You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items

  • Author or Editor: Manuela Naldini x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Sonia Bertolini, Rosy Musumeci, Manuela Naldini and Paola Maria Torrioni

This chapter aims to illustrate how the social construction of fatherhood and motherhood are mirrored in the plans of a group of interviewed couples expecting their first child and living in Turin in 2010-2012 (a city in the north-west of Italy). The couples’ perceptions of ‘what’s best for the child’ were used as a lens through which the competing forces of Italian family policy and the dominant gender culture were examined. This at a time when the Italian labour market suffered from the 2007-08 economic crisis. Evaluation of couples’ ideals regarding parenthood and their planned strategies to balance work and family life, necessitated a review of how the transition to motherhood and fatherhood contributed to the ‘doing and undoing’ of gender among the couples. In our analyses, we thus paid particular attention to the role that beliefs, ideals and social representations played in the transition to motherhood and fatherhood among the interviewed couples. Moreover, we analysed the importance couples attributed to their financial resources (income and job-related benefits), social resources (family and social network), social policy and work environments when planning for parental and non-parental childcare arrangements. Our analyses show that traditional ideals about what is the best for the child contributed to constructing distinct roles for the interviewed Italian fathers and mothers-to-be. The couples frequently used these ideals to justify differences in their plans concerning men’s and women’s future career investments, participation in the care of the child and the allocation of domestic work. The accounts of our informants suggested a high level of ambivalence towards the transition to a more traditional division of labour. The more egalitarian couples’ resistance to redefining their own future roles occurred in a context in which public support for shared parenthood is weak and a public debate is lacking.
You do not have access to this content

Teresa Jurado-Guerrero, María José González López and Manuela Naldini

You do not have access to this content

Trudie Knijn and Manuela Naldini

This chapter analyses why the EU has only partially succeeded in realising gender equality in its Member States and has failed in offering a better future for its coming generations. The EU has regulated work-related policies and, relatedly, those aspects of family policies that contribute to economic growth, a mobile and knowledge-based labour market. In that process, other family-related issues get less priority, with negative consequences for gender and intergenerational relations. It concludes that a double ‘domestification’ – national and in the private home – of gender and intergenerational citizenship rights results from dissimilar family laws and family policies in the Member States which are mostly beyond the scope of the EU. The chapter is based on a study of six European countries and focuses on the various legal definitions of the family in Member States and the European care gap dilemma. It also presents results of a study among young Europeans on their expectations regarding the intra-EU mobility and/or harmonisation of these rights at EU level. Finally, the approach to gender equality, intergenerational solidarity and family life of anti-European radical right-wing political parties that proclaim re-nationalisation of citizenship rights is presented.