摘要(英) |
The thesis examines how environment and other causalities forms intermarriage’s gender relationship, and what the essence of Hakka and Mainland’s gender is. There is stereotype in Taiwan’s ethnic gender, but there is few people curious about how gender forms. In recent years, there are still less direct discussion of ethnic marriage, although some Taiwan’s scholars researching family also notice that ethnicity’s influence of gender relationship in marriage. What role does ethnic group play in marriage? How it influences gender relationship between couples? The thesis hopes these resolutions can help to understand gender relationship in intermarriage more, more than this, conversation with family’s theories nowadays.
The thesis analyzes the stories told by 20 older-generation intermarriage Hakka women to find out the description of pre-marital and post-marital, gender attitude, housework, family decision, and personal resources. On the conclusion, Hakka and Mainland indeed exist different gender. As a result of its extended family and conservative ethnicity, Hakka tends to traditional inequality gender relationship, and women’s personal resources can’t influence their family status. But the situation is different for women married Mainland. First, the first generation Mainland’s specific history context, so Mainlanders’ wives have less pressure of seniority. Second, Because Mainland husbands always work outside, their Hakka wives have to take full responsibility of family so that they have more power to make decision. Compare Hakka with Mainland, Hakka have stronger relative and clan network because migrated earlier than Mainland. And because The first generation Mainland almost come to Taiwan all alone, Mainland just like become a whole “new” ethnic group. In an early phase of forming ethnicity, the common collective conscious and standard have not appeared yet. Therefore, Mainland’s gender relationship may depart from traditional gender standard, and it will form various gender relationship.
By analyzing women’s narratives who have intermarriage experience, the conditions of housework in Hakka and Mainland marriage are similar, and women in two families have to be responsible for most housework. But the process and contents of family decision actually reflect family’s gender relationship. We can draw marital power in every family through their narratives about family decision, and women married Mainland obviously have higher marital power than women married Hakka. The thesis argues that ethnic gender are constructed by family structure, financial factor, occupation, and gender attitude, they not only influence ethnic members deeply, but also be maintained and inherited through marriage. By surveying the process of forming ethnic gender, we will more understand how ethnic groups, gender, and marriage connect and influence each other. |
參考文獻 |
Allen, G. & Grow, G.(eds) 1989. Landlords and Property. London: Cambridge Univerisity Press.
Bachelard, Gaston. 1969. The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bahloul, J. 1992. The Architecture of Memory: A Jewish-Muslim Household in Colonial Algeria, 1937-1962. London: Cambridge University Press.
Benedict, Ruth,黃道琳譯,1983,《文化模式》Patterns of Culture。台北:巨流出版。
Berardo, D. H., Shehan, C. L., & Lesile, G. D. 1987. “A residue of tradition: jobs, careers, and spouses’ time in housework.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49: 381-390.
Berk, S.F. 1985. The Gender Factory: the Apoointment of Work in American Households. New York: Plenium.
Blair, S.L. & Lichter, D.T. 1991. “Measuring the Division of Household Labor: Gender Segregation of Housework Among American Couples.” Journal of Family Issues, 12(1): 91-113.
Blood, Robert O. Jr. & Wolfe, Donald M. 1960. Husbands & Wives: the dynamics of married living. New York: Free Press.
Blumberg, Rae Lesser 1991. “Introduction” Pp.7-32 in Gender, Family, and
Economy: the triple overlap. edited by Rae Lesser Blumberg. CA: Sage press.
Broman, C. L. 1988. “Household work and family life satisfaction of blacks.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50: 743-748.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, Loic J. D.,李猛、李康譯,1998,《實踐與反思—反思社會學導引》An Invitation to reflexive sociology。北京:中央編譯出版社。
Bourdieu, P.,蔣梓驊譯,2003,《實踐感》The logic of practice.。南京:譯林出版。
Breger, R. & Hill, R. (Eds.) 1998. Cross-cultural marriage: Identity and choice. New York: Oxford.
Brewer, R. M. 1993. “Theorizing race, class and gender.” In S. M. James and A. P. A. Busia(eds). Theorizing Black Feminisms: The Visionary Pragmatism of Black Women. London: Routledge.
Chou, Bin-Er. 1987.“Industrialzation and Change in Women’s Status: A Reevaluation of Some Data from Taiwan.” In Taiwan: A Newly Industrialized State, edited by Hsin-Huang M. Hsiao, et al. Taipei, Taiwan: Department of Sociology, National Taiwan University.
Daly, K. J. 1996 “Spending time with the kids: Meanings of family time for fathers.” Journal of Family Relations, 45: 466-476.
Davis, A. 1981. Women, Race and Class. New York: Random House.
de Almeida, M. V. 1996. The Hegemonic Male: Masculinity in a Portugese Town. Oxford: Berghahn.
Fan, Kuang-Yu(范光宇)1960. “Studies on Maternal Activity and Agricultural Work of the Hakka Women in Rural Taiwan” 《台灣醫學會雜誌》59(9):162-175。
Ferree, M. M., J. Lorber & B. B. Hess, eds. 1999. Revisioning Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gallin, Rita S. 1982. The Impact of Development on Women’s Work and Status: A Case Study from Taiwan. Working Papers on Women in International Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Gerald, McDonald 1980. “Family Power: The Assessment of a Decade of Theory and Research.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(4): 841-854.
Giddings, P. 1984. When and Where I Enter…: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America. New York: William Morrow.
Gocek, F. M. & Balaghi S. 1994.“Reconstructing Gender in the Middle East througe Voice and Experience.” Pp.1-19 in Reconstructing Gender in the Middle East, edited by Gocek Fatma Muge and Shiva Balaghi. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Greenhalgh, S. 1994.“De-Orientalizing the Chinese Family Firm.” Journal of American Ethnologist, 21(4): 746-775.
Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. 1995. “Biographical work and new ethnography.” In Josselson, R. & Lieblich, A.(ed.) Interpreting experience: The narrative study of live. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Hitchcock, G & Hughes, D 1995 Research and the teacher. London: Routledge.
Kamo, Y. 1988. “Determinants of household division of labor: resources, power, and ideology.” Journal of Family Issues, 9: 177-200.
Kobayashi, A. and Peake, L. 1994. “Unnatural discourse: race and gender in geography.” Journal of Gender, Place and Culture, 1: 225-243.
Komter, A. 1989. “Hidden Power in Marriage.” Journal of Gender and Society, 3: 187-216.
Kottak, Conrad P. 1997. Anthropology: the Exploration of Human Diversity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kulwer, E. S., Heesink, A. M. & Vliert, E. V. 1996.“Marital conflict about the division of household and paid work.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58: 958-969.
Patricia R. Pessar & Sarah J. Mahler 2003. “Transnational Immigration: Bringing Gender In.” Journal of International Migration Review, 37(3): 812-846.
Pleck, J. H. 1985. Working wives/working husbands. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Jenkins, R. 1992. Pierre Bourdieu. London & NY.: Routledge.
Lin, Holin 1998. “Gender Culture as Economic Determinant: Household Resource
Allocation Strategies among Ethnic Groups in Taiwan.” 收錄於《人文及社會
科學集刊》10(4):611-659。
Lu, Yu-Hsia. 1992. “Married Women in Informal Employment in Taiwan.” Proceed-
ings of the National Science Council Part C: Humanities and Social Sciences
2(2): 202-217.
Mackenzie, S. & Rose, D. 1983. “Industrial change, the domestic economy and home life.” In J. Anderson, S. Duncan & R.Hudson(eds). Redundant Spaces and Industrial Decline in Cites and Regions. London: Academic Press.
Madigan, R. & Munro, M. 1991. “Gender, house and ‘home’: social meanings and domestic architecture in Britain.” Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 8: 116-131.
Malson, M. R., Mudimbe-Boyi, E., O’Barr. J. F. and Wyer, M. (eds) 1990. Black Women in America: Social Science Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McDowell, Linda,徐苔玲、王志弘合譯,2006,《性別、認同與地方:女性主義 地理學概說》Gender, Identity & Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies.。台北:群學出版。
Mead, Margaret,宋踐等譯,1993,《三個原始部落的性別與氣質》Sex and
Temperament。台北:遠流出版。
Miles, Rosalind,刁筱華譯,1998,《女人的世界史》The Women’s History
of The World。台北:麥田出版。
Minister, Kristina 1991. “A feminist frame for the oral history interview.” Pp.27-41, in Women's words : the feminist practice of oral history. Edited by Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai. New York: Routledge.
Mirza, H. S. (ed.) 1997. Black British Feminism. London: Routledge.
Muncie, J., Wetherell, M., Langan, M., Dallors, R., Cochrane A.,洪惠芬、胡志強、陳素秋譯,2003,《家庭社會學》Understanding the Family。台北:韋伯文化。
Niehoff, Justin D. 1987. “The Villager as Industrialist: Ideologies of Household Manufacturing in Rural Taiwan.” Journal of Modern China, 13: 278-309.
Peake, L. 1993. “Race and sexuality: challenging the patriarchal structuring of urban social space.” Journal of Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11: 415- 432.
Romero, M. 1992. Maid in the USA. London: Routledge Press.
Rexroat, Cynthia, and Lonstance Shehan. 1987. “The Family Life Cycle and Spouses’ Time in Housework.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49: 737-750.
Safilios-Rothschild, Constantina 1970. “The Study of Family Power Structure: A Review 1960-1969.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37: 355-362.
Segal, L. 1990. Slow Motion: Changing Men, Changing Masculinities. London: Virago.
Scanzoni, J. 1979. “Social Process and Power in Families.” Pp.295-316. in Contemporary Theories About the Family Vol.1, edited by Wesley R. Burr et al. New York: Free Press.
Smits, Jeroen. 2002. “Intermarriage between Turks and Kurds in Contemporary Turkey: Inter-ethnic Relations in an Urbanizing Environment.” Journal of European Sociological Review, 18(4): 417-432.
Spring Rice, M. 1981. Working Class Wives. London: Virago.
Szinovacz, Maximiliane. 1987. “Family Power.” Pp.651-693 in Handbook of Marriage and the Family, edited by Marvin B. Sussman et al. New York: Plemun Press.
Tang, Shain-May. 1993. Division of Domestic Labor Among Four Types of Marriages.
University of Wisconsin- Madison Dissertation.
Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. 1989. “Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51: 845-871.
Walby, S. 1997. Gender Transformations. London: Routledge Press.
West, Candace & Don H. Zimmerman 1987. “Doing Gender.” Journal of Gender & Society, 1(2): 125-151.
Wei, Young. 1976. “Modernization Process in Taiwan: An Allocative Analysis.” Journal of Asian Survey, 14(3): 249-269.
Zelizer, Viviana A. 2005. The Purchase of Intimacy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Zilboorg, G.. Masculine and Feminine: Some Biological and Cultural Aspects.(男性與女性:若干生物學和文化上的特點),《心理學》第7期。
內政部,2002,〈91年度國民生活狀況調查〉。
尤詒君,1996,《雙工作家庭的家務事分工:一個質化的分析觀點》。台北:台灣 大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
王思平、莊英章,2001〈婦女家庭決策地位及性別分工:南中國農村區域性的比
較〉,頁277-304。喬健、李沛良、馬戎主編《二十一世紀的中國社會學
與人類學》。高雄:麗文出版。
王甫昌,1993,〈族群通婚的後果:省籍通婚對於族群同化的影響〉。《人文及社會學刊》6(1):231-267。
1994,〈光復後台灣漢人族群通婚的原因與形式初探〉。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》76:43-96。
王雯君,2005,《閩客族群邊界的流動:通婚對女性族群記憶與認同的影響》。桃
園:中央大學客家社會文化研究所碩士論文。
王麗雲,2000,〈自傳卅傳記卅生命史在教育研究上的應用〉,頁265-298。載於中正大學教育研究所主編,《質的研究方法》。高雄:麗文文化。
尹萍,1987,〈省籍,一道若隱若現的政治疤痕〉。《遠見雜誌》民國79年7月1日出版,頁16-19。
江文瑜,1995,《阿媽的故事》。台北:玉山社。
2004,〈口述史法〉,頁249-269。胡幼慧主編《質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》。台北:巨流。
李宜靜,1990,《雙工作家庭家事分工及其影響因素之探討》。台北:台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文。
李美玲、楊亞潔、伊慶春,2000,〈家務分工:就業現實還是平等理念〉。《台灣社會學刊》24:58-88。
伊慶春、高淑貴,1986,〈有關已婚婦女的性別角色態度〉。中央研究院三民主義研究所集刊。
伊慶春、蔡瑤玲,1989,〈台北地區夫妻權力的分析:以家庭決策為例〉。《中央
研究院三民主義研究所叢刊》25:115-151。
伊慶春、呂玉瑕、陳玉華,1989,〈婦女家庭地位之研究:以家庭決策模式為例〉。
發表於中研院社會學所主辦之「國科會社會組專題計畫成果發表會」。
呂玉瑕、伊慶春,2005,〈社會變遷中的夫妻資源與家務分工:台灣七○年代與九○年代社會文化脈絡的比較〉。《台灣社會學》10:41-94。
呂玉瑕,1983,〈婦女就業與家庭角色、權力結構之關係〉。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》56:111-143。
2001,〈性別、家庭與經濟:分析小型家庭企業老闆娘的地位〉。《台灣社會學》2:163-217。
呂寶靜,1989,〈從婦女就業現況談政府應有之政策〉。《社區發展季刊》46:59-63。
邱莉雯,2004,〈東部原漢雙族裔成人認同之研究〉。花蓮:國立花蓮師範學院多元文化研究所。
吳乃德,1997,〈檳榔與拖鞋,西裝及皮鞋:台灣階級流動的族群差異及原因〉。
《台灣社會學研究》1:137-167。
林忠正,1988,〈初入勞動市場階段工資與職業之性別差異〉,頁121-168。收錄於《性別角色與社會發展學術研討會論文集》。台北:台灣大學人口研究中心。
1991,〈你不能說,外省人是經濟上的弱者〉。《商業周刊》76:58-65。
林忠正、林鶴玲,1993,〈台灣地區各族群的經濟差異〉,頁101-160。收錄於張茂桂等著《族群關係與國家認同》。台北:智庫叢書。
林鶴玲、李香潔,1999,〈台灣閩、客、外省族群家庭中之性別資源配置〉。《中央研究院人文及社會科學集刊》11(4):475-528。
周玟琪,1994,《影響台灣地區家庭家務分工因素之探討》。台北:台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
胡台麗,1990,〈芋仔與蕃薯─台灣「榮民」的族群關係與認同〉,《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》69:107-132。
胡幼慧,2001,《質性研究、理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》。台北:巨流。
翁志遠,1999,《一九九○年台灣地區人口之婚姻狀況分佈的省籍差異探討》。台北:政治大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
高淑清,2000,〈雙薪家庭:角色分擔的開始〉,頁131-154。收錄於中華民國家庭教育學會著《家庭教育學》。台北:師大書苑。
徐宗國,1993,適宜用質的方法研究女性現象。台灣大學:婦女研究通訊30期。
翁志遠,1999,《一九九○年台灣地區人口之婚姻狀況分佈的省籍差異探討》。台北:政治大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
唐先梅,1993,〈雙薪家庭夫妻家務分工及家務公平觀之研究--都會區與非都會區之比較〉。《台灣鄉村研究》1:109-139。
1996,〈家庭生命週期與丈夫參與家務工作之研究〉,收錄於《當前台灣社會與文化變遷學術研討會論文集》。桃園:國立中央大學。
1999,〈從家務工作的本質談雙薪家庭夫妻家事分工〉。《應用心理研究》4:131-173。
莊英章、武雅士,1993,〈生育率與婦女勞動力:兩個否定的但具啟發性的發現〉
,Population Studies《人口研究》48:427-433。
莫藜藜,1997,〈已婚男性家庭事務分工態度之研究〉。《東吳社會工作學報》3:117-156。
畢恆達,2004,《空間就是性別》。台北:心靈工坊文化事業。
師瓊璐,2000,《橫越生命的長河:三位國小女性教師的生命史研究》。台東:台
東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文。
許嘉猷,1987,〈台灣的階級結構〉。《中國社會學刊》11:25-60。
陳玉華、伊慶春、呂玉瑕,2000,〈婦女家庭地位之研究:以家庭決策模式
為例〉。《台灣社會學刊》24:1-58。
陳婉琪,2005,〈族群、性別與階級:再探教育成就的省籍差異〉。《台灣社會學》
10:1-40。
游鑑明,2002,《傾聽她們的聲音:女性口述歷史與口述史料的運用》。台北:左岸文化。
張菊芬,1996,《夫婦社會經濟資源與家庭決策:以台中縣市職業婦女為例》。台
北:東海大學社會學系碩士論文。
張維安,2001,〈客家婦女地位─以閩南族群為對照的分析〉,頁79-109,曾彩金總編,《六堆客家社會文化發展與變遷之研究》。屏東:六堆文教基金會。
張翰壁、柯瓊芳,2005a,〈經濟與文化全球化下的語言與族群建構:以桃竹苗地
區客家族群為例〉,發表於《2005年全國客家學術研討會》。桃園:國立中央大學客家政治經濟研究所,2005年5月26、27日。
張翰壁、柯瓊芳,2005b,〈客家如何記憶〉,發表於《2005台灣社會學年會暨研討會》。台北:國立台北大學,2005年11月19、20日。
蔡淑鈴,1987,〈職業隔離現象與教育成就:性別之比較分析〉。《中國社會學刊》
11:61-91。
1988,〈社會地位取得:山地、閩客及外省之比較〉,頁1-44。收錄於楊
國樞、瞿海源主編《變遷中的台灣社會》。台北:中央研究院民族學研究所。
1994,〈台灣之婚姻配對模式〉。《中央研究院人文及社會科學集刊》第
六卷第二期:335-371。
蔡淑玲、瞿海源,1990,〈台灣教育階層化變遷之研究〉。國科會專題研究計劃報
告。
劉錦添、劉錦龍,1988,〈台灣地區公共部門與民間部門工資率的比較〉。《經濟論文叢刊》16(3):393-412。
劉鶯釗,1989,〈台灣地區受僱人員工資的性別歧視〉。《經濟論文叢刊》17(3):359-388。台北:台灣大學經濟學系。
賴爾柔、黃馨慧,1996,〈已婚男性參與家務分工之研究〉。《婦女與兩性研究通訊》41:10-8。
鍾永豐,1999,〈淺論傳統客家婦女的身份與地位〉,頁114-121。收錄於《重返
美濃》。台中:晨星出版。
羅香林,1992,《客家研究導論》。台北:南天書局。
嚴祥鸞,1996,〈台灣勞動市場性別分化的解析 1951~1994〉。《勞資關係論叢》5:
147-176。 |