Exploring the Gendered Dynamics of Work and Family Life. A Secondary Descriptive Analysis in the Romanian Context
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
This paper focuses on work and family life in Romania, with particular emphasis on gender, seen as a social structure. The methodology employs the secondary descriptive analysis of data drawn from NIS, Eurostat, and the European Value Survey/World Value Survey datasets. The findings show a Romanian work landscape with slow progress in embracing work flexibility, with considerably lower percentages of remote work and part-time employment compared to EU averages. A notable gender disparity exists in the professional sector. Women exhibit a 18.8% lower participation in economic activities compared to men, a gap that increases with the number of children. Moreover, 36.5% of women, in contrast to 2.7% of men, are professionally inactive due to familial responsibilities. These results align with Nancy Fraser’s (2013) viewpoint on how the intersection between capitalism and patriarchy shapes women experiences. The lack of family-friendly work structures disproportionately impacts women, leaving them vulnerable professionally and financially. Family continues to be the most important institution for Romanians, with trends regarding age of marriage and child births mirroring previous years. While there's a gradual decrease in unpaid household and childcare activities, it is mostly due to technological progress (Popescu, 2009) while women still work “double shifts” (Hochschild, 2012). The paper’s findings highlight that cultural norms and societal pressure compels women to prioritize family responsibilities. Creating “brave new families” (Stacy, 1990) or fostering “confluent love” (Giddens, 1992) requires post-modern cooperation between partners, backed by multi-level actions (Walby, 1989) at individual, organizational and societal levels.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Boudon, R. et al. (1997). Tratat de sociologie. București: Humanitas.
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York : Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Coltrane, S. (1989). Household labor and the routine production of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press on behaf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, 473- 490.
Connell, R. (1987). Gender and Power. Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Delphy, C. (1978). Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women's Oppresion. London: Verso.
Dragomir, O. (2002). Femei, cuvinte si imagini. Studii de gen. Bucuresti: Polirom.
Equalit, E. I. (2022). Gender Equality Index 2022 - Romania. Vilnius: European Institute for Gender Equality.
Eurostat (2022). The life of women and men in Europe. 2022 Interactive edition. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/womenmen/index.html?lang=en. Accessed on 29 November 2022.
Eurostat (2023a). The life of women and men in Europe. A statistical portrait. 2020 edition. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/womenmen_2020/index.html?lang=en. Accessed on 6 January 2023.
Eurostat (2023b). Eurostat data base. Online data code: lfst_hhwahchi.
EVS/WVS. (2022). World Values Survey. EVS/WVS 2017-2022 Joint Dataset. Version 3.0.0: doi:10.14281/18241.19, December, 17 2022.
Fraser, N. (2013). Forunes of feminism: from state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis and beyond. London: Verso.
Friedan, B. (1963). The Feminine Mystique. New York: W. W. Norton.
Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. London: Penguin Books.
Guest, D. (2002). Perspectives on the Study of Work - Life Balance. Social Science Information, vol 41, 255-279. London: Sage Publications.
Hochschild, A. (2012). The Second Shift. London: Penguin Books.
Johansen, B., & Euchner, J. (2015). Navigating the VUCA World, Research-Technology Management, 10-15.
Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work-life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct, Journal of Management & Organization, 323-327.
Kimberle, C. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of race and Sec: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Legal.
Lipovetsky, G. (2000). A treia femeie. Bucuresti: Editura Univers.
Mead, M. (1961). Coming of age in Samoa. New York: HarperCollins.
National Institute of Statistics (NIS) (2022). Tempo online data base. Code A. Statistică Socială.
Oakley, A. (1974). The Sociology of Housework. London: Robertson.
Oberman, M. (2013). “Your work will be your most faithul mistress”: Thoughts on work0life balance occasioned by the loss of professor Jane Larson. Wiscounsin Journal of Lay, Gender & Society, 181-194.
Osnowitz, D. (2005). Managing Time in Domestic Space Home - Based Contractors and Household Work, Gender and Society, 83-103.
Parsons, T. (1955). Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Oxon: Routledge.
Popescu, R. (2009). Introducere în sociologia familiei. Familia românească în societatea contemporană. Iași: Polirom.
Popescu, R. (2022). Familia Românească reper de stabilitate. Studii de sociologia familiei, calitatea vieții și politici sociale. București: Tritonic.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2004). Unpacking the gender system. A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations, Gender & Society, 510-531.
Risman, B. (2009). From doing to undoing: gender as we know it, Gender & Society, 81-84.
Risman, J. B. (2004). Gender As a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism, Gender & Society, 429-450.
Smithson, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). Discourses of Work-Life Balance: Negotiating ‘Genderblind’ Terms, Gender, Work and Organization, 147-168.
Stacy, J. (1990). Brave new families. California: Basic Books.
Suciu, M.-C., & Petre, A. (2022). Telework in Romania. Current State and Sustainable Socio - Economic Effects of its Development, Sciendo, 53-68.
Vasilescu, C. (2023). The Impact of teleworking and digital work on workers and society. Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662904/IPOL_STU(2021)662904(ANN05)_EN.pdf.
Vlăsceanu, L. (2011). Sociologie. Iași: Polirom.
Voinea, M. (1993). Sociologia familiei. București: Editura Universității București.
Waddell, N., Overall, N. C., Chang, V. T., & Hammond, M. D. (2021). Gendered division of labor during nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: Implications for reltionship problems and satisfaction, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1759-1781.
Walby, S. (1989). Theorising Patriarchy, Sociology, 213-234.