Week 4 - Fathering

Anthony Egger
Family & Work Blog
Week 4

Fathering

Francine Deutsch, “Halving it All: The Mother and Mr. Mom”

Francine Deutsch wrote an entire book looking at the different dynamics between work and family, specifically looking at how they share tasks such as parenting. In this particular chapter, she looks at the group of families who have developed into “alternating-shift” couples. In these arrangements, the parents work alternating shifts so that when one is at work, the other is at home raising the children. This chapter helps to eliminate some of the stereotypes that blue collar fathers will not help with intricate processes of child rearing. Because as she shows, there is a revolution of parenting happening in these blue collar families as well.
Now, she is not claiming that these families are equal sharing families in terms of responsibility, because they are self admittedly not. However, the alternating shift fathers spent almost double the time solely caring for the children than their equally sharing counterpart fathers. This is because while they are caring for their kids, they are the only ones accountable and must do everything, which is a lot, for them. Many of these family dynamics are determined due to financial reasons. Either there is not enough money or the parents believe it is impractical to spend money on child care when they can work on a system like this. I have to wonder though, if this system of alternating shifts puts many strains on a marriage, because the parents rarely get to see each other either. Another reason is that many parents believe that their kids should be cared for exclusively by family. I feel the same belief that if given an opportunity, I would want my own kids to be raised and influenced by family as well. Many of these families would not have the means to send their children to upper level child care, and thus believe it is better to raise them themselves instead of subjecting them to lower care.
Later in the article, Deutsch does talk about the issue I raised earlier about this situation creating hardships in a marriage due to lack of time together. However, I find it very fascinating that many of these parents are willing to sacrifice a bit of their own happiness for that of their children, a fact that I admire. In order to accomplish this, these “real” men who work in blue collar jobs had to change and break away from the stereotypes. This can be difficult for many of these men, because they are acting in ways they have no experience or background to fall back upon. They are living unlike their own fathers and thus have to pave their own ways. I found it interesting though, that in interviewing these men, that some of them did realize that they had a responsibility to their family and that they were appreciative that their wives were willing to work to help provide for their family. Even though they feel like they have to pay back their wives for working by being there to raise the kids, they get to know their own children, which is a great gift in turn.
The fact that these men are changing is interesting, because there is still much more support for traditional gender roles in working class than middle class families. There are still these beliefs, but now it is not feasible. The men and even their wives, still acknowledge the man as the breadwinners in the family, and men fell obligated to provide for their families. Furthering this goal, is the idea that the mother is not gaining satisfaction from working, but rather is just doing it out of economic necessity, however untrue the first part of that statement might be. There are often differences in ideology between husband and wife about why the wife is working. Women sometimes like this role, because in financially strapped families they are not forced to make a difficult decision between their family and working. A third assumption that affects this type of family is that of the mother as still the primary parent, and person that needs to be there during the critical times. As the fathers still believe it is their duty to be the main breadwinner, these mothers still feel it is they job to be the top parent, because they are more nurturing than their husbands. They get disturbed if the fathers become too involved or depended on for child rearing. Men conform to this ideal as well, and still believe, most likely from their experiences with their own mothers, that mothers are the nurturing parent.
These new alternate shift families present an interesting alternative because they have multiple aspects of ideologies and practices. At one moment they are a family with a bread winner father and homemaker mother, and later that same day they have a working mother and stay at home father. Though this is the case in practicality, the belief in the first situation as the “right” one is still held, even though these families are much more egalitarian than they let on to believe.

Dorothy Roberts, “Absent Black Father”

In this article, Roberts looks at the issue of the absent father from the perspective that there is a cultural assumption that that father is indeed black. As she writes, “fatherlessness is a distinctly black problem.” By labeling it a black problem, it serves as an example of depravity and an explanation for Black people’s problems, along with a ringing endorsement for the father dominated family role whites usually accompanied. It is an assumption in this society that traditional black households are female headed, and there is new theory that black fatherlessness is a symptom of rebellious Black mothering. Roberts writes that because of the way black men are portrayed in the media, they are seen as not suitable role models for their children, and thus are never given the opportunity to be the heads of households. I think that is a bit of a stretch personally. I agree that the image of the black man presented in the media is a disparaging one, but that does not mean that black fathers are necessarily destined to be abandoning fathers.
Roberts also argues that there are many extraneous factors working to promote fatherlessness. First, there is the benefit of receiving welfare out of wedlock, and that in the black community, there is a more accepting view on unmarried fathers. Also because many black fathers are unable to provide financially for their children, it causes a great source of abandonment. And in an attempt to provide, many black men must turn to crime which subsequently explains the larger number of incarcerated black males.
The definition of “fatherless” is than defined that the parents are not married or can be used with “single motherhood.” I strongly disagree with this definition and know many fathers, both black and white, who are not married, but are intimately involved in their children’s lives. For me the definition of fatherless is a child who has no interaction with their father at all. Given this first definition, it is no surprise that “absent” black fathers have more contact and provide more informal support to their children than white absent fathers. However, black fathers get a bad reputation, because it is the formal support like money that our society focuses upon.
Roberts mainly believes that is the welfare system that is to blame. There is a belief that a good father is a breadwinning, economically providing one, and that is an ideal that many black men cannot live up to. For a long time, welfare was only granted to mothers that did not have a father in house, thus promoting black “fatherlessness.” However recently, the ideas have change and now new welfare programs are based on doling out rewards to those women who are married. There is also increased pressure to make sure that fathers are providing the appropriate child support. This is a good action, but even if the father has the best intentions, if he is unable to get a sustaining job he cannot pay his children’s mother. Roberts criticizes the welfare system now trying to promote a system of the traditional, father present family. She however believes that it is the racial injustices in place that are the main culprit. There is no excuse for fatherlessness in my mind, but Roberts does make some good points that before fixing the problem of absent fathers, the system that promotes it must be improved.

Kathleen Gerson, “Introduction” & “Myth of Masculinity”

In her book “No Man’s Land,” Gerson looks at the history of males roles in families, and how through the decades it has changed and left a confusing present picture. In the 1950s, the father as the breadwinner was the main idea, with women left to the sphere of homemaking. Since this inception and peak though, this idea has steadily declined in practice. Even in the 1960s, only 52% of families fit this mold. But it was not necessarily the men who have changed, but the women and their ideals. With this decline of the breadwinner model, there has also been some confusion about what a man’s true role is now. There has developed a discrepancy, because men’s move into family involvement has not matched women’s move into paid employment. Faced with this issue, man men and even women are now choosing alternative styles of living. With increases in postponing marriages, remaining single and divorce, there is less men involved and tied to parenthood and family. With this said, now more and more children are growing up without financial or even emotional support from their fathers. Many women do not receive the appropriate child support, and because women make substantially less than men, these single mother families are at a great disadvantage. However, while in the face of this uncertainty, some men run from their responsibility, some have increased their role in the family. There has been a slow increase in the involvement of men in domestic tasks. In a great point, Gerson writes “it is not a simple matter of things getting worse, better or staying the same – all three are happening at once.”
In her work, which I found interesting, she found no relationship between ethnic backgrounds and men’s choice about family and work. Also as in Deutsch’s article, she found that the idea of the macho, working class man who doesn’t participate in the home is misleading. She interviewed a wide variety of men and asked them about their family/work beliefs. A little more than a third saw themselves as the “primary” earner, consistent with the breadwinner model, and thus were opposed to working in a domestic capacity. They believed that their profession and providing money was their only job. Another third were not committed to parenting, either financially or emotionally. The final third, actually made a move toward increased family involvement.
A factor in Gerson’s analysis I liked, was that she intended to focus on the variations among men, not the differences between men and women. I think this is the right approach, because only by examining these intra-sex differences can we determine why there is such a distinct difference in men’s family and work beliefs. She looks at the issue of male power, how many individual men do not feel this power, and that the new system of equality may continue to erode this system of power. She looks to examine why these changes are occurring, and to get it from the perspectives of the males in both camps. A social and sexual revolution has been underway for a while, and though the changes have been well documented the rationale behind it has yet to.
In her ninth chapter, Gerson looks at the “myth of masculinity,” and how it affects the current situation. She asserts, and I agree with the fact that even though there may be some lingering beliefs about it, there will never be a majority return to the social situation where men were seen as sole providers in the breadwinner mold. From this emerged three different types of males, those who held onto the breadwinner role in a “stalled revolution” capacity, those “male rebels” who picked autonomy, and the increasing number of “involved fathers.” While it is clear that there are distinctions among these men, the reasoning behind their choices is debatable. There has been assumptions that “masculine personalities, a culture of masculinity, or male dominance” are the causal factors, but Gerson works to disprove each of these.
Gerson argues that simply arguing for a distinct “masculine personality” is very limiting and not plausible because of the diversity of men and that as a group, many men display many orientations that are typically considered feminine. There are still those who believe in the masculine stereotype, but it must be acknowledged that many men no longer conform to these views.
The next view is that there is a “culture of masculinity” in place in society that causes men’s behavior. Again this view is too short sighted, claiming that men have a unique and distinct cluster of views, beliefs, and behaviors that are truly masculine. These views usually focus on independence, aggression, and the suppression of emotions. These beliefs that lead to male flight from commitment from family are stemmed deep in our history and culture. This presents a contradiction from the American culture that cherishes the loner, and yet at the same time also the responsible, family provider. It is impossible for men to be both, and thus they have to make a choice. But like with almost any choice, there is never a one-to-one relationship between a person’s values and their actions. This leads to the perceived confusion amongst men, who feel they must not only live up to cultural ideals but also their personal ones, and usually must sacrifice one the former to achieve the latter.
As for the idea of male dominance, that is an idea that is fading rapidly in theory. In the past, men enjoyed advantages in the sphere of work that translated to advantages in the home. In this loop of causation, men were able to focus on work and avoid child work, with both actions being mutually beneficial to the other. However, in today’s world, there is no denying that male privilege is still apparent, there is now at least some opposition. Also, male dominance cannot account for the actions of all males, because this privilege is not spread equally across society. No longer are the freedoms that man men’s fathers enjoyed guaranteed, some abandon their roles in families while others remain indifferent or supportive. Some men support women working, because they themselves have suffered an erosion of their economic security. In the last twenty years, there has been a decline in men’s earnings, which has led to a rise in self employment and the loss of inherent working benefits. With this decline, and struggle to support ones self, the idea of supporting a family has become unattractive and much more difficult. As men’s employment continues to fall though, women’s has been on the rise. Now, women are no longer dependent on a husband to sustain themselves, and also since they are providing in the economic sphere have the power to influence male roles in the domestic one. Women are now going to college and staying in the work force longer, all leading to increased economic independence from men. However, a point that I never considered was that as women become more viable and self sustaining, it gives men less reason to stick around because they no longer feel financially responsible. On the other hand though, a women can also threaten to leave with her new freedom, and use this leverage to enact change in her husband’s behavior.
With the increased alternatives to marriage, there has been a new distinction between marriage and parenthood. Fatherhood is now a looser defined topic, and their roles are harder to determine. The changes have affected different men in different ways, but ultimately it comes down to men’s values and how important they are. For some, they believe that they are too good for, or not cut out for the responsibilities of marriage, but I think it is encouraging that an increasing number of men do in fact believe it is their duty to be committed to working in both spheres. Gerson aptly acknowledges that is almost impossible to generalize across the male race with all its differences, but she does know that some change is going to happen, and most likely it present both opportunities and dangers, leaving men with yet another choice.