透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.208.172.3
  • 學位論文

管理性別: 在陽剛職場中的女性檢察官

Managing Gender: Female Prosecutors in Masculinized Organizations

指導教授 : 成令方
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


摘 要 檢察官是一個公正、客觀、平等的法律工作者,檢察官工作也應該是一個與性別無關的中立工作環境,然而檢察官工作組織為何仍由多數男性位居權力位置,女性檢察官在組織中的處境為何,均有賴於深入討論。本研究擬採取女性主義觀點的研究取向,以性別化組織理論、做性別理論、樣板理論等觀點,探討檢察官工作究竟呈現出何種性別化面向,女性檢察官在組織中如何管理性別的行為策略,及其在組織中如何面臨性別位置與工作位置衝突的矛盾處境。本研究採取質性研究法,以個別深入訪談法、參與觀察法等研究方法,研究結果歸納如下:      首先,檢察官工作內容與組織邏輯,表面上看似與性別無關,卻在過程中暗藏了性別化的運作:一方面,組織控制了性別、性屬與身體的運作,與女性性屬相關的,都被排除或邊緣化。另一方面,組織所推崇的價值與檢察官的形象,均加入了男性化的定義,更透過霸權式陽剛特質的運作,以正當化組織中男性性屬的優勢,不但造成女性檢察官在職場上被明顯或隱密地排擠,也建構了組織的陽剛性別文化。 其次,組織對於女性檢察官行為穿著的評價,存在著不是太陽剛就是太陰柔的弔詭標準,使得女性檢察官很容易陷入進退兩難的困境。在工作場域的互動過程中,女性檢察官不只是做性別,當她面臨陽剛組織文化與父權社會對她衣著行為的雙重期待時,她必須做「管理性別」的工作,調和「女性」與「檢察官」兩個衝突的角色,依著不同場合而不同的互動對象,隨時轉換各種行為策略。雖然學習男性化的行為,可能藉此創造出另一種特殊的「女性化陽剛」,做陰柔更是與組織文化反其道而行的抵抗策略。但是女性檢察官管理性別的結果,並未符合「男性支配、女性順從」的父權秩序,不論是做陽剛或做陰柔,都會遭致懲罰性的結果。 最後,女性檢察官的性別因素造成她的高能見度,使她有表現的壓力,工作能力難以被肯定。組織同時將女性檢察官簡化成情人、妻子等有限的家務角色,一旦她在工作上獲得出色表現,反而會被質疑無法勝任女性角色,形成另一種形式的雙重矛盾困境。工作位置與性別位置不一致的結果,使得女性檢察官在組織中面臨衝突或完全矛盾的期待,並遭逢雙重負擔與遇到玻璃天花板的困境。 從以上的研究顯示,檢察官的工作組織不是一個性別平等的工作環境,仍然瀰漫著維持男性利益的父權文化,然而男性檢察官層出不窮的風紀問題,以及女性檢察官在工作表現上逐漸嶄露頭角,不但顯示出檢察官工作組織的陽剛文化逐漸受到撼動與改變,也讓人期待這樣的轉變可以為女性檢察官帶來脫離弱勢的契機。 關鍵字:檢察官,性別,組織,性屬,陽剛特質,做性別,管理性別,樣板。

關鍵字

檢察官 性別 組織 性屬 陽剛特質 做性別 管理性別 樣板

並列摘要


Abstract Prosecutors are expected to have the values of equality and neutrality in mind, and they also expect the workplace to be gender-neutral. However, in reality female prosecutors have to deal with many issues derived from hierarchies of a male-dominated and male-privileged organization. This is a study from a feminist point of view studied in the theoretical frame of gendered organizational theories, doing gender theory, and Kanter’s tokenism. It is focused on the gendered conditions of the organizations, the strategies of managing gender by female prosecutors, and the contradictions that female prosecutors have to face between gendered social roles and working demands. It is a qualitative research, and the methods used are in-depth interview and participant observation. The results are as follows: First, it seems that the prosecutors’ tasks and the logic of the organizations are gender-irrelevant, but in the process of carrying out the tasks gendered demands occur in the practices. On the one hand, reproduction and sexuality are often the subjects of control, and women’s bodies, sexuality, and procreative abilities are used as ground for exclusion. On the other hand, images of male bodies and masculinity pervade at workplace and in the work processes, they marginalize female prosecutors in the organization and contribute to its gendered culture. Second, the behavior and dress of female prosecutors are easily caught in ‘double bind’ of being either too masculine or too feminine. Female prosecutors have to learn how to ‘manage gender’ in order to blend well into the masculinized organizational culture and adopt various behavioral strategies in dealing with all kinds of things and people. The strategies of ‘doing masculinity’ may create another form of ‘female masculinity’, and the ‘doing femininity’ is also a kind of resistance against organizational cultures. However, the female prosecutors are easily punished for violating the patriarchal order as expected that men doing dominance and women doing submissiveness. Finally, the female prosecutors are regarded as tokens with high visibility in the organization. Their working abilities are likely to be shadowed by their physical appearance. Their achievements at work lead to discredit their responsibilities as mothers and wives. They face conflicting and contradictory expectations, and are double burdened. Above all, they have to overcome the constrain of glass ceiling. The research suggests that prosecutors are not working in a gender-equity conditions. Its culture is heavy male-privileged and masculinized. However, the male prosecutors are vulnerable to moral problems, while the female are gaining better reputation in terms of outstanding performance. It indicates that the masculinized working cultures of prosecutors are going to break down, and the female prosecutors will have more opportunities to strengthen their bargaining muscle at work. Keywords: prosecutor, gender, organization, sexuality, masculinity, doing gender, managing gender, tokenism.

參考文獻


參考書目
中文書目
王月喬(2005)《貨櫃船上的性別政治:女船副職場之處境》。高雄醫學大學性別研究所碩士論文。
古俶綺(2006)《男監中女性工作人員之職場處境》。高雄醫學大學性別研究所碩士論文。
秦光輝(1997)《「當兵」現形記──從台灣男性兵役經驗看軍隊父權體制再生產的性別邏輯》。國立清華大學社會人類學研究所碩士論文。

被引用紀錄


吳怡慧(2011)。陽剛少女國中校園性別操演的敘事探究〔博士論文,國立臺灣師範大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0021-1610201315243350

延伸閱讀