跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.48.64) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/04 16:57
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:莊玲如
研究生(外文):Ling-Ju Chuang
論文名稱:管理性別:在陽剛職場中的女性檢察官
論文名稱(外文):Managing Gender:Female Prosecutors in Masculinized Organizations
指導教授:成令方成令方引用關係
指導教授(外文):Lingfang Cheng
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:高雄醫學大學
系所名稱:性別研究所
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:社會學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:113
中文關鍵詞:檢察官性別組織性屬陽剛特質做性別管理性別樣板
外文關鍵詞:prosecutorgenderorganizationsexualitymasculinitydoing gendermanaging gendertokenism
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:11
  • 點閱點閱:1439
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:5
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。
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.
目 錄

第一章 緒論-----------------------------------------------------------------------1
第一節 緣起與問題意識---------------------------------------------------------------1
第二節 研究目的------------------------------------------------------------------------5
第三節 文獻回顧------------------------------------------------------------------------5
第四節 研究方法與倫理---------------------------------------------------------------15
第二章 性別化的檢察官工作組織----------------------------------------22
第一節 工作的性別化概念如何影響檢察官工作組織----------------------------22
第二節 與組織邏輯不相容的女性性屬---------------------------------------------29
第三節 男性性屬在組織的優勢與陽剛特質的運作------------------------------36
第四節 小結------------------------------------------------------------------------------48
第三章 個人與組織的互動關係-------------------------------------------50
第一節 從互動中看見本質化的性別評價------------------------------------------50
第二節 檢察官在組織中如何管理性別---------------------------------------------55
第三節 做陽剛或做陰柔?還是女性化的陽剛?---------------------------------59
第四節 小結------------------------------------------------------------------------------66
第四章 女性檢察官在組織中的處境-------------------------------------68
第一節 高能見度的「女性」檢察官------------------------------------------------68
第二節 不被重視的女性「檢察官」------------------------------------------------73
第三節 想要突破傳統角色的女性檢察官------------------------------------------80
第四節 小結------------------------------------------------------------------------------92
第五章 結論-------------------------------------------------------------------94
參考書目------------------------------------------------------------------------100
附件:受訪名單、訪談大綱、訪談同意書、「民國96年底法務部所屬各級機關檢察官人數統計」表
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。
楊長苓(2000)〈質性研究工作坊系列一:訪談法(1) 〉,《婦女與兩性研究通訊》,56:2-7。
楊濰萍(2006)《在陽剛職場中「打滾」的女人-以台灣基女警的職涯路徑為例》。世新大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。
劉仲冬(2006)<陰陽殊性、男女異行:性別差異的生物論述>,《性屬關係》,27-56頁。台北:心理。
Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. 國立編譯館主譯(2008) 《公司男女》。台北:群學。
Ritchie, Donald A. (1996) Doing Oral History. 王芝芝譯(1997)《大家來做口述歷史》。台北:遠流。

英文書目
Acker, Joan (1990)Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gender Organizations. Gender & Society, 4:135-158.
_________ (1992)Gendering Organizational Theory. In J. Albert & P. Tancred (eds.), Gendering Organizational Analysis (pp.248-262). CA: Sage.
Bogoch, Bryna (1999)Courtroom discourse and the Gendered Construction of Professional Identity. Law and social Inquiry, 24(329).
Bergin, Kathleen A. (2006)Sex for Sale: Sexualized Advocacy: The Ascendant Backlash Against Female Lawyers. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 18(191).
Bowman, Cynthia G. (1998) Women and the Legal Profession. American University Journal of Gender, social Policy & the Law, 7(149).
Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005) Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society, 19(6): 829-859.
Connell, R. W. (1995) The Social Organization of Masculinities. In Masculinities (pp.67-86).Berkeley: University of California Press.
DeVault , Marjorie L. (1996) Talking Back to Sociology: Distinctive Contributions of Feminist Methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 29-50.
Denscombe, Martyn (2007) The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects. Open University Press.
Gardiner, Judith K. (2004) Men, Masculinities and Feminist Theory. In M.S. Kinnel, J. Hearn, & R.W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Harding, Sandra (1987) Introduction: Is There a Feminist Method? In S. Harding (Eds.), Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Haraway, Donna (1988) Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575-599.
Halford, Susan, Savage, Mike & Witz, Ann (1997) Gender, Careers and Oorganizations. London: Macmilian.
Halford, Susan & Leonard, Pauline (2001) Sexuality and Organisation. In Gender, Power and Organisations(pp.141-177). New York: Palgrave.
Hales, Christine & Honey, Anne (2005) Unraveling Ethics: Illuminating the Moral Dilemmas of Research Ethics. Signs, 30(4): 2141-2162.
Johnson, Allan G. (1997) The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1977) Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women. The American Journal of Sociology, 82(5):965-990.
Kirsch, Gesa E. (2005) Friendship, Friendliness, and Feminist Fieldwork. Signs, 30(4): 2163-2172.
Kuo, Shu-chin, G. (2005) Rethinking the Masculine Character of the Legal Profession: A Case Study of Female Legal Professionals and Their Gendered Life in Taiwan. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 13(25).
Levine, Kay L.(2005) The New Prosecution. In Wake Forest Law Review. 40(1125).
Merriam, Sharan B. (2002) Narrative Analysis. In Qualitative Research in Practice (pp.286-288). CA: Jossey-Bass of John Wiley.
Mills, Albert J. (1993) Gender, Sexuality and Organization Theory. In The Sexuality of Organization(pp.29-44). London: Sage.
Ramazanoglu, Caroline & Holland, Janet (2002) Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London: Sage.
Round, Deborah. R.(1988) Gender Bias in the Judicial System. Southern California Law Review, 61(2193).
Rhode, Deborah L.(1988) Occupational Inequality. Duke Law Jounal,1988(1207)
Raggi, Raggi (1989)Prosecutors’ Offices: Where Gender is Irrelevant. Fordham Law Review, 57(975).
Sheppard, Deborah L. (1993) Organizations, Power and Sexuality: The Image and Self- Image of Women Managers. In The Sexuality of Organization(pp.139-157). London: Sage.
Shepherd, Matthew (1998) Feminism , Men and the Study of Masculinity: Which Way Now. In S. Schacht & D. Ewing (Eds.), Feminism and Men: Reconstructing Gender Relations. New York: NYU press.
Solimine, Michael E. &Wheatley, Susan E. (1995) Rethinking Feminist Judging. Indiana Law Journal, 70(891).
Taylor, Stephanie (2002) Locating and Conducting Discourse Analytic Research. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis . London: Sage.
West, Candace & Zimmerman, Don H. (2002) Doing Gender. In Sarah Fenstermaker, Candace West (Eds.), Doing Gender, Doing Difference: Inequality, Power, and Institutional Change. New York: Roteledge.
Yoder, Janice. D. (1994) Looking Beyond Numbers: The Effects of Gender Status, Job Prestige, and Occupational Gender-Typing on Tokenism Processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(2):150-159.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top