透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.204.24.82
  • 學位論文

當個怎樣的母親?戰後台灣法律中的母職建構

What Kind of Mother Does A Woman Become? The Legal Construction of Motherhood in the Post-war Taiwan

指導教授 : 陳昭如
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


育兒是女人生命中重要的經驗,但台灣女人常為了育兒退出職場。「母親」雖是女人重要的身分認同,其母職實踐卻總是伴著照顧與工作間的兩難抉擇,或是奔波於二者間的力不從心。 上述現象的成因,既有研究多從社會學角度切入,詳細分析背後深層的家庭、社會結構,乃至意識形態。本論文則從法律角度切入,呈現法律所構築的公/私領域分立,以及其影響:使女人無可選擇地隔絕在私領域裡當照顧者。 本文以女性主義法律史的研究方法探究戰後台灣的公/私領域關係,及其形成的母職制度。本文發現,公/私分化帶來了女性/男性、家/國的育兒責任區隔,育兒是前者無可逃避的責任,卻是後者選擇性的志願「幫忙」。以致於在育兒一事上,就形成母職義務役/父職志願役與家庭義務役/國家志願役的現象。 公/私分化包含兩層面:國家/家庭的分化與職場/家庭的分化。此種分化並非一直都如今天的我們意識到的那樣。50、60年代的台灣,勞動與育兒並非完全區隔,農村裡的女人常揹著孩子做農事,她們的婆婆或女兒也常幫忙照顧小孩。但國家與婦女會卻倡導「母親為單一照顧者」的母職觀,透過民法、公衛行政與農村托兒所,照顧者與工作者這兩種角色在意識形態上受到分化,母職也只被連結到照顧者。70年代之後,公/私領域愈形分化,愈來愈多女人外出就業,法律在此時不但沒有填補公/私領域間的鴻溝,反而在兒童福利法、幼稚教育法、勞動法令裡將育兒責任歸諸家庭、女人及市場。相對地,國家、職場與男人更加可以不過問育兒之事。上述40年的發展,讓育有子女的台灣女人不易參與職場,也讓幼托市場走向高度營利化,國家亦不斷強調再生產是個別家庭的事。民間婦團經過70年代的意識覺醒後,在90年代開始檢討上述現象,並推動打破公/私劃分的法制改革,引入育嬰假、公共托育等政策,希望讓男人也加入育兒,使育兒真正成為女人的「選擇」;讓國家承擔起兒童照顧責任,使育兒成為家庭的「選擇」。 我認為這些正在起步的轉變將改變下一代母親與父親的生活,也將改變家與國的關係。因此希望這本歷史回顧的作品能開啟更多人的興趣與討論,一同在紮實的基礎上想像未來。

並列摘要


Becoming a mother is an important experience to women, but women in Taiwan often have to quit their jobs to care for children. As a result, although the role of mother is an important identity of women, the practice of motherhood always means the hard choice between work and family, or burning the candle at both ends. Many researchers adopt a sociological approach to analyze this phenomenon. They describe in detail how family, society and ideology structure the institution of motherhood. This thesis tries another approach – a legal approach- to analyze how law structures the public/private split and forces women to be a carer in the private sphere. I use the method of feminist legal history to observe how the public/private split and the institution of motherhood transform in the post-war Taiwan. I find that the public/private split brings the different responsibility distribution between mothers and fathers as well as the family and the state. Childcare is the unescapable responsibility to women and the family, and as a result, men and the state just have to “help” occasionally. I use the concept of draftee mother/volunteer father and draftee family/volunteer state to name this phenomenon. Public/private split includes two kinds of splits: split between the state and the family; and split between workplace and the family. These splits are not always the same as we know today. In the 1950s and 60s, women in rural Taiwan often carried their children on the back while working in the farmland, so work and childcare were not apart. Their mother-in-law or daughters also helped to care for children, and this meant the mother was not the sole carer. Nevertheless, the state and Women’s Association distinguished work from care and linked motherhood to care through the day-care nurseries for farmer’s children, public health administration and the Civil Code. In other words, they promoted an ideal mother as the sole carer who did not have to work. In the 1970s, while more and more women went out of home to work, the public/private split became more obvious. The law not only ignored this split but also assigned the childcare responsibility to women, family and market through the legislation of Child Welfare Act, Early Childhood Education Act and labor laws. Therefore, men and the state could be exempted from the responsibility of childcare. From 1949 to1988, the privatization of childcare was established step by step. It made women with children hard to participate in the labor market and also made childcare market become highly profit-making. The state also did not provide any active childcare policy. Many women’s rights organizations experiencing the conscious-raising process in the 1970s began to pay attention to these phenomena and asked for legal reform which blurred the boundaries between the public sphere and the private sphere. They introduced parental leave and public childcare policies to build a new institution in which the state and men could be responsible for childcare as well, and then can childcare be a “real” choice of women and family. I think these transformations in progress will change the lives of mothers and fathers of the next generation as well as the relationship between the state and the family. I hope that through my work more people will come to discuss what kind of parent we want to be, what kind of state we want to have. Thus, this historical work may give some understanding of the past and contribute to the imagination of the future.

參考文獻


吳晟(1985),店仔頭,台北:洪範。
-(2004),阿母的故事,台北:玉山社。
張壹鳳(2005),以「性別敏感」觀點檢視台灣學前兒童照顧政策,台灣大學社會工作研究所碩士論文。
胡台麗(1982),媳婦入門,台北:時報。
范雲(2003),政治轉型過程中的婦女運動:以運動者及其生命傳記背景為核心的分析取向,台灣社會學,5期,頁133-194。

被引用紀錄


高子壹(2011)。在「家」與「教」之間:家教關係中的劃界與再生產〔碩士論文,國立清華大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6843%2fNTHU.2011.00379
王彥(2017)。論刑法猥褻概念中的性道德規制:以強制猥褻罪、公然猥褻罪與散布猥褻物品罪為核心〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201702632
蔡牧融(2014)。她們想/需要什麼樣的法律? ─性別工作平等法典型歷史敘事的反思〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2014.02648
陳昭如(2016)。從義務到權利:新舊母性主義下母性保護制度的轉向與重構臺大法學論叢45(S),1096-1162。https://doi.org/10.6199%2fNTULJ.2016.45.SP.01
余宛臻(2012)。身分法之「母職」研究〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201613504707

延伸閱讀