隐藏在众目睽睽之下:澳大利亚老年护理皇家委员会中的女性与性别痴呆症动态关系

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 GERONTOLOGY Journal of Aging Studies Pub Date : 2024-11-09 DOI:10.1016/j.jaging.2024.101285
Kristina Chelberg , Linda Steele
{"title":"隐藏在众目睽睽之下:澳大利亚老年护理皇家委员会中的女性与性别痴呆症动态关系","authors":"Kristina Chelberg ,&nbsp;Linda Steele","doi":"10.1016/j.jaging.2024.101285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Dementia is known to unequally affect women, whether as women living with dementia, or women who provide unwaged or paid care, yet dementia and long-term care (‘LTC’) research and policy often ignore gender. Using Australia as a case study and building on critical dementia, critical disability, and feminist scholarship, this discourse analysis study explored representations in the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (‘ACRC’) Final Report of experiences of women with dementia, and women care partners of people with dementia, using long-term care. This paper argues gender remained an overlooked topic in relation to dementia in the ACRC Final Report. This paper found women and dementia were co-constructed according to normative gendered scripts of passive femininity. In particular, harms experienced by women with dementia in long-term care were overlooked, while the feminised labour of women care partners was taken for granted. In failing to address normative gendered patterns, the ACRC Final Report entrenches rather than unseats marginalisation of women in dementia research and policy and is a missed opportunity to address gendered labour, discrimination and harms in long-term care. Ultimately, the paper highlights the need to recognise long-term care as a key site for critical dementia and feminist scholarly and activist interventions and intersectional approaches in reforms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47935,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aging Studies","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101285"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hidden in plain sight: Women and gendered dementia dynamics in the Australian Aged Care Royal Commission\",\"authors\":\"Kristina Chelberg ,&nbsp;Linda Steele\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jaging.2024.101285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Dementia is known to unequally affect women, whether as women living with dementia, or women who provide unwaged or paid care, yet dementia and long-term care (‘LTC’) research and policy often ignore gender. Using Australia as a case study and building on critical dementia, critical disability, and feminist scholarship, this discourse analysis study explored representations in the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (‘ACRC’) Final Report of experiences of women with dementia, and women care partners of people with dementia, using long-term care. This paper argues gender remained an overlooked topic in relation to dementia in the ACRC Final Report. This paper found women and dementia were co-constructed according to normative gendered scripts of passive femininity. In particular, harms experienced by women with dementia in long-term care were overlooked, while the feminised labour of women care partners was taken for granted. In failing to address normative gendered patterns, the ACRC Final Report entrenches rather than unseats marginalisation of women in dementia research and policy and is a missed opportunity to address gendered labour, discrimination and harms in long-term care. Ultimately, the paper highlights the need to recognise long-term care as a key site for critical dementia and feminist scholarly and activist interventions and intersectional approaches in reforms.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47935,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Aging Studies\",\"volume\":\"71 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101285\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Aging Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089040652400080X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aging Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089040652400080X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

众所周知,痴呆症对女性的影响是不平等的,无论是痴呆症女性患者,还是提供无偿或有偿护理的女性,但痴呆症和长期护理(LTC)的研究和政策往往忽视了性别问题。这项话语分析研究以澳大利亚为案例,在批判性痴呆症、批判性残疾和女权主义学术研究的基础上,探讨了澳大利亚皇家老年护理质量与安全委员会(ACRC)最终报告中关于痴呆症女性患者和痴呆症患者的女性护理伙伴在使用长期护理服务时的经历的表述。本文认为,在 ACRC 的《最终报告》中,性别仍然是与痴呆症有关的一个被忽视的话题。本文发现,女性和痴呆症是根据被动女性的规范性性别脚本共同构建的。尤其是,患有痴呆症的女性在长期护理中所经历的伤害被忽视了,而女性护理伙伴的女性化劳动被认为是理所当然的。ACRC 的最终报告未能解决规范性的性别模式问题,从而巩固而非消除了女性在痴呆症研究和政策中的边缘化地位,错失了解决长期护理中的性别劳动、歧视和伤害问题的良机。最后,本文强调有必要认识到长期护理是关键性痴呆症和女权主义学者与活动家干预和改革交叉方法的关键场所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Hidden in plain sight: Women and gendered dementia dynamics in the Australian Aged Care Royal Commission
Dementia is known to unequally affect women, whether as women living with dementia, or women who provide unwaged or paid care, yet dementia and long-term care (‘LTC’) research and policy often ignore gender. Using Australia as a case study and building on critical dementia, critical disability, and feminist scholarship, this discourse analysis study explored representations in the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (‘ACRC’) Final Report of experiences of women with dementia, and women care partners of people with dementia, using long-term care. This paper argues gender remained an overlooked topic in relation to dementia in the ACRC Final Report. This paper found women and dementia were co-constructed according to normative gendered scripts of passive femininity. In particular, harms experienced by women with dementia in long-term care were overlooked, while the feminised labour of women care partners was taken for granted. In failing to address normative gendered patterns, the ACRC Final Report entrenches rather than unseats marginalisation of women in dementia research and policy and is a missed opportunity to address gendered labour, discrimination and harms in long-term care. Ultimately, the paper highlights the need to recognise long-term care as a key site for critical dementia and feminist scholarly and activist interventions and intersectional approaches in reforms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
17.40%
发文量
70
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Aging Studies features scholarly papers offering new interpretations that challenge existing theory and empirical work. Articles need not deal with the field of aging as a whole, but with any defensibly relevant topic pertinent to the aging experience and related to the broad concerns and subject matter of the social and behavioral sciences and the humanities. The journal emphasizes innovations and critique - new directions in general - regardless of theoretical or methodological orientation or academic discipline. Critical, empirical, or theoretical contributions are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Aging together-with: The growing older of humans, non-humans and more-than-humans. A commentary Hidden in plain sight: Women and gendered dementia dynamics in the Australian Aged Care Royal Commission Four modes of embodiment in later life “Aging well” in knowledge-intensive service professions in Sweden – The idealization of youth in neoliberal labor markets Social engagement among older women in Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1