Despite decades of focus on gender equality and work-family balance, parenthood still affects mothers' and fathers' careers differently. Drawing on in-depth interviews with Norwegian mothers who are relinquishing high-commitment careers of law and consultancy, this paper questions the adequacy of established explanations emphasizing constraints vs. individual preferences. Our sample of female professionals living in a well-developed welfare state is particularly apt to explore the processes and mechanisms upholding the statistically gendered pattern of women reducing their work commitment after childbirth. These doubly privileged mothers might be considered to have the best odds for combining career and work commitment with motherhood. Thus, we argue that the approach emphasizing practical constraints does not sufficiently account for the withdrawal from high-commitment careers among these female professionals. Nevertheless, we are not content with the claim of Preference Theory that this shift in commitment is merely a matter of 'not-so-dedicated' women discovering their 'genuine' preferences. Rather, in order to understand why and how this shift occurs, we explore the culturally constructed rationalities and schemas of both work and family devotions. We specifically examine the circumstances, mechanisms and steps in a seemingly individual process of making the shift in commitment from a promising career to a family-friendly job. Moreover, the analysis demonstrates how generous parental leave arrangements designed to enhance gender equality and work-family balance by simply reducing practical constraints may have limited--or even counterproductive--impact within high-commitment occupations where the 'irreplaceability' of workers is taken for granted. Our findings indicate that unless the culturally (re)produced discourses, demands and expectations of both work and family are exposed and challenged, even intentionally gender neutral work-family policies will continue to facilitate mothers' career withdrawals, expressed as modified individual preferences.

Although boys too are involved in relational aggression, their experiences are overshadowed by the focus on relational aggression among girls. This paradox mirrors the empirical puzzle that forms the starting point for this article: while teachers saw relational aggression as a 'girl problem', we found a vast undercurrent of relational aggression among boys. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with staff and students in Norwegian schools, we ask how boys' relational aggression can be left unnoticed by school staff. We demonstrate that there is a gap between the experiences boys have of being victims of relational aggression and their expression of this, in terms of both their inability to talk about it and its undramatic form. We argue that this represents a blind spot for school staff and for the boys themselves, and suggest that gendered knowledge production contributes to reproducing the invisibility of relational aggression among boys.

No abstract

No abstract

Bullying research has widely included group dynamics as contextual factors. However, explanations addressing the causes of bullying predominantly emphasise individual dysfunctions related to aggression and empathy. Analysing qualitative data from Norwegian schools, this article explores four different group dynamics that may produce bullying behaviours as well as deactivate empathy. Drawing on theories of social hierarchies and ingroups/outgroups, the article offers new approaches to understanding the ways in which the intense markings of social distinctions between positions and cliques in peer culture represent significant social driving forces in school bullying.