How Do Traditional Gender Roles Relate to Social Cohesion? Focus on Differences Between Women and Men

被引:0
|
作者
Marie Valentova
机构
[1] LISER,
来源
Social Indicators Research | 2016年 / 127卷
关键词
Division of labour between men and women; Gender role attitudes; Social cohesion; Multidimensional measurement;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The aims of the present paper are to explore how traditional gender roles (focusing mainly on attitudes towards the division of labour between men and women) relate to social cohesion and to examine whether this relationship differs among men and women. The multi-dimensional concept of social cohesion is measured by two general components: a behavioural dimension (consisting of civic and political participation and the intensity of non-kin social relations) and an attitudinal dimension (institutional trust and solidarity). The analysis, based on the data of the European Values Study from Luxembourg, reveals that being more traditional is related to higher attitudinal cohesion: i.e. higher institutional trust and solidarity. Conversely, traditional attitudes are associated with less cohesive behaviour, namely with a lower intensity of non-kin social relations and political participation. Tradition-oriented women show significantly lower levels of political participation than their male counterparts, whereas traditional men tend to demonstrate less solidarity than women.
引用
收藏
页码:153 / 178
页数:25
相关论文
共 2 条
  • [1] How Do Traditional Gender Roles Relate to Social Cohesion? Focus on Differences Between Women and Men
    Valentova, Marie
    SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2016, 127 (01) : 153 - 178
  • [2] Characterizing social cohesion and gender identity as risk determinants of HIV among cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women in Cote d'Ivoire
    Moran, Alexander
    Scheim, Ayden
    Lyons, Carrie
    Liestman, Benjamin
    Drame, Fatou
    Ketende, Sosthenes
    Diouf, Daouda
    Ba, Ibrahima
    Ezouatchi, Rebecca
    Bamba, Amara
    Kouame, Abo
    Baral, Stefan
    ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 42 : 25 - 32