The solutions working mothers employ in each country are also highly dependent on the gendered work–family policies present in each context. In Sweden, government policies, like the “gender equality bonus” (p. 33), incentivize mothers and fathers to split leave time equally. As a result, mothers expect men to participate equally in caregiving and feel they can prioritize full-time employment. In former East and West Germany, the implementation of work–family policy supports reinforces notions that women are best suited to work in white-collar part-time work. German mothers tend to scale back on paid work at additional consequence. For example, German mothers are criticized for returning to work “too early” (p. 134) yet find that their marriages shift from egalitarian to more traditional when women take parental leave. Women in Italy and the United States seek to resolve work–family conflict by employing outsourced forms of labor, including caregivers and housekeepers. A key contribution of this study is its ability to take readers behind national trends and statistics to reveal the complex ways in which work–family policies and the cultural attitudes that motivate policies shape what working mothers want and expect at work and at home. Collins provides rich analysis of qualitative data that is suitable for undergraduate and graduate courses in sociology, public policy, and gender studies. While this book in its entirety would be especially valuable in a graduate Sociology of Work and Family course, chapters 1 and 7 could also be taught on their own in undergraduate Introduction to Sociology, Social Problems, and Sociology of the Family courses. The methodological appendix is especially well suited as an example of engaging public sociology in a graduate seminar on qualitative methods. Because the book is written in an accessible style with broad appeal, the methodological appendix is also a great addition to an upper-level undergraduate Research Methods course. As a much-needed and timely call for “radical hope” (p. 262) and the politicization of the American rhetoric of work– family balance to one of “work–family justice” (p. 255), Making Motherhood Work is an important read for academic and general audiences alike. Finally, as a supplement to the incisive qualitative analysis in Making Motherhood Work, instructors might consider pairing this book with additional text to overcome one limitation of the text: the focus on privileged women. Pairing Making Motherhood Work with foundational texts, like Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood before Marriage by Edin and Kefalas (2005), will offer students an equally important and intersectional framework for understanding motherhood. Additionally, instructors might consider pairing Making Motherhood Work with Holster’s (2012) “Media Representation of Family Paper Assignment” to help students practice identifying the ways in which cultural understandings of motherhood shift not only across context but also across time periods. The questions in this TRAILS guide lay the foundation for a dynamic and comprehensive classroom conversation and analysis of how everyday messages reinforce cultural norms and expectations of mothers. Overall, Making Motherhood Work provides an engaging and accessible account of working mothers’ beliefs about what helps and hinders their work–family conflict in four distinct social welfare regimes. By providing the radical hope necessary to encourage a movement for work–family justice, this book has the potential to inspire students to challenge the notion that work–family conflict is an inevitable part of life.

中文翻译：

---

书评：越轨：社会结构和模糊的边界

每个国家的职业母亲所采用的解决方案也高度依赖于每个环境中存在的性别化的工作-家庭政策。在瑞典，政府政策，如“性别平等奖金”（第 33 页），鼓励母亲和父亲平均分配休假时间。因此，母亲们希望男性平等参与照料工作，并认为她们可以优先考虑全职工作。在前东德和西德，工作-家庭政策支持的实施强化了女性最适合从事白领兼职工作的观念。德国母亲往往会因额外的后果而减少带薪工作。例如，德国母亲因“过早”重返工作岗位而受到批评（第 134 页），但发现当女性休育儿假时，她们的婚姻从平等主义转变为更传统的婚姻。意大利和美国的妇女寻求通过雇用外包形式的劳动力（包括看护人和管家）来解决工作与家庭的冲突。这项研究的一个关键贡献是它能够让读者了解国家趋势和统计数据，以揭示工作-家庭政策的复杂方式以及激励政策的文化态度塑造了职业母亲在工作和家庭中的期望和期望。柯林斯提供了丰富的定性数据分析，适用于社会学、公共政策和性别研究的本科和研究生课程。虽然这本书的整体在工作与家庭社会学研究生课程中特别有价值，但第 1 章和第 7 章也可以在本科社会学导论、社会问题和家庭社会学课程中单独讲授。方法论附录特别适合作为公共社会学参与定性方法研究生研讨会的一个例子。由于本书以通俗易懂的风格编写，具有广泛的吸引力，因此方法论附录也是高年级本科研究方法课程的重要补充。作为对“激进希望”（第 262 页）以及将美国关于工作-家庭平衡的修辞政治化为“工作-家庭正义”（第 255 页）之一的迫切需要和及时的呼吁，让母性工作是一个对学术界和普通读者来说都是重要的读物。最后，作为使母性工作中精辟的定性分析的补充，教师可能会考虑将本书与其他文本配对，以克服文本的一个限制：对特权女性的关注。将母性与基础性文本配对，例如我可以信守的承诺：为什么贫穷的妇女将母性置于婚姻之前，Edin 和 Kefalas（2005 年）将为学生提供一个同样重要且交叉的框架来理解母性。此外，教师可能会考虑将《让母性工作》与 Holster (2012) 的“家庭论文作业的媒体表示”结合起来，帮助学生练习确定对母性的文化理解不仅跨上下文而且跨时间段转变的方式。本 TRAILS 指南中的问题为动态和全面的课堂对话和分析日常信息如何加强母亲的文化规范和期望奠定了基础。全面的，让孕产工作提供了一个引人入胜且易于理解的解释，说明了在四种不同的社会福利制度中，职业母亲对什么有助于和阻碍她们的工作-家庭冲突的信念。通过提供鼓励工作-家庭正义运动所必需的激进希望，本书有可能激发学生挑战工作-家庭冲突是生活中不可避免的一部分的观念。