relations, Band 70, Heft 1, S. 26-42
ISSN: 1741-3729
ObjectiveThis article examines whether the availability of Head Start during the Great Recession mitigated the impact of this crisis on poverty rates among families with young children.BackgroundThe first 2 decades of the 21st century have witnessed two major economic crises: the Great Recession and the COVID‐19 pandemic. Poverty rates among families with young children grew substantially during the Great Recession. Families with young children are also more vulnerable to instability during the COVID‐19 pandemic because job losses have been steeper and childcare availability has been significantly curtailed. Programs such as Head Start that support at‐risk families may mitigate such negative consequences.MethodThis study used data from the American Community Survey from 2006 through 2016 and state‐level data on Head Start availability from Program Information Reports. Growth curve modeling was used to examine how the availability of Head Start predicted poverty growth during the Great Recession and the speed of recovery post‐recession.ResultsStates with higher rates of Head Start enrollment had a smaller increase in family poverty during the Great Recession and a more stable recovery than states with lower Head Start enrollment.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that greater access to Head Start programs prevented many families from falling into poverty and helped others exit poverty during the Great Recession.ImplicationsThe findings provide clear, evidence‐based policy recommendations. Increased federal funding for Head Start is needed to support families during a COVID‐19 recession. States should supplement these allocations to expand Head Start enrollment for all eligible families.
In: Men and masculinities, Band 24, Heft 1, S. 181-188
ISSN: 1552-6828
In: RSF: the Russell Sage Foundation journal of the social sciences, Band 9, Heft 3, S. 134-158
ISSN: 2377-8261