Gender (in)equality among employees in elder care: implications for health

Abstract

IntroductionGendered practices of working life create gender inequalities through horizontal and vertical gender segregation in work, which may lead to inequalities in health between women and men. Gender equality could therefore be a key element of health equity in working life. Our aim was to analyze what gender (in)equality means for the employees at a woman-dominated workplace and discuss possible implications for health experiences.MethodsAll caregiving staff at two workplaces in elder care within a municipality in the north of Sweden were invited to participate in the study. Forty-five employees participated, 38 women and 7 men. Seven focus group discussions were performed and led by a moderator. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the focus groups.ResultsWe identified two themes. "Advocating gender equality in principle" showed how gender (in)equality was seen as a structural issue not connected to the individual health experiences. "Justifying inequality with individualism" showed how the caregivers focused on personalities and interests as a justification of gender inequalities in work division. The justification of gender inequality resulted in a gendered work division which may be related to health inequalities between women and men. Gender inequalities in work division were primarily understood in terms of personality and interests and not in terms of gender.ConclusionThe health experience of the participants was affected by gender (in)equality in terms of a gendered work division. However, the participants did not see the gendered work division as a gender equality issue. Gender perspectives are needed to improve the health of the employees at the workplaces through shifting from individual to structural solutions. A healthy-setting approach considering gender relations is needed to achieve gender equality and fairness in health status between women and men.

Gendered social learning, nonfamily institutions, and attitudes about recourse after partner violence.

“…Ethnographic studies have noted a return to presocialist traditions and rituals (Luong, 1993); for instance, parents remain highly involved in their children’s marriages (Bélanger & Khuat, 2001), and the residence of sons with their parents remains common (Author et al, 2014a; Bélanger, 2000). Moreover, men often remain the symbolic heads of household and retain authority over major family decisions (Hong, Duong, & Nguyen, 2010; Bui et al, 2012; Hien, 2008). Women, in turn, must accommodate these decisions (Author, et al, 2006a; Hien, 2008; Hong, Duong, & Nguyen, 2010) or risk blame and “punishment” (Bui et al., 2012; Hien, 2008; Nguyen, 2012; Hong, Duong, & Nguyen, 2010).…”

“…Moreover, men often remain the symbolic heads of household and retain authority over major family decisions (Hong, Duong, & Nguyen, 2010; Bui et al, 2012; Hien, 2008). Women, in turn, must accommodate these decisions (Author, et al, 2006a; Hien, 2008; Hong, Duong, & Nguyen, 2010) or risk blame and “punishment” (Bui et al., 2012; Hien, 2008; Nguyen, 2012; Hong, Duong, & Nguyen, 2010). Taoist ideas associating men with heat and women with coolness legitimize men’s violence and pressure women to endure it in silence (Horton & Rydstrøm, 2011; Rydstrøm, 2003).…”

“…Although the state in 2007 adopted a new law on domestic violence, specifying acts of IPV and strategies for prevention and intervention (National Assembly, Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2007), one third of women in rural Northern Vietnam (32.7%) and nationally (34.4%) report lifetime physical and/or sexual IPV (General Statistical Office [GSO], 2010; Vung, Ostergren, & Krantz, 2008), exceeding levels reported elsewhere in Southeast Asia (Author et al, 2006b). In such contexts, women often blame themselves for IPV (Bui et al, 2012; Nguyen, 2012; Horton & Rydstrøm, 2011), with 41.3% nationally justifying IPV against women (GSO, 2010). …”

“…During the process of economic reform, the government reduced subsidies for childcare, downsized public-sector employment, and reduced the length of maternity leave, all of which disproportionately affected women (Goodkind, 1995; Hopkins, Peterson, & Lewis, 1999). Moreover, women workers often are unskilled (42.9% vs. 36.2% of men) (World Bank, 2011) and occupationally segregated (Bui et al., 2012; World Bank, 2011). Finally, alongside the promotion of women’s engagement in public life, the Women’s Union has urged respect for familial hierarchy and harmony (Schuler et al, 2006).…”

“…Finally, alongside the promotion of women’s engagement in public life, the Women’s Union has urged respect for familial hierarchy and harmony (Schuler et al, 2006). These counter-veiling forces may have resulted in the retention of some customary patriarchal values, including women’s responsibility for unpaid care and domestic work, their dependence on the husband’s family, and men’s dominance in family decisions (Bui et al, 2012; Hy, 2003; Hong, Duong, & Nguyen, 2010; Hong, 1998; Long, Hung, Truitt, Mai, & Anh, 2000). Indeed, the expectations that women perform market, care, and domestic work as part of dutiful motherhood (Korinek, 2004; Hy, 2003) may have been more burdensome than emancipatory, limiting beliefs in the rights of women, including freedom from violence and to formal recourse in response.…”