1980年代，都市化與工業化的影響導致台灣家庭形式開始轉變，雙薪家庭與核心家庭成為主流的家庭形式。台灣社會開始呈現出母親走出家庭而父親走入家庭的雙向流動，在台灣媒體文本也開始呈現同時具備工作與家庭角色的「新父親」或者是「新母親」形象。本研究企圖了解近五年在台灣的廣告當中所建構的母職與父職形象，與兩者間的差異，及其隱含的意識形態等問題。
在挑選廣告產品樣本時，本研究考慮嬰幼兒奶粉屬於兒童成長初期的食物，該類廣告中具有豐富的親職圖像，便挑選2005年到2009五年間在台灣播放的嬰幼兒奶粉廣告共15則作為分析文本。本研究採取批判理論的觀點，以符號學分析作為研究方法，希望能夠解構出在嬰幼兒奶粉廣告當中，所再現的親職形象與符號中所隱含的文化迷思與意識形態。
本研究發現，嬰幼兒奶粉廣告再現了傳統的母親形象與轉變中的父親形象。廣告當中的母親形象的家庭角色比工作角色重要，不論是全職母親或者是職業婦女都必須花費大量的時間陪伴子女。除此之外，母親更是子女最主要的教養者，所以母親除了要陪伴子女之外，母親所負擔的育兒勞務也比父親來的繁重，在廣告當中母親需要擔任餵養、教導與陪伴子女等工作的角色。
相較於母親形象，父親形象則有較大的轉變。嬰幼兒奶粉廣告當中的父親不再只是疏離的經濟提供者，而是開始進入家庭，也與子女有親密互動的新父親形象。但美中不足的是，廣告中的新父親對於進入家庭場域尚未熟悉，所以父親在家庭當中的形象，是笨拙且慌張的。除此之外，父親所負責的育兒勞務也只是簡單且輕鬆的遊戲行為，並非與母親公平分攤育兒責任。但是一旦父親進入家庭當中，父親便成了家庭當中的決策者或建議者，母親則只是實踐者。
本研究更發現，這樣的親職形象所隱藏的是共謀的父權霸權以及資本主義。嬰幼兒奶粉廣告首先藉由口白或者是廣告情節引發一個育兒問題，接著再將產品塑造成解決此一問題的有效工具，但在廣告當中由於母親為主要教養者，所以產品解決的只是「母親的問題」，廣告藉由母親解決問題後快樂與滿足的形象，掩蓋將母親視為主要養育者的父權霸權。除此之外，廣告中將兒童作為主角，只強調奶粉對於兒童的好處，母親在廣告中主體性完全消失，變成只是購買者與兒童養育者。

In 1980s, following the urbanization and industrialization, the rate of dual-earner and nuclear family increased in Taiwan. The changing family form also influenced the time-distribution between parents in housework and child-caring. Men started to participate in these kinds of work. The image of “New father” or “New mother” also appeared in mass media. However, the images of parenthood provided by advertisements are not neutral and value-free. Thus, the aims of this study are to discover the power relationship and sex ideology through using semiotics to analyze the parenthood’s images on advertisements in Taiwan. 15 processed milk advertisements are chosen as the samples for this study.
The major findings revealed that the images of parenthood in processed milk advertisements are full of patriarchy ideology. Although there are some new parent’s images appeared in the advertisements, the images of parenthood are in some measure full of patriarchy ideology. Mother is still children’s major caretaker in the advertisements. The distribution of child care is different. Mother has to do repetitive, scheduled and important housework like preparing lunch. In comparison, father only has to do easy caring work like playing with children. Because of the different work distribution, mother is imprisoned in the private sphere.
In addition, mother is idealized and marginalized in the advertisements. Mother can be good mother easily with the help of processed milk. However, the product, processed milk, is more important than mother in the advertising. Mother can only be completed with the help of processed milk. Mother is simplified as buyer and user of the product.

第一章 緒論......................................................................1
第一節 研究背景..............................................................1
壹、台灣親職圖像變化...................................................1
貳、台灣媒介中的親職圖像變動...................................2
叁、無所不在的廣告訊息...............................................5
第二節 研究目的與問題..................................................7
第二章 文獻探討..............................................................9
第一節 傳統親職角色與變動..........................................9
壹、母職定義與研究.......................................................9
貳、父職定義與研究.....................................................18
第二節 廣告與文化/社會之關係................................... 24
壹、廣告的文化影響......................................................24
貳、廣告再現與意識形態..............................................27
參、性別意識形態與廣告中的性別再現......................31
第三節 媒介中呈現的親職角色與文化.........................35
第三章 研究方法.............................................................41
第一節 符號學理論.........................................................42
第二節 樣本抽取.............................................................45
第四章 研究發現.............................................................49
第一節 中產核心家庭為主流的家庭脈絡.....................50
第二節 嬰幼兒奶粉廣告中的母職形象與母職迷思.....53
壹、家中的母親..............................................................53
貳、溫柔的母親..............................................................56
叁、母親是主要的子女教養者......................................58
第三節 嬰幼兒奶粉廣告中的父職形象與父職迷思.....69
壹、兼具工作與家庭角色的父親..................................69
貳、笨拙的父親..............................................................71
叁、育兒責任中的幫助者—父親..................................74
肆、父親(男性)是決策者或建議者...............................75
第四節 嬰幼兒奶粉廣告中隱含的意識形態.................78
第五章 結論與建議.........................................................84
第一節 主要研究發現.....................................................84
壹、傳統與現代交纏的親職形象..................................85
貳、中產核心家庭中的勞務分工與權力分配..............87
參、資本主義下商品化的母親形象..............................90
第二節 研究建議.............................................................93
參考文獻..........................................................................94
附錄................................................................................102
附錄一 惠氏S26金幼兒樂 (錢韋杉，邱宗志)............102
附錄二 美強生幼兒A+(教室聊天篇)............................103
附錄三 美強生幼兒A+ (未來篇)...................................104
附錄四 亞培幼兒恩美力 (發信篇)................................105
附錄五 亞培幼兒恩美力 (出門篇)................................106
附錄六 美強生幼兒A+ (讓母親感動篇)........................107
附錄七 惠氏S26金幼兒樂 (小S篇)...............................108
附錄八 美強生幼兒A+(水彩繪畫篇).............................109
附錄九 亞培幼兒恩美力 (High Q篇).............................110
附錄十 亞培幼兒恩美力 (蛋糕篇)..................................111
附錄十一 桂格成長奶粉..................................................112
附錄十二 雀巢成長奶粉..................................................113
附錄十三 亞培幼兒恩美力 (打噴嚏篇)...........................114
附錄十四 惠氏S26金幼兒樂 (葉黃素篇)........................115
附錄十五 美強生幼兒A+ (左右腦篇)...............................116
圖表目錄
圖一 廣告符號傳遞過程.....................................................30
圖二 三層意義的生產過程.................................................45
圖三 母職形象的意義轉換.................................................67
圖四 父職形象的意義轉換.................................................77
圖五 嬰幼兒奶粉廣告中親職再現的二元對立表.............78

表一 國人推薦的嬰幼兒罐裝奶粉品牌............................46
表二 廣告樣本列表............................................................47

參考文獻
Pollster波仕特線上市調 (2009)。〈國人最推薦的嬰幼兒罐裝奶粉品牌〉。上網日期：2009年8月6號，取自「中時行銷知識庫」http://www.cyberone.tw
行政院勞工委員會 (2007)。〈婦女勞動統計〉。取自http://www.cla.gov.tw/cgi-bin/SM_theme?page=466fbabd
行政院衛生署 (2008)。〈嬰兒配方食品查驗登記現況表〉。取自http://blog.xuite.net/mingchenliao/wish/17135390
朱政騏 (2006年7月6日)。〈核心家庭破半 女性主義 日起有功？〉，《破報》。上網日期：2006 年7月6日，取自http://www.pots.com.tw/node/780
李惠貞(2003)。《持續哺餵母乳的母職空間經驗》。台大城鄉所碩士論文。
呂玉瑕、伊慶春 (2005)。〈台灣七0年代與九0年代社會文化脈絡的比較〉。《台
灣社會學》，10，41-94。
林進益(2007)。《解讀雜誌廣告中的老人迷思》。國立中山大學傳播管理所碩士
論文。
林萬億 (2005，2月)。〈我國的家庭變遷與家庭政策的制訂：從家庭政策到
家庭服務〉，｢全球化下的家庭圖像－社會工作實務的新思維研討會｣，台
北市師範大學。
周月英、顧玉珍 (1995)。《媒體的女人•女人的媒體(下)》。台北：碩人。
俞智敏、陳光達、陳素梅、張君玫譯(1995)。《女性主義觀點的社會學》。台北：巨流。(原書Abbott, P. & Wallace, C. [1990]. An introduction to sociology:
Feminist perspectives.)
國民健康局 (2004)。〈歷年台灣地區母乳哺育率〉。取自http://www.bhp.doh.gov.tw/breastfeeding/index02.htm
動腦雜誌編輯部(2008)。〈500大廣告主廣告量縮水〉，《動腦雜誌》，
384，95-100。
馮建三、孫秀蕙 (1995)。《廣告文化》。台北：揚智文化。
陳瀅巧 (2006)。《圖解文化研究》。台北：城邦。
陳明珠 (2008)。〈符號學研究的反身自省：返回符號體系的思考〉。《圖書資訊學研究》，2:2，17-38。
陳惠娟、郭丁熒 (1998)。〈「母職」概念的內涵之探討—女性主義觀點〉。《教育研
究集刊》，41，73-100。
陳志賢、楊巧玲 (2009，10月)。〈1978-2008報紙親職報導之性別關係內容分析〉，
「第三屆亞太地區性別平等教育論壇」，高雄。
張錦華、柯永輝 (1995)。《媒體的女人•女人的媒體(上)》。台北：碩人。
張錦華等譯 (1995)。《傳播符號學理論》。台北：遠流。(原書Fiske J. [1990].
Introduction to Communication Studies.)
張文嘉(2006)。《家在麥當勞－家庭在電視廣告中的再現》。國立中山大學傳播
管理所碩士論文。
張姵瑩(2009)。《媽媽不在家！爸爸今天吃甚麼？--從即時調理食品廣告看父親
形象的媒體再現》。國立中山大學傳播管理所碩士論文。
張瀞文(1997)。〈女性的母職:社會學觀點的批判分析〉。《社教雙月
刊》，77，20-25。
許惠雯(2004)。《理想父職之探討-兒童心目中的好爸爸》。國立台北護理學院嬰幼
兒保育研究所碩士論文。
康惠嫻(2008)。《女性健康的建構－公益健康廣告的文本分析》。國立中山大學
傳播管理所碩士論文。
康靜文(2002)。《《美國心，玫瑰情》與《鬥陣俱樂部》中的男性主體之死》。國
立成功大學藝術研究所碩士論文。
游美惠、易言嬡 (2004)。〈親職教育與性別平等教育—檢視親職教育通俗書籍的
性別平等意識〉。《高雄師大學報》，16，1-18。
游美惠 (2004)。〈性別權力與知識建構〉。《女學學誌》：婦女與性別研究，17，
1-45。
黃聖桂 (2001)。〈對青少年親子管教的文獻回顧：性別敏感的觀點〉。《中華心理
衛生學刊》，14(1)，89-111。
傳播通訊委員會 (2007)。〈通訊傳播管理法草案〉。取自http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~hlh242/DraftLaw.htm
趙蕙玲 (2009，10月)。〈以日常生活世界中的父職實踐為基礎的性別角色分析：
我們能繼續挖掘哪些性別研究的社會學想像？〉，「第三屆亞太地區性別
平等教育論壇」，高雄。
劉建台、林宗德譯 (2003)。《男性氣概的當代觀點》。台北：女書文化。(原書
Kenneth, C.[1990] Contemporary perspectives on masculinity：men,women and
politics in modern society,2nd ed.)
劉慧雯 (2002)。〈Saussure符號學理論在廣告研究中的應用：文本意義研究的更
弦易幟〉。《新聞學研究》，70，197-227。
鄭琇惠(2005)。《哺乳技術網絡、規訓、與性別工作--台灣母奶哺餵網絡中的多重
權力關係》。高雄醫學大學性別所碩士論文。
蔡佳玲(2007)。《私領域中的男性—台灣社會核心家庭的父職文化與父職實踐》。
世新大學性別研究所碩士論文。
潘淑滿 (2005)。〈台灣母職圖像〉。《女學學誌：婦女與性別研究》，20，41-91。
Bailey, L. (2000). Bridging home and work in the transition to motherhood: a discursive study. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 7, 53-70.
Beasley, R. & Danesi, M. (2002). Persuasive signs: The semiotics of advertising. New York: Berlin.
Becker, S. L. (1984) Marxist approaches to media studies: the British experience. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1, 66-80
Brannen, J. & Nilsen, A. (2006). From fatherhood to fathering : transmission and change among British fathers in four generation families, Sociology, 40(2), 335-352.
Christian, B. (1994). An angel of seeing: motherhood in Buchi Emecheta’s joy of motherhood and Alice Walker’s meridian. In E.N. Glenn, G.Chang & L. R. Forey (Eds.), Mothering :Ideology, Experience, and Agency. (pp. 95-121). New York. London: Routledge.
Courtney, A. E., & Lockeretz, S. W. (1971). A woman’s place: a analysis of the roles portrayed by women in magazine advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 8,92-95.
Cosslett, T. (1994) Women and writing childbirth. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Craig, L. (2002). Caring differently : a time-use analysis of the type and social context of child care performed by fathers and by mothers, SPRC Discussion Paper, 116
Craig, L. (2005). How do they do it? a time-diary analysis of how working mothers find time for the kids, SPRC Discussion Paper, 136
Craig L. (2006). Does father care mean fathers care? a comparison of how mothers and fathers in intact families spend time with children, Gender & Society, 20(2), 259-281
Dail P. W. & Way W. L. (1985). What do parents observe about parenting from prime time television. Family Relations, 34(4), 491-499.
Danna, S. R. (1994). Sexier and more sensitive: the changing advertising image of males in the 1990s. In L. Manca & A. Manca (Eds.), Gender & Utopia in advertising (pp. 73-86). Lisle, Illinos: Procopian Press.
Fiske, J. & Hartley, J. (1978). Reading television. London: Methuen.
Frith, K. (1997). Undressing the Ad: reading culture in advertising. NY: Peter Lang.
Frith, K. T. & Mueller, B. (2003). Advertising and societies global issues. New York: Peter Lang.
Furnham, A. & Mak, T. (1999). Sex-role stereotyping in television commercials : a review and comparison of fourteen studies done on five continents over 25 years. Sex roles, 41(5), 413-437.
Garey, A. I. (1995). Constructing motherhood on the night shift:“working mothers” as “stay-at-home moms”. Qualitative Sociology, 18(4), 415-437.
Gerson, K. (2002). Moral dilemmas, moral strategies, and the transformation of gender lessons from two generations of work and family change, Gender & Society, 16(1), 8-28
Gilchrist, P. (2007). Motherhood, ambition and risk': mediating the sporting hero/ine in conservative Britain. Media, Culture & Society, 29, 395 - 414.
Gillis, R. J. (2000). Marginalization of fatherhood in western countries, Childhood, 7(2), 225-238.
Goffman, E. (1976). Gender advertisement. Cambridge, MA: Havard.
Griswold, R. (1993). Fatherhood in America: a history. New York: Basic Books.
Guillen, E. & Barr, S. (1994). Nutrition, dieting and fitness messages in magazine for adolescent women 1970-1990. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15, 464-472.
Guelzow, M. G., Bird, G. W., & Koball, E. H. (1991). An exploratory path analysis of stress process for dual-career men and women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 151-164.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation：Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.
Hall, S. (1980) Encoding/decoding, culture, media, language: working papers in Culture Studies, 1972-79, London: Hutchison, p.p. 128-138
Kaufman, G. (1999). The portrayal of men's family roles in television commercials. Sex Roles, 41, 439-458.
Kaplan, E. A. (1994). Look who’s talking, indeed: fetal images in recent north American visual culture. In E.N. Glenn, G. Chang & L. R. Forey (Eds.), Mothering :Ideology, Experience, and Agency. (pp. 121-139). New York. London: Routledge.
Kilbourn, J. (1999). Can’t buy my love: how advertising changes the way we think and feel. New York: Touchstone.
Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: an overview. Marriage and Family Review, 29, 23-42.
Lazar, M. (2000). Gender, Discourse and semiotics: The politics of parenthood representations, Discourse & Society, 11(3):373-400.
Leiss, W., Kline, S. & Jhally, S. (1990). Social communication in advertising: persons, products and images of well-being. London: Routledge
Leymore, V. L. (1975) Hidden myth: structure & symbolism in advertising. N.Y. : Basic Book.
Lupton, D. & Barclay, L. (1997). Constructing fatherhood-discourse and experiences. London: Sage.
Marsiglio, W. (1993). Contemporary scholarship on fatherhood, Journal of family issues, 14(4), 484-509.
McQuillan, J., Greil, L. A., Shreffler, M. K. & Tichenor, V. (2008). The importance of motherhood among women in the contemporary United States, Gender & Society, 22(4), 477-496.
Messner, M. (1993). “Changing men” and feminist politics in the United States, Theory and society, 22, 723-737.
Milkie M., Mattingly, M., Nomaguchi, K., Bianchi, S., & Robinson, J. (2004). The time squeeze : parental statuses and feelings about time with children, Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 739-761.
Miller, T. (2007). “Is this what motherhood is all about?” weaving experiences and discourse through transition to first time motherhood, Gender & society, 21(3), 337-358.
O’Barr, M. W. (1994). Culture and the ad: exploring otherness in the world of ad. Boulder: Westview Press.
Pleck, J. (1987). American fathering in historical perspective. In Changing men: new directions in research on men and masculinity, M. Kimmel (ed.), 83-95. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pugh, A. J. (2005). Selling compromise: toys, motherhood, and the cultural deal. Gender & Society, 19, 729 - 749.
Ranson, G. (2001) Men at work change – or no change?—in the era of the “new father”, Men and masculinities, 4(1), 3-26
Reep, D. C. & Dambrot, F. H. (1994). ‘TV parents : father (and now mother) know best’ , Journal of popular Culture, 28(2), 13-23.
Robinson, K. B. & Hunter, E. (2008). Is mom still doing it all? reexamining depictions of family work in popular advertising, Journal of Family Issues, 29(4). 465-486
Seiter, E. (1992). Semiotics, structuralism, and television. In C. A. Robert (Ed.). Channel of discourse reassembled: Television and contemporary culture. London: Routledge.
Sunderland, J. (2006). ‘Parenting’ or ‘mothering’? the case of modern childcare magazines, Discourse & Society, 17(4), 503-527.
Sullivan, G. L. & O’Connor, P. J. (1988). Women’s role portrayals in magazine advertising: 1958-1983. Sex roles, 12, 491-500.
Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries. New York: Routledge.
Uttal, L. (1996). Custodial care, surrogate care, and coordinated care: employed mothers and the meaning of child care. Gender & Society, 10, 291-311.
Van Zoonen, L. (1994). Feminist media studies. London: Sage.
Venkatesan, M. & Losco, J. (1975). Women in magazine ads: 1959-71. Journal of Advertising research, 13, 49-54.
Wall, G. & Arnold, S. (2007). How involved is involved fathering?: an exploration of the contemporary culture of fatherhood. Gender & Society, 21, 508 – 527.
Wall, G. (2001). Moral constructions of motherhood in breastfeeding discourse. Gender & Society, 15(4), 592-610.
Wagner, L. C., & Banos, J. B. (1973). A woman’s place: a follow-up analysis of the
roles portrayed by women in magazine advertisements. Journal of Marketing
research, 10, 213-214.
Wernick, A. (1991). Advertising as ideology. In Promotional culture: advertising, ideology and Symbolic Expression (Ch. 2), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
White, N. R. (1994). About fathers: masculinity and social construction of fatherhood, Journal of sociology, 30, 119-131.
Williamson, J. (1978). Decoding advertisements: ideology and meaning in advertisements, New York: Marion Boyer.
Windebank, J. (1999) Political motherhood and the everyday experience of mothering: a comparison of the child care strategies of French and British working mother. Journal of social policy, 28(1), 1-25.