WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.001 --> 00:00:00.000
Thank you. So maybe.

2
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:17.000
Good morning everyone. This is A 30 really early morning so thank you for coming to this session is Comparative research on family goals and values.

3
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:29.000
I thought it's always nice to have a session at least in a family group that you're comparing, have some international comparative work.

4
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:46.000
That's the motivation for organizing this. Session we have 5 Really excellent paper and very interesting on different topics and family values and goals and We've also managed to find a discussant.

5
00:00:46.000 --> 00:01:02.000
To give some comments and provide some feedback on the authors. Each one of them would have only 15 min to do this but I wanted to provide an acknowledgment of the country.

6
00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:11.000
Here on behalf of everyone gathered I pay respect to the spirit of the country here in Narum where we are meeting.

7
00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:34.000
I acknowledge the past and present Cuni Nation Guru Terraji Wal. Iran as the solvent people here, the cultural knowledge holders who maintain and promote the Naran, original law customs and Custodian ship.

8
00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:44.000
Responsibilities for country and the people that can country continues to sustain generation after generation. Into the future for all of us.

9
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:58.000
I recognize the important contribution that First Nations thinkers have made to sociology that First Nations thinkers have made to sociology, that First Nations thinkers have made to sociology, including challenges to that First Nations thinkers have made to sociology, including challenges to our dominant ways of thinkingers have made to sociology, including challenges to our dominant ways of thinking, we

10
00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:08.000
think Whoops. We thank all First Nations delegates in the room today for their contributions to knowledge in the discipline.

11
00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:13.000
So now that's begin.

12
00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:23.000
Presentation we actually have 3 online and remote presentation today. Should I click on it? The first one is.

13
00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:32.000
Mr.

14
00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:33.000
Yeah.

15
00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:38.000
Yes, and Can I use my updated version of? Slave? Yeah, okay.

16
00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:46.000
So our time is tight, so appreciate to keep the time. I don't know how to show you the time, but.

17
00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:47.000
We'll manage that. Thank you. Please go.

18
00:02:47.000 --> 00:03:02.000
Okay. Okay.

19
00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:05.000
Do you see my screen?

20
00:03:05.000 --> 00:03:07.000
Yes. Yes.

21
00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:12.000
Okay.

22
00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:26.000
Thank you. I'm doing a PhD in, today I will talk you back with science or family support.

23
00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:36.000
A family relationship for individual social support. A cultural comparative perspective.

24
00:03:36.000 --> 00:03:46.000
About for the outline I will talk about background or objective Stories on tracing a source of support.

25
00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:56.000
Method and data analysis. And, I will present to, and I will finish with the discussions.

26
00:03:56.000 --> 00:04:09.000
Comparative study option differences in family solidarity like norm support. Globally, is there a strong versus weak family?

27
00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:23.000
Good. There are Family solidarity, work in individualistic cultures like OCIA, Sweden, USC.

28
00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:31.000
Where we get a family norms. Las, FRICK, is a family support provision.

29
00:04:31.000 --> 00:04:48.000
And the opposite partner, observing in, African country like South Africa.

30
00:04:48.000 --> 00:05:00.000
I will. Oh, well, Compassion complicated categories of strong week. Family look at family is a prominent source of informal supporter.

31
00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:12.000
In both individualistic and Collectivists, societies. Like for we need of care in case of illness, domestic tax and need for money.

32
00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:26.000
Philan. Also strongly related to family support provision in both. Collectivist context and individualistic context.

33
00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:43.000
This up and contradiction can be related to some gap. So family support may be universal. The effect of family norm or individual behaviors can vary between a culture or context.

34
00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:44.000
Yeah.

35
00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:56.000
Why? In previous studies, there is no distinction between individual and aggregated level of analysis in term of F, like individual.

36
00:05:56.000 --> 00:06:05.000
Family Norm and a strength of family norms at country level and other ends to family norm varies.

37
00:06:05.000 --> 00:06:11.000
Within the same countries.

38
00:06:11.000 --> 00:06:12.000
You

39
00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:22.000
Or source of support like emotional or instrumental sport. Examining, seperate according to Keller.

40
00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:37.000
This, do people on average and from different types of less likely to sec support form.

41
00:06:37.000 --> 00:06:50.000
From family in countries with a high degree of individualism. And with, do people who I there to fill your nomes, 10 more to their family for taking support.

42
00:06:50.000 --> 00:07:01.000
And we measure this association varies according to the type of needs. And the countries. Degree of individual.

43
00:07:01.000 --> 00:07:16.000
Oh, Gregory is to describe, the relationship. Between Adelans to fill their norms and family support for different type of needs.

44
00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:40.000
At individual level and for different types. Different needs in each country to assess the association. So Getting Support to assess the moderating rule of value like a on this association.

45
00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:53.000
We, our framework is, budget on some, series on a family Ch in the family support.

46
00:07:53.000 --> 00:08:06.000
Like families, we defend families, but I have family. And family. Can we shipped? Bye.

47
00:08:06.000 --> 00:08:20.000
Like a failure norm interpersonal type social demographic factor like age gender or education at macro level can be cultural values.

48
00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:33.000
Economics and social policies. And we can have interaction between macro and mi. Changing family supports.

49
00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:50.000
We are free. Please. They hire a degree of individualism in the country. The video norms and the lower is family support but only for some type of needs.

50
00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:59.000
The more people add their tombs, the more they will choice the family support in times of need, regardless of DEMONERY CERTAINLY.

51
00:08:59.000 --> 00:09:13.000
In the country. The I is the degree of individualist in the country. The is the influence. Of adherence to Filanum on family support.

52
00:09:13.000 --> 00:09:28.000
Broadly we can see. Be related to Koliman Bouat. Oh, first it's, it's the relation at aggregated, And the family solidarity like N.

53
00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:58.000
So support at individual level we assess the effect of failure norm on F. Checking and we if assess the moderating rule of Makuruila value on the effect between failure and family support We use a Yeah, CCTV, social network data from, 29 countries.

54
00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:09.000
And, we have a For me in a dependent variable. It is a charging optimal source in case of illness.

55
00:10:09.000 --> 00:10:24.000
Home task, depression in in case of family problems. And in Oh yeah. And the family support we use.

56
00:10:24.000 --> 00:10:44.000
So like at your children have a duty to take care. Of the parent it is a 5 point like as from disagree to agree And we assess the average margin and effect of on Trading Fermi's reporter by Multi Lumial Logistic.

57
00:10:44.000 --> 00:11:00.000
In each country and for each type of Sport neither. And we're controlling the effective by social demographic factor and

58
00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:21.000
There we use a to step the analytic approach to the heterogeneity between in effect Oh, And, if there is a We assess the moderating role effect.

59
00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:31.000
Of good solar value like, we use a, CERTAINLY, to access this moderating.

60
00:11:31.000 --> 00:11:43.000
And a role of capital values. Controlling for the human development index. In the Meta regression.

61
00:11:43.000 --> 00:12:06.000
Our users suggest. Is traditional value in the country stronger. In this country. And people are more likely Set the port in case of an emotional support needs like family problem and depression in these countries.

62
00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:20.000
Like China Falando or China, Thailand. And, the opposite button, of survey in Denmark and Sweden.

63
00:12:20.000 --> 00:12:34.000
But some I mean, politics are universal. At least 8% 10 first to family. In each countries or to sec family supports.

64
00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:48.000
Even if only in India the free cans of second family support allow it is like the 75%.

65
00:12:48.000 --> 00:13:01.000
Also for domestic help paper 10 most to the family to sex reporter in each country. Independently to the Filial norm.

66
00:13:01.000 --> 00:13:15.000
And broadly we can see our first, Hi, is

67
00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:45.000
I'm off, sector heterogeneity of, We assess EMITA, effectively, variation in You know, between, on facing family support in case of, spot need for and for emotional support like depression and for domestic help.

68
00:13:52.000 --> 00:14:09.000
We Can see how a single is accepted. Right. Hey. If there is a impact of a spiritual context on this.

69
00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:22.000
Association between Celia and judging family support, yes. You can see, there is a Moderating role of curates are a value.

70
00:14:22.000 --> 00:14:35.000
But in the opposite. as we expect the opposite direction as we expected. Julian is stronger in individualistic contexts.

71
00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:46.000
Zan in, Traditional or collectivism context. Like Iceland, Germany. In case of a family.

72
00:14:46.000 --> 00:15:05.000
Problem 10 more to the Family when is the added to comparing to their, you know, collectivist or traditionalist contexts.

73
00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:12.000
Yes, you can see our per put this is rejected.

74
00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:16.000
Overall we can see.

75
00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:30.000
It is better to avoid a strong weak failure. It is a type of social arrangement. For practical help.

76
00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:39.000
Independently to the Fella Nom, then first to their family to sex support. In each countries.

77
00:15:39.000 --> 00:15:48.000
But for innovation as what it depends. On Adelaide's tundurum and per minute value.

78
00:15:48.000 --> 00:16:11.000
A family. Fetching LP are more complex in individualist countries. Adeling to family norm increase.

79
00:16:11.000 --> 00:16:12.000
3 min, please.

80
00:16:12.000 --> 00:16:16.000
Changing your family help. The stronger and invisible the interdependence chain are is stronger internality norms are with individualization of of societies.

81
00:16:16.000 --> 00:16:20.000
As nowhere.

82
00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:31.000
It is the last slide. Thank you for attention. And I'm welcome critics to improve my My people.

83
00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:39.000
Thank you.

84
00:16:39.000 --> 00:16:40.000
Yeah.

85
00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:49.000
Thank you so much. That was a really interesting study. So now our second presenter. This goal is also going to be online.

86
00:16:49.000 --> 00:16:50.000
Hi, I'm gonna share now.

87
00:16:50.000 --> 00:16:54.000
And it's Miss Champing. Yeah. Okay, you're ready. Go ahead.

88
00:16:54.000 --> 00:17:01.000
She's gonna be talking about family ideals across cultures. 15 min, please. Go ahead.

89
00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:11.000
Let me send my Tyler. Hi everyone, I'm Jen. Paying from I'm doing my PhD in Balconi University in Italy.

90
00:17:11.000 --> 00:17:27.000
I'm presenting a joint project with 8 other coauthors that you see here. A family project we call family ideals across cultures and it's a factorial service experiment we conducted online for 8 countries.

91
00:17:27.000 --> 00:17:36.000
So I will quickly go over the motivation and some theoretical ideas behind the project and I will give you a brief introduction of bacteria of the experiments in case you are not familiar with it.

92
00:17:36.000 --> 00:17:46.000
And I'm gonna talk about our design and the result. And lastly, I will give a conclusion and some pointers for future research.

93
00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:58.000
So we see that, across Well, see, industrialized, countries, past decades, there is a steady drop in fertility and fertility ideals.

94
00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:12.000
But then we also can see this gap between ideals and fertility being that I do simply always being too and then the fertility has been quite low and in some countries as low as 1.3 and even lower.

95
00:18:12.000 --> 00:18:31.000
And then also the past decade we have seen, increasing rate of cohabitation, cohabitation, substituting marriage or birth outside marriage is, rising, but mostly in Western countries, US and Europe, but not in, Asian wealthy Asian countries such as Japan.

96
00:18:31.000 --> 00:18:41.000
So there has been a lot of theories explaining why change happened and how. Change can happen in some countries but not in other countries.

97
00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:52.000
One of the well known theories and prominent series is second demographic transition and idea behind it is how, develop the size develops and modernizes so people's ideas and values about family change.

98
00:18:52.000 --> 00:19:02.000
And so there's a break between social norms and newer emphasis on self-realization.

99
00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:08.000
And as we see lower fertility and higher rate of cohabitation, later marriage, etc.

100
00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:18.000
And we also see that, from more classical economic theories, etc. And we also see that, from more classical economic theories now, there is, not now, but we also see that, from more classical economic theories now, there is, not now, but for some time now there

101
00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:21.000
is, not now, but for some time now there's a quality over quantity on children rearing.

102
00:19:21.000 --> 00:19:29.000
So we have having investment, it having investment in wealthy countries particularly for middle class or middle class children. Families and then there's also in the background.

103
00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:44.000
On the macro level there's institutional contacts such as education expansion, women's employment that leads to gender norm changes or not change or the lack of change.

104
00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:49.000
And then we also have welfare regime differences that brought, some better support for the families in some countries and hence, higher fertility rates.

105
00:19:49.000 --> 00:20:05.000
And then we also have seen increasing uncertainties that every newer generation seems to have more uncertainty than the pasta older, past older ones.

106
00:20:05.000 --> 00:20:25.000
That I can shown from technological change to globalization to various shocks and climate changes and on the individual level there's also most uncertainty like unemployment, precarious employment status, which can also affect people's choices in family formation or So we see that changes happen and there is a lot of similarities, but there's also differences.

107
00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:39.000
Similarities always being that people are not having kids and despite that there's always reports 1, 2 kids and they have.

108
00:20:39.000 --> 00:21:03.000
Barely one in some countries. But then we also see that despite the second demographic change transition theories predict that as society modernizes people will have more free form or family formations such as higher cohabitation or birth outside marriage but it doesn't really happen in wealthy Asian countries.

109
00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:16.000
And at the same time, we see a global trend of heavier and heavier demands towards different dimensions of family life such as, what, again parental investment in children and also there is.

110
00:21:16.000 --> 00:21:28.000
At this proportionally, some responsibilities and demands disproportionately born by females because of, gender inequality or the lack of change in a gender dimension.

111
00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:35.000
And then there's also long working hours in some countries that could potentially lead to work life. Work family conflict.

112
00:21:35.000 --> 00:21:45.000
So we see changes and we see changes happen in some part and not in other parts. And then we also see that family life is a multi-dimensional concept.

113
00:21:45.000 --> 00:22:02.000
You people have to balance between chairaring how many children you want chair rearing and then you also have to balance your relationship with maybe, your parents and then greater like the last presentation with a greater family.

114
00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:12.000
And now you have to, balance out with how the marketing environment you stay supporting you or how environment can be quite precarious and uncertain.

115
00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:21.000
So how do we reconcile such different dimensions of family life? Do people make decisions considering different dimensions at the same time when they make decisions?

116
00:22:21.000 --> 00:22:29.000
Is it possible that when we talk about, for example, ideals like fertility ideal when people answer to it could be now people are saying that it could be just an automatic answer.

117
00:22:29.000 --> 00:22:52.000
They may not actually considering how family is being organized, but if we make if we help them or if we force them to make family choices, family decisions in a multi-dimensional context, we will see how people have to make trade offs between different demands and dimensions.

118
00:22:52.000 --> 00:23:02.000
And so we conducted a factorial server experiment in A countries and these are all. Advanced.

119
00:23:02.000 --> 00:23:14.000
Advanced in industrialization, countries. And a family survey experiment help us to, assess the underlying judgment principles that govern social norms.

120
00:23:14.000 --> 00:23:22.000
Attitudes and definitions and it can it has been quite popular especially in political studies nowadays. And because it's experiment and there's a multiple factory factors present at the same time.

121
00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:41.000
So, by design, the independent, the independence between factors that are guaranteed. So there's a complete lack of multi-calling narrative between the factors.

122
00:23:41.000 --> 00:24:01.000
And then lastly, and more importantly for us, we can compare and contrast between multiple factors and see what factors of family life, what dimensions of family life is more important for people when they make decisions about family and we see relative importance they assign to different factors and there are also other benefits of such method.

123
00:24:01.000 --> 00:24:15.000
And for example, have a higher external validity compared to lab based experiments. And I has shown that it has reduced social desiability bias because of the multiple dimensions present at same time.

124
00:24:15.000 --> 00:24:26.000
So it's hard for participant to judge, to kind of print, anticipate what the research want them to answer or what will be the social desirable answer.

125
00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:37.000
And I will give you a brief overview on how factors of experiment is done. So now it has many factors and a fact many factors at least from 2 to many.

126
00:24:37.000 --> 00:24:49.000
And that has to be kind of, squeeze in in a single And the vineette will have such factors that varies to different extent.

127
00:24:49.000 --> 00:25:07.000
And then the combination of the factors and levels will create a quite large number of experimental conditions. And then what we randomized is each factor is levels so every factor is randomized in different to it's different levels.

128
00:25:07.000 --> 00:25:18.000
And then the independent variable will be these factors or dimensions. And in our case, we have 8 to 10 family related factors that varies between 2 to 4 levels.

129
00:25:18.000 --> 00:25:34.000
And the dependent variables is normally some rating or some choices on the If you are you are presented by vignette that varies in different respects and you will have, a participant has to answer for in our case.

130
00:25:34.000 --> 00:25:44.000
How much they are Grease that, a successful family. And then you you could combine this method in our case. And then you could combine this method.

131
00:25:44.000 --> 00:25:48.000
In our case, we combine it with other close ended questions. We combine it with other close ended questions on classic demographic.

132
00:25:48.000 --> 00:26:02.000
Social economic. Status items. Sorry, So we've done, the survey that comes out of 2 experiments, in 20.

133
00:26:02.000 --> 00:26:09.000
21 for 8 countries, China, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Spain, Italy, Norway and U.S.A.

134
00:26:09.000 --> 00:26:17.000
They are mainly low fatality countries and maybe you can argue that US and Norway have a bit higher fertility but not so high nowadays anyway.

135
00:26:17.000 --> 00:26:24.000
And now we have, we, did a quota sampling of half female and half male and have.

136
00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:30.000
Age from 25 years old to 40 and 40 to 50. So it's one quarter.

137
00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:40.000
One quadrant one quarter and one quarter. An average age is around 48 and then 81% of the all participants is working.

138
00:26:40.000 --> 00:26:50.000
The average monthly household income is quite high and it's around 4,000. Euros, so $4,000.

139
00:26:50.000 --> 00:27:02.000
And then education is in the insect scale of around 5 so some college and then half around half is married that around half have children.

140
00:27:02.000 --> 00:27:18.000
So we, because we have a very large, experiment design is 8 to 10 factories for experiment A, we have 8 factors and then there varies in this, you can see on the form from 2 to 4 levels we have union status.

141
00:27:18.000 --> 00:27:32.000
Fertility, household income, community respect, family communication, contact or talking with grandparents, extended family, gender roles, work, family balance.

142
00:27:32.000 --> 00:27:42.000
And then for experiment 2, we also have 2 more children related, factors. One is the expected children's education and the other one is the financial supported children.

143
00:27:42.000 --> 00:28:01.000
So if the parents are saving up for the children. So with these 2 experimental design, we have rather large experimental, universe that's all the possible combination of the factors for so it's almost impossible it's not almost it's basically impossible to ask.

144
00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:17.000
Everyone to answer to rate all the possible combinations. So we had a blocked D you. How independently the factors are with each other so you can have on biased estimate.

145
00:28:17.000 --> 00:28:36.000
And for our experiment one, we at the end, 576 vignette outside of this 2,300 full factorial universes possible combinations and then we achieve a, full factorial universes possible combinations and then we achieve a deefficiency of almost a hundred 99.

146
00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:50.000
Point 88 and for experiment 2 we have an even larger universe and then we picked, we have the e-deficient, design of, 864.

147
00:28:50.000 --> 00:29:01.000
Experience. So why we have to experiment is that some family lives are. Fundamentally.

148
00:29:01.000 --> 00:29:10.000
Not if you don't have children you cannot ask about students you cannot show students related outcomes and that's why Nisek can experiment.

149
00:29:10.000 --> 00:29:27.000
We have only conditions where this family the vineettes have children so fertility varies from one to 3 but then we can show how, also we can show then the impact of divorce and then for experiment one, we have, Dead scenario is where the family has no children.

150
00:29:27.000 --> 00:29:43.000
So then we don't have children related in factors, but then here we cannot show you wars because if we combine divorce and no children as we assume that we don't consider as a family any more so there is no success or no success there is no ideal or no ideal.

151
00:29:43.000 --> 00:29:53.000
So we have 2 experiments. And then, every participant gets to read and respond to 6 min and this, is predefined.

152
00:29:53.000 --> 00:30:02.000
And it's already blocked so that we ensure that every block have a decent balance and independent design.

153
00:30:02.000 --> 00:30:03.000
3 min.

154
00:30:03.000 --> 00:30:13.000
And then we, yeah, we also randomize the others. And so that people read the Venus in different in different orders so I will give an example.

155
00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:25.000
Of what people would read. This is one So this is the result. We see that if you look at a graph, this is a multi-level analysis, 3 level if it's a pulled or 2 level.

156
00:30:25.000 --> 00:30:31.000
If it's a by country. We can see some quite remarkable similarities between countries that you see.

157
00:30:31.000 --> 00:30:48.000
People have People agree on the same, at least on the same directions. If something is good for one country, it's always good for another country.

158
00:30:48.000 --> 00:30:56.000
There is some minor heterogeneity in some aspects. For example, you can see that talking with grandparents is more important in Norway, surprisingly.

159
00:30:56.000 --> 00:31:11.000
But, less importantly in actually Singapore or Spain, which consider as more Familial countries So, and then we also see that called habitation is very slightly inactive compared to marriage, but not in Spain and Norway.

160
00:31:11.000 --> 00:31:30.000
And parenthood is very important because we see here that no children is quite active. But then we see that no children, only no children compared to one child is negative but 2 children and 3 children compared to one child is not significant so the number of children doesn't matter.

161
00:31:30.000 --> 00:31:36.000
And then we see lower income is bad universally, but higher income is only good, but not for European countries.

162
00:31:36.000 --> 00:31:46.000
So only for Asian countries in the US and most importantly for a friendly idea is that people have good relationships.

163
00:31:46.000 --> 00:32:02.000
Most important is that Good communications. Within immediate families and nuclear families, people have daily and open communications and they also talk with grandparents frequently and they are respected within that community.

164
00:32:02.000 --> 00:32:08.000
And with respect to gender roles, we see that egalitarian general is slightly, good, but not, so great.

165
00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:28.000
Not at the extent for most countries is like gravitation, marriage compared to cohabitation, but not in Spain and Norway in these 2 countries, they see, egalitarian general as really much better than the commonplace general, which is really much better than the commonplace general, which is double burden.

166
00:32:28.000 --> 00:32:38.000
By women. And then lastly, neither couple feels conflicted is very important. And then now we see experiment 2 similar result.

167
00:32:38.000 --> 00:32:39.000
1 min.

168
00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:49.000
We can see that divorce. The voice is one of the most penalized. penalized factor of all our experiments and all factors.

169
00:32:49.000 --> 00:33:00.000
It's the worst thing that can ever happen to a family. And now we can also see that children's education is very important, especially aspiring for at least a university's degree.

170
00:33:00.000 --> 00:33:09.000
And then we also see the saving for children is quite important. It's mostly more important than actual children's expected outcome.

171
00:33:09.000 --> 00:33:19.000
So these are the main effect we have really remarkably similar, similarities across such countries that's wealthy and initialized.

172
00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:35.000
And can we say that there is universal family ideas at least within this context? We will say so. They spy there some minor differences, but people when people are count But people are constrained to make, family choices within some constraints.

173
00:33:35.000 --> 00:33:43.000
We think at most multi-dimensional space. They make very similar judgments so they have very similar family ideals.

174
00:33:43.000 --> 00:33:54.000
And then we also can see here that Asian family values are not that distinct from values in Europe, which also commonly separated a thousand one in another one and at the US.

175
00:33:54.000 --> 00:34:01.000
And then we see from our survey also the values are very blended. People have very similar ones and sometimes one is different.

176
00:34:01.000 --> 00:34:22.000
It's not in the traditionally, And then there is also, future work that we're gonna do on, the differences by gender and by generation because we have another dependent variable that's about the successful family but for Paris generations so we can test the perceived differences of generational change.

177
00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:35.000
So this is our project. Thank you for paying attention. I will welcome any comments and questions and if you don't have a chance to talk to me you can send me an email is chain.

178
00:34:35.000 --> 00:34:40.000
It. So thank you. Okay, for the floor to Paul.

179
00:34:40.000 --> 00:35:01.000
Thank you, Chan. Great presentation. So our third presenter is Dr. Puja-pol from Eumia University in Sweden and her title is Gender Equality as as attitude or contacts what matters to fertility and she's online as well.

180
00:35:01.000 --> 00:35:04.000
The floor is yours, Pooja. Go ahead.

181
00:35:04.000 --> 00:35:25.000
Thanks so much. Hi everyone. It's nice to meet everyone virtually. And there were 2 I think very interesting presentations before especially the one the previous one I think has a lot of overlap with the my study as well so I hope this is going to just add to that.

182
00:35:25.000 --> 00:35:32.000
So my name is Puja. I'm a postdoctoral researcher at, Emu University.

183
00:35:32.000 --> 00:35:47.000
And this is a study that will be presenting today which I worked on with one of my colleagues at the university and What we essentially do is we are looking at the association between gender equality and fertility ideals.

184
00:35:47.000 --> 00:36:08.000
And one of the central, objectives really of this paper is to understand how and in individuals, gender, egalitarian attitudes are influence or shape their fertility ideals and also how this relationship changes across country contexts.

185
00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:35.000
So a bit of the background. On this area. One of the main theories really that explains this association or attempts to explain this association between gender equality and fertility has been put forward by a demographer called Peter Macdonald who essentially says that as Gender levels of gender equality within a country.

186
00:36:35.000 --> 00:36:58.000
Increase fertility initially responds negatively to this or there's a decline in fertility and how this is explained is that as levels of gender equality within a country increase as women have increased access to employment and education opportunities as they perhaps enter the workforce in larger numbers.

187
00:36:58.000 --> 00:37:17.000
This entry into the public sphere is often in conflict with they are still more traditional roles within the household and as a result individuals particularly women decide to either opt out of having children or have fewer children.

188
00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:32.000
And according to Macdonald, beyond a certain threshold as gender equality increases and as countries develop policies and institutional frameworks really to minimize this work family conflict.

189
00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:52.000
There would be a reversal in this trend and an increase in fertility that we observed. And also apart from this policy context and institutional context another aspect that's talked about which would lead to this reversal is essentially men's entry into the domestic sphere.

190
00:37:52.000 --> 00:38:03.000
Or what's talked about as the second half of the gender revolution with the first half essentially referring to women's entry into the labor force.

191
00:38:03.000 --> 00:38:16.000
So a review of the literature shows that there is some support for this. Theory of a U-shaped curve, explaining the relationship between gender equality and fertility.

192
00:38:16.000 --> 00:38:26.000
But a lot of this research really focuses on fertility in the form of actual fertility or measured as total fertility rate for instance.

193
00:38:26.000 --> 00:38:36.000
With more but fewer studies really focusing on how fertility intentions or ideals differ across different countries.

194
00:38:36.000 --> 00:38:43.000
And one of the studies, for instance, by Mills that was published in 2010 finds, which does look at this association between gender equality at the country level and fertility intentions.

195
00:38:43.000 --> 00:39:09.000
Find a positive association and essentially finds that individuals belonging to countries that have higher levels of gender equality have higher fertility intentions, have higher fertility intentions as compared to individuals belonging to countries with overall lower levels belonging to countries with overall lower levels of gender equality.

196
00:39:09.000 --> 00:39:20.000
And so that was at the country level. At the individual level, we focus on individual gender egalitarian attitudes.

197
00:39:20.000 --> 00:39:39.000
And based on the prior literature, there is largely a consensus that individual gender egalitarian attitudes are negatively associated with fertility or essentially that the more egalitarian you are, you're more likely to want to have fewer children.

198
00:39:39.000 --> 00:40:00.000
Though a lot of these studies really focus a lot on women. And, there are fewer studies that really focus on men's egalitarianism and there's some interesting differences by gender so often some of the studies that focus on men's egalitarian attitudes or men's involvement in household work or in

199
00:40:00.000 --> 00:40:27.000
childcare find that this is positively associated with couple fertility intentions. But apart from this relationship of individual attitudes with fertility, what we were also interested was in understanding how Presumably this would differ across different countries and previous literature for instance the study by Lapagod shows that there is evidence that individual

200
00:40:27.000 --> 00:40:35.000
attitudes shows that there is evidence that individual attitudes can influence fertility ideal attitudes can influence fertility ideals often.

201
00:40:35.000 --> 00:40:44.000
And so with with these with this this rationale in place we proposed 3 hypotheses for this study.

202
00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:52.000
Firstly, that at a global level, gender egalitarian attitudes would be negatively associated with fertility ideals.

203
00:40:52.000 --> 00:41:19.000
Secondly, that this association between individual attitudes and ideals varies by country context. And thirdly, the direction in which this does so-so in countries we we hypotize that in countries with higher levels of gender equality this negative relationship between gender egalitarian attitudes and fertility ideas could be weaker than in countries

204
00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:24.000
that are less gender equal.

205
00:41:24.000 --> 00:41:37.000
So the data that we use for the study was from the 2012 wave of the ISSP, the International Social Survey Program, and we use the module on family and changing gender roles.

206
00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:45.000
And, I think one of the strengths really of this data set was that it allowed us to include a large number of countries.

207
00:41:45.000 --> 00:42:00.000
I think one of the critics often from this area of literature is that most of the studies are really focused come out from Europe and North America and so there isn't a lot of information and understanding how this relationship between gender equality and fertility looks like in.

208
00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:18.000
For instance, Asian countries or in Latin America. So in that sense we were able to include 39 countries within this analysis and get a more comparative perspective.

209
00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:23.000
Our outcome variable, I mean outcome variable was. Fertility ideals, which we are measured by the response to the question.

210
00:42:23.000 --> 00:42:50.000
What do you think is the ideal number of children? For a family to have. And in terms of the predictors at, the individual level, we of course measured attitudes towards gender equality and these individual attitudes towards gender equality was measured by responses to 4 survey questions which you can see on the right side of the

211
00:42:50.000 --> 00:43:03.000
slide. And for instance, some of the, these questions were in the form of statements for instance, talking more about women's role really within the household for example a job is all right but what women really want is a home and children.

212
00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:17.000
And based on the responses to these questions we created some native index and a score for measuring gender egalitarian attitude.

213
00:43:17.000 --> 00:43:42.000
So a higher score indicated greater level of egalitarianism. At the country level we wanted a more comprehensive measure that could for country level gender equality and also something that would be comparable across a large number of countries.

214
00:43:42.000 --> 00:43:48.000
And so we utilised the global gender gap in index. They will have developed by the world economic forum.

215
00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:59.000
And we use this as a continuous variable. With a higher score on this development index indicating higher levels of gender equality within countries.

216
00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:08.000
But we also, further divided countries up into quartiles based on this score, which we'll talk a little bit about in the next slide.

217
00:44:08.000 --> 00:44:27.000
Apart from these, we included social demographic controls within the models. So we control for education, age, mental status, number of children, work status and gender and at the country level be control for GDP per capita.

218
00:44:27.000 --> 00:44:49.000
So, due to the clustered nature of, the data, we utilized multi-level modeling and we essentially had 4 multi-level models which were, examining the effects of individual and country level factors on fertility ideals and then an interaction term of examining the intersection of individual attitudes with

219
00:44:49.000 --> 00:45:07.000
country-level gender equality. And as I mentioned earlier, the global, the continuous variable that we had in terms of the global gender gap index, we also divided that into quartiles to get a comparative analysis of between groups of countries.

220
00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:21.000
So here essentially as you can see in quartile 4 indicates the countries which scored the highest on levels of gender equality so you have a lot of the Nordic countries but you also have a few anomalies over here.

221
00:45:21.000 --> 00:45:29.000
For instance the Philippines and I think that was more in relation to how the score is really created.

222
00:45:29.000 --> 00:45:38.000
And quartile one on the other hand indicates the countries with the lowest levels of gender equality.

223
00:45:38.000 --> 00:45:50.000
So this figure here really, shows presents the aggregate fertility ideals by countries. And and also divided by the quartiles.

224
00:45:50.000 --> 00:46:00.000
And so you can see that the countries on the right hand side in the fourth quartile of course the countries with the highest levels of country level gender equality.

225
00:46:00.000 --> 00:46:15.000
And we see that for countries which are more gender equal, they they seem to have on average higher fertility ideals.

226
00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:26.000
We see like countries which have lower levels of gender equality. Often are reporting on average lower fertility ideals.

227
00:46:26.000 --> 00:46:34.000
Similarly this is a figure which indicates the country level advocates for gender egalitarian attitudes.

228
00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:45.000
But quite unsurprisingly over here we see that for countries which are for instance the Nordic countries which are overall characterized by high levels of gender equality.

229
00:46:45.000 --> 00:46:57.000
You have individuals, on average you have the individual egalitarian attitude scores to be some of the highest whereas it's the opposite for quartile one.

230
00:46:57.000 --> 00:47:03.000
Here in this side, I'll just summarize some of the results from the regression analysis.

231
00:47:03.000 --> 00:47:21.000
What we did find from our regression analysis was that on average globally, egalitarian attitudes towards gender equality were negatively associated with fertility ideals which is again quite supportive and adds to a lot of the previous research in this area.

232
00:47:21.000 --> 00:47:36.000
We also find in terms of the control that education works status, marital status and number of children were associated with fertility ideals but interestingly we didn't find a statistically significant difference.

233
00:47:36.000 --> 00:47:50.000
For fertility ideals based on gender at the country level we find that. While the global gender gap index was positively associated with fertility ideals.

234
00:47:50.000 --> 00:48:06.000
This was not significant. But while recording into quartiles, we find that. Fertility ideals were actually high the higher higher for core in individuals belong to quartile 4 as compared to those in quartile one.

235
00:48:06.000 --> 00:48:27.000
But perhaps one of the most interesting results for us was really in terms of the interaction effect. Where we find that the effect of individual attitudes on fertility ideals was much larger for the most gender-equal countries as compared to countries that belong to the least gender equal quartile.

236
00:48:27.000 --> 00:48:42.000
And this was quite contrary to our hypothesis. Because essentially what this means is that in countries that are characterized by the overall high levels of gender equality.

237
00:48:42.000 --> 00:49:08.000
For instance a country like Sweden the sort of cost of your individual egalitarianism on fertility ideals is a lot larger as compared to your being egalitarian in a country that has that is overall has lower levels of gender equality and so what we reason over here that this could perhaps be that in countries such as the Nordic

238
00:49:08.000 --> 00:49:20.000
countries where you do have a lot of policy and institutional supports that help combine work and family life and support individuals to stay in the labor market.

239
00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:28.000
The larger onus really of decision-making perhaps falls on individuals and their own attitudes and beliefs systems and values.

240
00:49:28.000 --> 00:49:29.000
1 min.

241
00:49:29.000 --> 00:49:38.000
Okay. Yeah. And okay, so I'll just go very briefly over the limitations and, the conclusions.

242
00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:47.000
Of course one of the limitations here. Was that this was cross sectional data and it was we weren't able to really follow.

243
00:49:47.000 --> 00:50:15.000
Individuals over time or even see how countries really change over time. And the second, limitation that we really had, which was, which was quite an important limitation was that we we were unable to really differentiate between equality within gender equality within the household or domestic gender equality and equality as it refers to The public

244
00:50:15.000 --> 00:50:34.000
spheres and women entering the workspace or higher political participation of women. So Just bringing all of it together what we found really in this study was that in countries that are really further along the gender revolution which have higher levels of overall gender equality.

245
00:50:34.000 --> 00:50:42.000
Often the greater onus is on individual attitudes and that might really dictate fertility ideals and behaviors.

246
00:50:42.000 --> 00:50:52.000
On the other hand, also supportive policies and institutional contexts can really allow individuals to realize their fertility intentions.

247
00:50:52.000 --> 00:51:10.000
And finally, as also, demonstrated by a lot of previous, research, there is a need for a more multi-dimensional approach to gender equality rather than just talking about gender equality as perhaps female labor force participation or political participation.

248
00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:21.000
But rather bringing in both this public sphere as well as equality within the household and also understanding men's entry into this domestic sphere.

249
00:51:21.000 --> 00:51:29.000
So, thank you so much for listening and I, welcome questions and comments, of course.

250
00:51:29.000 --> 00:51:30.000
Thank you.

251
00:51:30.000 --> 00:51:42.000
Thank you, Pja. Very interesting. Our third paper is also very interesting. Well, fourth paper now, I guess.

252
00:51:42.000 --> 00:51:52.000
Thank you. We have 2 presenters. That are actually in person with us today. And The first one is Vida.

253
00:51:52.000 --> 00:52:05.000
Tretched Jakkoa. From, Lisa, her topic is societal attitude toward male childlessness in Europe.

254
00:52:05.000 --> 00:52:32.000
So please.

255
00:52:32.000 --> 00:52:39.000
Hello everyone, my name is Waida Teriyakova. I'm from Venus, Lithuania.

256
00:52:39.000 --> 00:52:55.000
Lithuanian Social Research Center. And I will present some preliminary results. That we have conducted. With my colleague Thomas Stoonbis.

257
00:52:55.000 --> 00:53:05.000
So, wasn't sure how many of you are working in this area so I thought I'll start with the defining childlessness.

258
00:53:05.000 --> 00:53:11.000
And usually in demographic studies it's defined as absence of biological or adopted children in an individual's life.

259
00:53:11.000 --> 00:53:24.000
So it's important to distinguish the 3 types of childlessness. Involuntary childlessness, voluntary childlessness and childlessness by circumstances.

260
00:53:24.000 --> 00:53:37.000
So and it can be neither voluntary nor involuntary for instance due to delayed childbearing when someone wanted to have a child but responded to the point when it was already not possible.

261
00:53:37.000 --> 00:53:46.000
Or for instance, when someone was not able to find a suitable partner. So,

262
00:53:46.000 --> 00:54:08.000
Involuntary childlessness and childlessness by circumcise was a common like go historically it was common all the time but When it comes to the second demographic transition that was already mentioned by Chen in her presentation.

263
00:54:08.000 --> 00:54:24.000
Which describes the transformation family transformation in mostly western societies it voluntary child business becomes more important, which means when individual, an individual decides.

264
00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:45.000
Not to have a child voluntarily they don't want to have a child. And so this kind of attitude has increased since the 1,900 sixtys in the western countries together with other other family transformation aspects like increase in divorce or postponement of first birth and etc.

265
00:54:45.000 --> 00:55:04.000
I should mention that in Eastern European countries the second demographic transition came rather late. And it was much more intense so all the changes that happened in CE countries were much more rapid and And that's where.

266
00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:13.000
Actually maybe had you even more effect on on on the countries.

267
00:55:13.000 --> 00:55:24.000
So for, our analysis we use the European Social Survey. There were 2 waves that included the so-called model, the timing of life, the organization of the life course in Europe.

268
00:55:24.000 --> 00:55:52.000
From what I understood reading that you, the decum, the documentation of the survey. It was Francesco Bloody who initiated this model to be included in the survey and demographers worked on it and constructed questions in relation to So to various aspects, you can see it covers actual experience of life course events, segmentation of

269
00:55:52.000 --> 00:56:05.000
the life of course into stages of life. Social norms concerning life course events life panning so in in our case we focused at least at the moment on social norms concerning life course events.

270
00:56:05.000 --> 00:56:19.000
And the third way was conducted in 2,006 and 2,007. And the ninth wave was conducted in 2,018, 2,019.

271
00:56:19.000 --> 00:56:25.000
And as you can see, they included quite a lot of countries and our analysis we focused on European Union countries.

272
00:56:25.000 --> 00:56:40.000
Plus UK. So we eliminated other countries just to help make it more easy. So the main question that we focused on was formulated in the following way.

273
00:56:40.000 --> 00:56:43.000
How much do you approve or disapprove if a woman or a man chooses never to have children.

274
00:56:43.000 --> 00:57:00.000
So the survey implemented the so-called split ballot technique, which means that approximately half of the correspondence received a question about women or girls and the other half received the question about men or boys.

275
00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:24.000
And of course, it's a simple scale. So this improvement means disapprovement. But what's interesting as other researchers have noticed that neither approving or nor disapproving might indicate a decrease in normative normative consensus around some life course norms.

276
00:57:24.000 --> 00:57:35.000
So now to to talk a little bit about the levels of childlessness. Here is some data from human fertility database.

277
00:57:35.000 --> 00:57:46.000
And it does not include too many countries. So these are basically most of the countries that it includes except for some certain countries that we are not in our analysis.

278
00:57:46.000 --> 00:58:02.000
But here you can see since then Second demographic transition has started earlier in Western countries. The level of childlessness there is higher compared to countries in Eastern and European Union.

279
00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:12.000
It's it's quite clear that in C countries the levels of statelessness are lower, but we can also see that it is somewhat increasing.

280
00:58:12.000 --> 00:58:20.000
We have the data for the cohort of 1,973. It's the it's a permanent childlessness.

281
00:58:20.000 --> 00:58:23.000
So these are women who are 50 years old. So they are most likely will not have any children. So this is permanent childlessness.

282
00:58:23.000 --> 00:58:41.000
But what what's important to note is that And for instance, Koichoa and Filipo consider that when the proportion of childless women is below 10%.

283
00:58:41.000 --> 00:59:03.000
They consider it to be mainly due to involuntary reasons and the absence of a partner. So when we see the increase above the 10% in permanent childlessness we can already maybe think that there is some voluntary childlessness involved and of course that means that already in C countries there's also phenomena is on the rise.

284
00:59:03.000 --> 00:59:11.000
When we talk about meal chargesness, Meow fertility is usually less well registered than female fertility.

285
00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:21.000
And there were some recent methodological advancements. And actually doodle and Klussener have made like a new database of part database and human fertility collection.

286
00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:44.000
On male fertility. But the problem is that even though it's a very innovative methodological approach, It's still not possible to calculate male childlessness with the data that they calculated and provided and they can only they they calculate only clarity and different.

287
00:59:44.000 --> 00:59:58.000
Other fertility indicators. So unfortunately we cannot take, gather childlessness from there. Meeting and at all have calculated some levels of male childlessness based on gender and generation survey.

288
00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:18.000
Unfortunately it was a bit older data. I think the new round is coming up but not yet available. But what they found was that in some cases male childlessness is actually even higher than women's childlessness, which is an interesting finding.

289
01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:30.000
It is for instance 25% When we talk about men, men in their fortys in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Czech Republic.

290
01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:41.000
And if we look at even older males It's around one in 4 in Finland. Italy, Germany, the UK, the Czech Republic.

291
01:00:41.000 --> 01:00:50.000
But in Estonia, only one in 10 is childless. So again, we can see a geographic difference here as well.

292
01:00:50.000 --> 01:01:00.000
So now I'm coming to the attitudes towards meal voluntary childlessness from the European Social Survey.

293
01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:13.000
And maybe as expected we can see that the disapproval is highest in Central and Eastern European countries and lowest in Western Northern and Southern Europe.

294
01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:38.000
And when we talk about approval of child justice, it's the other way around. Some countries interestingly are more neutral for instance Germany and some are quite polarizing for instance Poland when not many people are neutral but A lot of them are very negative and a lot of them are very affirmative so that's also an interesting

295
01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:56.000
situation. If we look back around 10 years ago, we can see that it's similar geographical variation but difference is even more pronounced because attitudes in CE countries where even more negative.

296
01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:07.000
And there was also a high issue of neutral answers in all the countries. So if we look at the change, we can see that the disapproval in C countries decreased mainly due to increase in neutrality.

297
01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:21.000
So we can see that it's sort of a transitional state but it's not yet affirmation of the voluntary childlessness.

298
01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:31.000
Whereas in the Western and Northern Europe approval increased due to decrease in neutrality so clearly we can see the trend towards them.

299
01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:39.000
Affirmation of voluntary childlessness. For a man and in Southern Europe approval increased due to decrease in disapproval.

300
01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:49.000
That's also interesting. I think that neutrality remained sort of the same, but there was a shift to approval.

301
01:02:49.000 --> 01:03:03.000
Now, another interesting finding is that when we compare attitudes towards male childlessness with additives towards women's childlessness.

302
01:03:03.000 --> 01:03:29.000
We can see that. Contrary to what I for instance was expecting. Except for a few countries women are just judged less harshly than men because usually we of course women are judged usually more unfairly when it comes to traditional gender roles, especially in traditional societies and we can see that in for instance in

303
01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:35.000
Bulgaria the Czech Republic and Lithuania and Lithuania and even Italy.

304
01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:48.000
Yes, women are slightly more judged negatively but in almost all other countries Men are judged more negatively on voluntary childlessness than women.

305
01:03:48.000 --> 01:04:01.000
And one of the possible explanations is given by Raikkon at Mats who conducted similar research on earlier data and they say that parenthood might be considered as more central to women's identity than to men's, resulting in higher disapproval of childlessness for women.

306
01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:17.000
Yet as the costs of parenthood are higher for women, people might also be more accepting of their choice to remain childless and disapprove more of childless men.

307
01:04:17.000 --> 01:04:36.000
And I can also say that from what we were work working on. This approval mostly comes from women. So women are more likely to judge voluntary childlessness in men harshly than men.

308
01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:47.000
So, to conclude. Disapproval of male voluntary childlessness is highest in Central and Eastern European countries and lowest in Western Northern and Southern Europe.

309
01:04:47.000 --> 01:05:03.000
This appears to reflect higher levels of male childlessness in Western and Northern Europe. Disapproval in central European Europe decreased mainly due to increase in neutrality, trend towards acceptance and weakening of strong life course norms.

310
01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:11.000
In Western and Northern Europe approval increased due to decrease in neutrality trend towards strengthening child-free norm.

311
01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:16.000
And meal childlessness is perceived more negatively than female childlessness. So, I would like to apologize for this very descriptive presentation.

312
01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:30.000
We just are in the beginning phase of our analysis. And I will welcome any comments and suggestions on how to proceed forward.

313
01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:40.000
So thank you very much.

314
01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:49.000
Thank you so much, fella. That was very interesting actually for me at least. Our final presentation will be by me at least.

315
01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:57.000
Our final presentation will be by RISK. Our final presentation will be by Risa A. Our final presentation will be by Risa Akivea and she's on the research following the University of Western Australia.

316
01:05:57.000 --> 01:06:07.000
And. Surely click on this. This one. Yes.

317
01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:11.000
Thank you.

318
01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:19.000
Good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for participating in our session. I'm very much for participating in our session.

319
01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:49.000
I'm very happy to be part of it. Previous presenters and today I would like to talk about the part of my PhD project which I finished year ago and I tried to do I'm trying to develop a chapter in the paper and I would be happy for any comments and feedback.

320
01:06:51.000 --> 01:06:57.000
So

321
01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:08.000
The main mine, today question is others across cultural differences in parenting style and practices or how can be explained.

322
01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:26.000
So today's aim of this presentation is to show how the perception of cultural differences by Russian-speaking migrants living in Madrid in Spain and in post Western Australia influence the self-reflection about their parenting style and how it relates to certain parenting.

323
01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:41.000
The leaf which I as I argue can be considered part of the national habitat in the normalized sense.

324
01:07:41.000 --> 01:08:01.000
I collected very diverse data. It included observational data data from online groups. It's included observational data data from online groups for migrants mostly from Facebook forums for Russian speakers living in these countries.

325
01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:04.000
I also conducted an online groups for migrants mostly from Facebook forums for Russian speakers living in these countries.

326
01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:07.000
I also conducted an interview in person Madrid in the Facebook forums for Russian speakers living in these countries.

327
01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:14.000
I also conducted an interview in person Madrid in different years and the very important part of my data for this presentation included the Soviet-russian and Australian manuals and also official standards for preschool educators.

328
01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:25.000
Which represent an official parenting approach and what I would like to show you Russian-speaking migrants in this country reproduce.

329
01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:54.000
And my main biological strategy was the ground theory. For this part of my research I found useful for the model proposed by Darlene and Steinberg, they distinguish between parenting practices, parenting goals and values and parenting styles according to them parenting practices in include behaviors defined by specific content and socialization goals and wealth such

330
01:08:54.000 --> 01:09:05.000
as the management of children behavior parenting styles refers to a consolation of 80 youths to the child that communicated to the childhood current and emotional climate in which the appearance of behaviors I expressed.

331
01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:19.000
So parenting styles refer to attitudes, emotional atmosphere, which influence the behavior of parents.

332
01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:44.000
In this presentation one I will talk about migrants reflection and relation to parenting style it will be about the perception of such stylistic features as manifest as in parental behavior towards a child such as weakness, relaxation, excessive control, caring and so on.

333
01:09:44.000 --> 01:10:05.000
So when I started conducted my field work in Perth in Western Australia after already collected the interview in Madrid I was really surprised that they found a lot of similarities between narratives or Russian speakers living in 2 different countries.

334
01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:18.000
So the styles of the Australians and the Spanish are often disproportionate as being characterized by freedom, relaxation, easy attitude, children's behavior as opposed to those implemented by Russian speakers.

335
01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:25.000
Who are my participants experienced concern and often controls the children's behaviour and reproved them. This is one of the quote from my interviews which illustrates this.

336
01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:40.000
It seems to me that the Russians call their children more. Wild Zarlans behave more with some kind of freedom.

337
01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:48.000
They have more easy attitudes to children and I'm bringing processes to the situation when the children do something wrong.

338
01:10:48.000 --> 01:11:15.000
So when I analyze this data, try to understand the similarity. I also noticed that when they are talking about parenting style they are always associated with description of some kind of situation some kind of norm which can be violent so it seems that parents share the opinions that of Australians and Spanish parents may allow these children not to follow specific rules and

339
01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:37.000
norms. So this is one of the reasons when I started using this Norwegian theory of habitus and I argue that they share some internalized standards and norms which could be called national Harvard because according to lies each individual person has a specific markup or social habitat that he or she shares with us a member of his or her society.

340
01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:58.000
So if Bordeaux which which popularized his serial late. He is for Bordeaux habitat, his cereal later, is about disposition for lies, habitus is about dispositional habitus is about disposition for lies.

341
01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:10.000
Hhabitus includes very wide range of Shedhhhhhh, about disposition for a life's habitus includes very wide range of shed heuristic, including behavior, but what it's more important that have formed and changed the course of social historical processes.

342
01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:40.000
So I analyzed this different manials and standard and how they were disseminated and as these different menials and standards and how they were disseminated and institutionalized in the Soviet Union and reproduced later.

343
01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:27.000
Asleep and also in the most of kindergartens there is a special separate bedroom for these aims and we can see the there are different norms existing other countries.

344
01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:41.000
So parents in different countries may have similar goals of Sicilization such as healthcare skills but the differences in the beliefs about good behavior of the child are considered to be dangerous to child's health.

345
01:13:41.000 --> 01:14:00.000
So for Russian speakers once they seize these norms when they seize these norms when children sleep on the matrices when children sleep on the matrices of kindergarten in Pacifica to be dangerous as kindergarten sleep on the matrices of kindergarten in Pacifica to be dangerous as not wearing

346
01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:09.000
slippers at kindergarten, to be dangerous, not wearing slippers in the home during Australian and Spanish winter as well as not wearing slippers and home during Australian and Spanish winter as well as not wearing tides during specifical weather.

347
01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:15.000
In this court we can, this quote reflects and we and we again can Again, we see that the description.

348
01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:44.000
So this more controlling idea about parents in this more controlling idea about parents in style is related to this more controlling idea about parents in style is related to this more controlling idea about parents in style is related to description of some parents in style is related to description of some specific practices and norms like in the school most of the time.

349
01:14:44.000 --> 01:14:54.000
What is also important, that there are 2 conflicted idea are intertwined. The 2 conflicted ideas are intertwined.

350
01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:58.000
So the first idea, 2 conflicted ideas are intertwined. So the first idea about the importance of internalized.

351
01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:11.000
So the first idea about the importance of internalized multitude of norms that related to hygiene and so the first idea about the importance of internalised multitude of norms that related to hygiene and the first idea about the importance of internalised multitude of norms that related to hygiene and civilized behavior, which I tried to show previously.

352
01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:29.000
And the second one is about the values of raising a child to be relaxed, spontaneous And these 2 groups of, you construct the optics through which Russians speak in pirates, Russians speaking Marius, look an avalanche, and you country and their own behavior as well.

353
01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:40.000
And for migrants, they attempt to combine this idea form as insoluble paradox following a large number of internalised rules does not fit well with providing children's rules does not fit well with providing children with autonomy which Russian speaking migrants also values with providing children with autonomy which Russian speaking migrants also values.

354
01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:54.000
Autonomy which Russian speaking migrants also values. This quotes, I hope, illustrate this.

355
01:15:54.000 --> 01:16:06.000
Then do you think Australian umbringing is any different from that of Russian speakers? Oh people, I'm more college at the in in sense of civilized.

356
01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:11.000
And how do parents interact with their children? Are there any differences? Probably the Australians give more freedom, but our people restrict the children a lot.

357
01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:33.000
Unfortunately, I can say probably our people say a lot of everywhere that it's not allowed, it's not allowed on the one head of strengths gives children a lot of freedom and teach them not to be aggressive and they grow up less culture at paradox.

358
01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:55.000
But what we would like to see that I would like to show that Russian speaking parents not everywhere say it's not allowed but it's very specific situation in cases which is very much related to this internalized internalized norms.

359
01:16:55.000 --> 01:17:25.000
So in conclusion I would like again to show that there are 2 conflicting internal as group of idea which I examined in manuals and official standards group of idea which I examined in manuals and official standards in the idea which I examined in manuals and official standards in manuals and official standards in Solvit and manuals and official standards in Solvit and Posovit and which are different from ideas which can be found in Australian documents.

360
01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:41.000
So it and which are different from ideas which can be found in Australian documents. So from 2 contradictory discs which can be found in Australian documents, can be found in Australian documents.

361
01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:52.000
So from 2 contradictory discs which can be found in Australian documents. So from 2 contradictory discs which can be found in Australian documents.

362
01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:53.000
So from 2 contradictory discourse it can be found in Australian documents. So from 2 contradictory discourse is liberal concerning the desire to develop the child's autonomy.

363
01:17:53.000 --> 01:18:23.000
Documents. So from 2 contradictory discourses, liberal concerning the desire to develop the child's autonomy and medical and civilising related to the desire to rise a culture and a healthy child.

364
01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:53.000
As certain child rearing practices associated among migrants with manifestation of some parenting styles. So I think that when we when we study migrants and focusing on parenting style we can overlook

365
01:18:53.000 --> 01:19:09.000
Thank you, Rosa. So now we have a discussant for Professor Moulton from National University of Singapore to provide some comments.

366
01:19:09.000 --> 01:19:20.000
Yeah, and also thank you to all the presenters and for Professor Young giving me the opportunity to enjoy those papers in more detail.

367
01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:42.000
And so I like really enjoyed and learned a lot from all those presentations and the papers. And so particularly I guess because this session is like international comparative perspective so I guess take away from today you're going to like being amazed right at the diversity and the differences and the change that has been happening to families across the world.

368
01:19:42.000 --> 01:19:59.000
But I think something that is like even amazed more is actually the similarities across those countries and those cultures and those like family patents.

369
01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:25.000
And so for example in the first paper of the Cenogo atro paper so basically like one like a man takeaway message is that a family solidarity practices are despite the specific patterns I actually important to all the societies that being understudied and in our second paper so basically we could still say that these different countries they identify very

370
01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:53.000
similar components of what accounts for what counts as an ideal family, right? And so the like very static and the final understanding between the Asian family model and the West Stanley model may actually have been quite a social construct and also in the after the paper the past paper so basically we'll see this shared relevance of gender equality gender

371
01:20:53.000 --> 01:21:20.000
egalitarian ideals to our understanding the perception about fertility. Ideals and then eventually in the active fever we will see that this and like national happiness right a similarities among those Russian speaking immigrants regarding how they practice and perceive their parenting and it's a pity that I didn't get a chance to

372
01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:29.000
incorporate like a Wada's presentation yet and I will give my comments at the end of the presentation.

373
01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:39.000
And I guess one comment from this amazing similarities that's been shown by today's presentations is that to How do we make sense?

374
01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:56.000
How do we understand those similarities? And so to what extent actually those similarities? And so to what extent actually those similarities are actually driven by some substantive like a foundational or cultural values, the continuities.

375
01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:10.000
So for example when we talk about like marriage is still important parenthood is still important. It is largely relates back to the concept of institution of marriage and family, right?

376
01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:19.000
And that despite all the practical like relevance, marriage and family still carry some very important symbolic meanings.

377
01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:37.000
To people like individuals across the world, right? That's definitely like one of very important possibility. But then, a given like those very complicated complex socioeconomic differences across those countries.

378
01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:44.000
And so to what extent that those different countries actually have gone through different pathways, divergent pathways and then converge at a comparable patterns, right?

379
01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:59.000
And so for example, based on the second presentation, Chimpin's presentation, we've seen that parenthood matters.

380
01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:14.000
And probably are the most similar share across all those countries. But as we all know, the meanings of parenthood has changed a lot and has varied across different cultures.

381
01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:29.000
And so for example, traditionally parenthood or fertility has carried more instrumental material conductations has been considered investment asset to the family but nowadays definitely childbearing.

382
01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:38.000
Childhood rain has been more altruism and carry on more emotional values to the parents, right? Just a pure joy.

383
01:23:38.000 --> 01:24:08.000
Creating a life and cultivating the children like into like all around adult right and also what parenthood entails also changes a lot and varies a lot and so for example at before it's basically like, limited to this basic racing and, like nursing but nowadays definitely more is required and more investments are needed and intensive parenting for

384
01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:21.000
example and that all those patterns may make the connotations and implications of the relevance of parenthood, for example, differ a lot.

385
01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:38.000
Across those countries even though regarding the importance of them, the relevance of them to like a a fulfilled life is like a show similar patterns but the actual implications might be very different.

386
01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:47.000
And so in a way I think like those papers may benefit from more like a careful understanding about what is actually underlying those shared patterns.

387
01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:56.000
Those similarities.

388
01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:11.000
And then, of course, another important takeaway from this presentations are about the importance. Of contextualization and looking at specificities and so for example the first paper basically we see that.

389
01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:23.000
So actually if you look closely the relationship between the affiliate applications and this social support still differ a lot across context and the specific support outcomes looking at.

390
01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:35.000
So for example, this emotional relationship between filial application and emotional support are more salient in those more individualistic countries.

391
01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:43.000
And so in the second paper, so we still see that this valuation of different family forms differ across context and outcomes.

392
01:25:43.000 --> 01:26:02.000
So for example, among those outcomes, cohabitation still show some distinction between Asian and Asian countries. And so for like pulse paper I was seeing definitely this moderation of this aggregate level gender equality.

393
01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:28.000
On the individual level associations between gender equality and this fertility ideals and eventually in Akiva's paper so we will see that how when we talk about national happiness is still like very layered and nuanced a pattern, and so when we're talking about how to like get the children to be more autonomous.

394
01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:50.000
independent individuals, and so definitely like like a more modern world, what's more liberal apparently styles is used but on the other hand regarding those more objective outcomes regarding how safety and so this like more like a civilizing and this more cultured ways are practiced.

395
01:26:50.000 --> 01:27:12.000
And so I guess, to better understand the contextualization or the specificity of those patterns and I now see in older presentations the authors have like put in some efforts for example to interpret them like join down the specific social backgrounds.

396
01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:37.000
And some of you have tried to incorporate them into the empirical analysis. So in a way, like giving those like very complex patterns, I think it would be beneficial to more systematically, empirically incorporate this societal rival factors regarding the institutional backgrounds, the policy backgrounds of the culture.

397
01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:54.000
religion, and also possibly to identify some patterns for example of clustering or some grouping and in order to like better mapping out the theoretical takeaway from all those specificities.

398
01:27:54.000 --> 01:28:07.000
And so for example, for the second paper on the feminine ideals across countries, we'll seeing cohabitation, I still show some like salient distinction between Asian and Asian countries.

399
01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:14.000
On the one hand, it might be driven still by the different progress at additional progress according to the second demographicisation framework.

400
01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:44.000
But definitely some like more socioeconomic like realities are at play and so for example in many Asian countries for example in China the fast developing countries and so accompanied by the development actually are this skyrocketing at housing prices, cost of living, this like rising consumerism and all of those has like raised the cost

401
01:28:46.000 --> 01:29:13.000
of establish a family and getting married and raise the children and so those socioeconomic realities may actually also factor in very differently in those resulting patterns as a result of that's why I'm saying that more holistic empirical like a counting of those contextual factors might be helpful.

402
01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:23.000
And so specifically for each paper I have some additional comment. And so for the first paper, it's a very good paper.

403
01:29:23.000 --> 01:29:50.000
And so basically, in order to look at this importance, the salience of family relationships, the authors use like a failure obligations and to what extent you think taking care of the parents is a duty and as well as a relationship to social support right and so different social support some of them are more about like instrumental support, emotional support.

404
01:29:50.000 --> 01:30:08.000
And so I think one comments for this is in a way probably the. Meanings, the natures or the social underpinnings of both of those primary variables can be like more carefully impacted.

405
01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:33.000
And so for example, like a failure applications based on that one single question might be very different across those like very diverse countries included right and so to what extent do you think it's your duty to take care of your parents and that might differ a lot across like different like social welfare regime, social security regimes, of course, culture.

406
01:30:33.000 --> 01:31:00.000
And that made us speak very differently to the support outcomes, right? And so in a way, To what extent that this stronger sense of Duty actually translates into this greater willingness to support where this is like a higher comfortability that you really will solicit support from your children.

407
01:31:00.000 --> 01:31:11.000
If for example in a very individualistic society when parent-child relationships are considered to be more intimate, emotional, subjective, right?

408
01:31:11.000 --> 01:31:31.000
And so when you talk about it, it's merely a duty rather than a very small tenuous, this affectionate like devotion, right, and actually the link may not necessarily be that tied to our social support and similarly regarding the outcome it may also have very different connotations across societies.

409
01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:44.000
And so for example, in like more individualistic societies like emotional support. Off to the parents.

410
01:31:44.000 --> 01:32:01.000
To the children might be more relevant, right? But in more traditional societies, it's likely that this instrumental material support might be like more pertinent right and so that may also influence this relationships you are looking at.

411
01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:25.000
And so for other second paper so basically I think like like a very like a fascinating takeaway for me is this paragraph and so basically the authors like argued about the striking similarity of ideals and differences in this actually demographic trends and outcomes.

412
01:32:25.000 --> 01:32:35.000
And so in a way I guess this actually start off as a potential foundation for future development of the project.

413
01:32:35.000 --> 01:32:41.000
Just, how do we understand of this divergence, this gap between the ideal and the actual demographic differences.

414
01:32:41.000 --> 01:33:07.000
Right? Because despite the similarities, different societies still like start off from different educational foundations and so to what extent different societies deviate differently from their ideal family forms and what are the reasons of such deviations.

415
01:33:07.000 --> 01:33:24.000
In a way, the differences between the ideal and the behaviors might be like a very promising outcome to look at when we think about family change, what has been changed, what has not, and why it's a change and the continuities.

416
01:33:24.000 --> 01:33:48.000
And so for past paper, so basically I would like probably to see 2 more like a three-week level of moderations beside the individual and the aggregate level gender equality and at the individual level like because of different demographic characteristics individuals might be different positions regarding the progress towards gender equality, right?

417
01:33:48.000 --> 01:34:05.000
And so women and men may perceive the same progress of gender equality there differently, and as of course gender equality and at the end of day is good for everyone but still at a practical level as regarding division of housework, right, like childcare, it may speak very differently.

418
01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:30.000
To manned women and so is for social class or education and so the author may consider I could further incorporate the moderation effects besides this 2 way gender equality effects and then for societal level factors the same and so besides a gender egalitarian at the societal rival.

419
01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:51.000
So definitely other socioeconomic demographic facts are shaping the pattern right and the policies, the cost of child rearing, work culture and those should also be incorporated in order to have like a cleaner, a sharper pattern.

420
01:34:51.000 --> 01:35:17.000
And so for the, fifths paper and so basically now, yeah, I think, you also try to interpret this national habit as something internalized and of course like I appreciate this like a nuances added at the end so actually even for national happiness something internalized has still been changing right adapting and so in a

421
01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:36.000
way I think like more nuances can be beneficial to the development of a paper like by looking at internal heterogeneities more carefully and more systematically so to what extent for example now we have this layer understanding of parenting.

422
01:35:36.000 --> 01:35:54.000
Regarding her or telling me the parents would like to use more like liberal ways and so for like other more like aimental or objective outcomes that the parents want to stick to this more traditional way, the more disciplining way.

423
01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:13.000
And so. How those different patterns like different characteristics social class generation where their integration status will shape. Their priority and their combination and their actual practice between this Like various layers of parenting, different outcomes, right?

424
01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:27.000
And so that may actually relate to my second question may have a very important and in a way diverse implications for the children's development, right?

425
01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:47.000
And so when the parents are thinking about how the parent especially as a immigrant in a different country and so what are On their mind, right, when they make a decision about how to parent their children, on the one hand, probably is internalized as part of the culture.

426
01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:54.000
But on the other hand, they may also think about what is the best way for their child to adapt, to integrate, right?

427
01:36:54.000 --> 01:37:16.000
And so that may speak to other reflection and adjustment in their actual parenting practice. And it's also, like for my dad's paper, I enjoy the presentation a lot and especially I am impressed by the way that you now try to bring out the other side of the story because of female childlessness has been focused on so

428
01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:25.000
much and now like you put things in perspective I think that's very valuable and also the interpretations of the middle category is is amazing.

429
01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:35.000
It's definitely shows now people get more ambivalence about the necessity, the desirability of fertility across gender.

430
01:37:35.000 --> 01:37:52.000
So I think possibly to move him along like one thing is like similarly to look at things more relatively. Now you're looking at men and women, probably you can really operationalize a gender gap in the approval level, right?

431
01:37:52.000 --> 01:38:04.000
Because in a way, like we still see the variations and also different societies may perceive women's goals, women's roles, and men's roles in childbearing differently.

432
01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:20.000
So how they actually differ systematically across societies and then based on that gender gap in the approval levels you could further first look at the general norms how the genomes predict such gender gaps, right?

433
01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:39.000
And so secondly, given that like some societies, when they are really gendered regarding child rearing and so it's possible that man is considered to be the provider right and so in that way in that sense so probably there might be some socioeconomic gradient in that in-depth

434
01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:53.000
gender gap, because they think when thinking about men, when the gender expectations is so salient, right, and so economic realities might be very relevant.

435
01:38:53.000 --> 01:38:59.000
Thank you all. Thank you.

436
01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:06.000
St. Any other questions for the speakers?

437
01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:12.000
Have a few questions, please.

438
01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:20.000
In this law first. There's no problem. Yeah, I was just thinking about being a resume people.

439
01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:37.000
Should be on there. Yeah. That's right. Please.

440
01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:48.000
Hello Zoom. My name is Don Di Vardal. I'm a professor of sociology at the Oslo Metropolitan University at the Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.

441
01:39:48.000 --> 01:40:01.000
And finally, I have a session where there's some A reference to Norway and Norwegian data in the larger service sets which of course Makes me very happy.

442
01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:08.000
I'm gonna take this. Losses off so I can see my notes here. This is a very interesting session to me.

443
01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:23.000
And Well, there has been many interesting sessions here, but today I feel like that the placement of the papers have been really interesting as well because what the first paper lacks the next paper answers to.

444
01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:31.000
So it's sort of doing a build up. So to the first speaker, I was sitting, it's really interesting.

445
01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:35.000
I can't remember your name right now. I can't even see it. But you know who you are?

446
01:40:35.000 --> 01:40:38.000
Good morning. Yeah.

447
01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:45.000
I'm looking up there. I should look here. Hi.

448
01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:59.000
When you spoke, it's like, this is really interesting. Who do you turn to first? How can we explain these emotional ties that we have to our family members or to what we regard as family.

449
01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:07.000
But when I was sitting there thinking, hmm. Needs to work in something about the welfare system.

450
01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:21.000
Here because these filial ties it very much relates to, you know, how society provides for older people.

451
01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:26.000
So then, you know, having Norway in the in the mix here, it's a political intention.

452
01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:43.000
To have people in the fiftys, sixtys, move into the cities and leave their older people to put in public care so that you know you can have more people in the workforce in the cities and so forth.

453
01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:53.000
And that's sort of an intentional. But that doesn't stop the emotional ties, but it takes care of some of the economical ties.

454
01:41:53.000 --> 01:42:03.000
So, and I think, okay, maybe you should include some more of the welfare systems in the equation when you when you do this but then you Chen?

455
01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:08.000
Jen Peng. She does that. The next paper comes in and the wells first and includes the welfare systems and regimes.

456
01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:24.000
And this is again this study I need to really get into and have a closer look because it was also referred to yesterday.

457
01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:31.000
I think you spoke about it and it and using magnets it's just very interesting way of approaching.

458
01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:46.000
The non-factual part, you know, of our lives, which is really, really important, how we think about family, how we feel about families just as important as how many.

459
01:42:46.000 --> 01:42:58.000
Children we actually have. So, so thank you and I really want some references to this study. But again, so this one adds to, you know, to this study.

460
01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:07.000
But again, so this one adds to by including welfare systems and regimes. And it's so, so important when it comes to

461
01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:17.000
Evaluating fertility. Again, I'm going to do the Norwegian case because we have found this breaking point.

462
01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:36.000
Because you can facilitate fertility. You know through social policy you can have you get fertility fertility maternity leave not fertility leave that would be interesting you give maternity good maternity leave.

463
01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:52.000
Good work, you know everything policy concerning work and homework balance and and you can get cheap health and cheap both health care and and childcare and put everything in place.

464
01:43:52.000 --> 01:44:10.000
To increase people's will to have more children. And it works up to a certain extent. What we experience now and I think it was mentioned here that Norway is sort of on the on the edges of fertility now because it's decreasing again.

465
01:44:10.000 --> 01:44:24.000
It was rising. Due to all these political changes but now is decreasing and the political you know in a democracy you will always have the people, oh, we want more, we want more, we want more.

466
01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:36.000
And, and there's lots of demands from families and mothers to have even more. And better policies for for parenting but publicly the politicians have found that you know it doesn't really help.

467
01:44:36.000 --> 01:45:00.000
It doesn't really help society. It doesn't create more children because there's a breaking point to how well the families are will be faring and you know at a certain point we will prefer policies doesn't work anymore.

468
01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:01.000
Yeah. Yeah.

469
01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:04.000
And I would like also the Pya? Kuya? Kuja! Hello.

470
01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:06.000
Hey.

471
01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:10.000
I really, yeah.

472
01:45:10.000 --> 01:45:26.000
III enjoy all these, but, I just want to have one comment. I was one thing I was thinking about when I when you talked is that you know these attitudes towards equal The equality of gender equality?

473
01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:38.000
Isn't it interesting though how all these measures on your attitudes towards a gender equality is about women.

474
01:45:38.000 --> 01:45:58.000
You know, when you measure gender equality, it's always women. It's not. What do you think about men's caring or men's work at home or you know So we need to find a way of including men in in measuring attitudes towards gender equality.

475
01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:13.000
And that's not your problem. I guess it's a problem of the the people making the surveys, but I mean we need to put some pressure on that to get a more equal survey questions.

476
01:46:13.000 --> 01:46:27.000
And then again, you know, you're answering another question. The first question, you know, the question that I is building up from one and 2 is answered here in your third.

477
01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:37.000
Today is that individual attitude. Is more important for fertility and countries where there is a greater gender equality.

478
01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:46.000
Well, that's exactly what I was trying to say in the first place. The breaking point here is that, If you are to.

479
01:46:46.000 --> 01:47:01.000
Have a choice. You have to have a choice. To have the second child. If the possibilities of having the second child there, you know, your values will or your attitudes, maybe you want the second child.

480
01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:10.000
But the social Arrangements are not there for you to choose that. Of course your attitude doesn't count that much.

481
01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:22.000
So in in order to to Have individual. Attitudes count, there's got to be a possibility to actually Make that choice.

482
01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:33.000
So that makes perfect sense, I think, this conclusion that you have.

483
01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:42.000
Okay, and to Vida? Just briefly. Yes, yeah. Please do not apologize for descriptive presentation.

484
01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:55.000
It's very, very interesting. The men that no one wants to have a baby with. And because that's a big issue also in in the Nordic countries at least.

485
01:47:55.000 --> 01:48:07.000
I don't care about around the world. Yeah, and the child rearing, I could go on about that.

486
01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:16.000
I've written about it myself. Yeah. Since we're running out of time, I'm not gonna go into that, but I would love to go into discussion on that another part.

487
01:48:16.000 --> 01:48:29.000
Well, thank you very much everyone for a very good, interesting. Presentations thank you

488
01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:44.000
Exactly. Otherwise they would check this. The Great.

489
01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:58.000
Maybe that's a comment to our users. When we use like gender gap index I think 4 factors I come from Japan and like health and education we have a really good scores.

490
01:48:58.000 --> 01:49:07.000
But the parliament in the past and women in parliament and other aspects, we have law. So instead of adding like Like everything as one, maybe you want to enter like things separately.

491
01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:24.000
So that you may see more about the country differences. Okay, thank you everyone. This is a great presentation.

492
01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:33.000
Would agree with me that's it, and then my present is every one.