The Construction of Fatherhood.
A Study on Discourse, Media and Fathers’ Self-Perceptions in the
Netherlands.
“Tender, surprising, and brimming with love: these are images of real* fatherhood”
*”real” in this case = “real-life”, as in, not actors or media-created images (The Good Men Project). Master’s thesis in Sociology, track Gender, Sexuality and Society.
Graduate School of Sciences. Floor van Schagen, 10547061.
Supervisor: Dr. Marie-Louise Janssen.
Second supervisor: Drs. Margriet van Heesch. Style of reference: Chicago style.
Word count: 31.920. July 3, 2014.
Table of contents.
Abstract. p. 3
Acknowledgements. p. 4
1. Introduction: focus on fatherhood. p. 5
2. Theoretical frame. p. 10
3. Methodology. p. 31
4. Recognition and reality in television advertisements. p. 37
5. Gender equality, masculinity and father feeling. p. 47
6. Conclusion. p. 61
7. Summary. p. 67
References. p. 69
Abstract.
In this thesis I have questioned how representations of fathers in the Dutch media correspond with the self-perceptions of fathers in the Netherlands. I conducted my research with two research methods: a discourse analysis of eight television advertisements and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with sixteen fathers. These fathers were heterosexual, white, around thirty years old, brand new as they have young children (at least one of two years old or younger) and have several educational levels. In the interviews I showed them the eight advertisements and used their
reactions and opinions on them in the discourse analysis to find out their own discourses. I used Dutch and international authors and their theories in constructing my theoretical framework. Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) and Grünell (2002) are important in describing the Dutch context. Lupton and Barclay (1997), Gill (2007) and Connell (2005), among others, are important for theories about discourses, media, masculinity and difficulties. The most important result from my research is that two discourses are prevailing in the situation of the sixteen fathers, that of gender equality and working (breadwinning). Several fathers in my research have managed to live up to the ideal of equality, but others are not realizing this. Important factors that constrain such equality can be found in work linked with education, but also in gender stereotypes and
Acknowledgements.
First of all, I want to thank my two supervisors for being enthusiastic about my topic, which motivated me to keep going. A special thank to Marie Louise, who had the great idea of combining my initial two thesis topics of ‘something’ with fathers and gender in the media. In this way I could look at gender, in specific father representations, in the media and if these representations were corresponding with the real-life experiences of fathers themselves, which at once showcased my research question. I could always reach Marie-Louise on the email with questions, giving me suggestions, feedback and the confidence to keep going. Secondly I want to thank the fathers who participated in my research, for sharing their stories, experiences, feelings, thoughts and difficulties in fatherhood with me. I learned a lot from them, seeing things from their perspective. As I was nervous about the research process, I saw possible obstacles, wondering whether everything would work out. Those difficult times absolutely occurred the previous months, but the people around me helped me a lot in inspiring and motivating me. Therefore, I further want to thank my family and friends for being there for me and giving me all the inspiration, help, advice but also peace of mind in times when I was stuck or frustrated. I had a great time with the other five amazing girls in my thesis group. Our ‘Thesis workgroup Tips and Freakouts!’ chat on facebook helped us to share, as the name already says, tips but also problems and frustrations that worried us.
1. Introduction: A focus on fatherhood.
‘The Good Men Project’ is a “diverse, multi-faceted media company and an idea-based social platform.” The American organisation wants to start an international conversation about what it means to be a good men in the 21st century and has its own facebook page about the issue of men’s roles in modern life. In its own words “We let guys be guys, but we do it while challenging
confining cultural notions of what a real man must be.” One of the issues and questions the organisation tackles that are most relevant to men’s lives is fatherhood. Several articles about fatherhood are posted which intrigued me to immerse myself in this topic. In one article on April 7 2014, Todd Adams wonders if nature or nurture matters when it comes to being a good father or husband, saying “So now I will make an unfair conclusion that (generally speaking) nurturing does come more naturally to women than it does for men. This could be the result of my own upbringing, a society that has made the nurturing aspect of my fatherhood more elusive, or it could be some type of DNA genetic makeup. I’m not sure.” Later he argues: “Can a “typical” man be as nurturing as a “typical” mom? My answer is yes, but at least for this man (meaning himself), it requires more effort.” In another article on November 21 2010, Derek Markham shares some of his thoughts about fatherhood because he argues that “there is not big of a movement toward better ‘fathering’ as there is toward better mothering. No big fancy fatherhood magazines, no Oprah for dads, no real
exchange of fatherhood improvement programs.” It would be harder for fathers than for mothers to know how to be(come) a good parent. This made me further interested in a specific focus on fathers and their experiences.
A focus on motherhood and their experiences is more well known as it is often made more clear how mothers (should) balance their work and family life. However, this also becomes more important for fathers nowadays as is stated on the Dutch site called www.werken20.nl. Men want a better balance between work and family life, especially young fathers are frustrated about the lack of possibilities their employer offers for such better balance. Further frustration among fathers can be found about their rights in raising children, which are especially found problematic after divorce. Development sociologist Irene Zwaan (2013) advocates the equally important share of fathers in upbringing, irreplaceable by mothers and therefore important in children’s lives, also after a divorce. Fathers do not do it better than mothers, but different. Their unique contribution should make them fathering, not mothering. This diversity is necessary as the ideal would consist of the male and female example that give you the baggage you need in life. These examples could also be found in male and female family or friends. Such hetero-normative and biological statement, associating masculinity and femininity with the male and female body, excludes gay and lesbian couples, but also single parents who would lack one of those two examples. This issue will be
further discussed in the theoretical frame with sociologist R.W. Connell (2005) and her theory about masculinity.
The idea that fathers are fathering or the uniqueness of fatherhood could be an important debate framing fatherhood. Another important debate in framing fatherhood could be gender equality. This concept “supports equal opportunities for men and women in employment,
symmetrical contributions from mothers and fathers at home, and high-quality care for children provided both by parents and by well-qualified non-parental caregivers” (Gornick and Meyers 2009, 5). So there is attention for both the public and the private sphere to achieve equality. As their has been attention for equal rights for women in the public sphere, it is now according to sociologist Marianne Grünell (2002) a logical next phase to have attention for the conditions in the private sphere, the coherence between both spheres and the differences between women and men. Further, professors at universities in Sweden Thomas Johansson and Roger Klinth (2008) wrote an article in the journal ‘Men and Masculinities’, arguing that women’s equality with men could only be
realized when men are also educated and encouraged to take an active part in parenthood and when they are given the same rights and duties as women in parental capacity. This would also be
beneficial for both women and men, stated by people of ‘MenCare’, a global fatherhood campaign, with a mission of “promoting men’s involvement as equitable, non-violent fathers and caregivers in order to achieve family well-being and gender equality.” At the site www.men-care.org there are 10 MenCare themes with the first theme of being involved from the start. Research found out that when men are present in caring and sensitive ways in the periods of birth and before birth, women experience less stressful deliveries and access to the best available health care is more likely. Further it is beneficial for the men themselves as they are more likely to be connected with their children from the earliest moments onward. However, men themselves, pregnant women and health professionals often do not see “men as allies in birthing”, excluding men from the process and reinforcing gender inequalities.
Sociologists Jan Willem Duyvendak and Monique Stavenuiter (2004) argue that the involvement of men in the domestic sphere of caring is important to increase men’s and women’s freedom of choice. In this way, women can seize more opportunities outside the house and men can build better relationships with their children. However, this is often still difficult to realize for men as “men feel increasingly committed to their families and are increasingly emotionally involved in their children. However, it seems difficult for large groups of men to realise their wishes and live up to their ideals” (Duyvendak and Stavenuiter 2004, 20). Men face both materially and
psychologically problems in becoming more involved, like limited facilities to stay more at home and prejudices around caring men. Although such difficulties, the increasing ageing of the
people need more care. Men would also improve the appreciation for care work: if men participate in a certain activity, the social status of that activity will increase (Duyvendak and Stavenuiter 2004; Grünell 2002). Further, Grünell (2002) argues that the informal care threatens to decline as the fulltime housewife is disappearing, as women are working outside the house. It is no longer taken for granted that women are the ones who care tacitly. She points to high percentages of men who want a more equal division between women and men in and outside the house. Feministic ideas have unmistakable penetrated the public vocabulary. Both women and men want in majority a great part-time job. Especially with parents, full-time working men want to work less, in particular young fathers (Grünell 2002).
1.1. Fascination and Relevance.
As I argued above, the focus on fathers and their experiences is growing. In this thesis I would like to continue with this focus, looking at experiences but also needs and difficulties of fathers. I find the two debates of unique fatherhood and gender equality very interesting to use in getting more insight in fatherhood. Do the fathers in my research think they are different from mothers, having an unique contribution in education, and how do they think about the concept of gender equality? How do they divide roles and tasks with each other?
In articles of The Good Men Project it is further argued that experiences of fathers are not always that good represented in the media. The photo’s at my front page are from such article with images of real fatherhood, with real as in real-life. In another article photo’s of fathers with their children are shown with the subtitle of “Things dads do that you won’t see in popular culture.” So I am further wondering how the media might influence fathers in their thoughts and behaviour and I find it interesting to get to know more about the role of media in representing fathers’ experiences. The media can be seen as an important institution in society as we use it every day and as
sociologist Hana Maříková (2008, 148) argues, “although a change is occurring in the real
behaviour of caring fathers, and although this change is undoubtedly important, it is not important in and of itself. It must be assessed in the context of how this behaviour is reflected upon in society and what social esteem it commands.” Internationally recognized for her studies of advertising, Jean Kilbourne (1999) states that advertising is our environment. We are therefore very often exposed to behaviour that is reflected in media like advertising, setting certain kinds of discourses, which could influence our thinking about gender roles and behaviour. We do not pay direct attention to many advertisements but we are powerfully influenced, mostly on an unconscious level. We are consciously aware of only 8% of the advertisements. We are not consciously aware of what advertising is doing (Kilbourne 1999). Further, advertisements can be very powerful as I can
explain with anthropologist Daniel Miller (2010, 50) and his ‘humility of things’: “The less we are aware of them, the more powerfully they can determine our expectations, by setting the scene and ensuring appropriate behaviour, without being open for challenge.” I would like to relate this humility of things to the humility of advertisements: being unaware of them, they can powerfully determine our expectations, setting a certain scene with appropriate behaviour for fathers to perform. So with these statements of Kilbourne (1999) and Miller (2010) it can be argued that media advertisements play an important role in the behaviour of fathers in real life. As we watch much television nowadays I would like to analyse television advertisements, broadcasted in the Netherlands. In the interviews I will show eight advertisements to fathers and ask their opinion about them to find out if the representations of fatherhood in these advertisements correspond with experiences of fathers themselves. I will further discuss my methods in the methodology chapter.
Comparing advertisements with experiences of fathers themselves would be relevant to find out to what extent these advertisements display a good reality of fatherhood, questioning if
advertisements are realistic with regard to fatherhood. Tom Reichert, advertising professor, and Jacqueline Lambiase (2003, 216), associate professor of journalism, argue that “advertising serves as the primary lexicon of gender images, responsible for the wide dissemination of currently relevant masculine and feminine imagery.” In this way, television advertisements are important for spreading masculine images like the father. These images and representations might influence people in seeing fathers in a certain way and set expectations of how fathers should behave.
However, are these expectations realistic and possible to accomplish for fathers? Further, with such comparing and in the rest of the interview I would also like to discover the experiences of fathers, regarding to their feelings, thoughts and activities. These experiences could further reveal their needs, difficulties, insecurities and/or tensions. How do fathers find a balance between work and care? Do they feel limitations in being the father they want to be? The existence of difficulties and limitations in being involved with the family and children is already argued with the quote of Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) above. When such possible difficulties and limitations are more understood and recognized, measures could be taken to tackle them, making fathers (and mothers) more happier and satisfied in parenting.
My research question is the following: “How do representationsof fathers in the Dutch media correspond with the self-perceptions of fathers in the Netherlands?”My sub questions are:
- How do these representations construct masculinities in relation to femininity?
- Are Dutch fathers experiencing conflicts, difficulties and/or insecurities in their role as father and where do these troubles come from?
- How do the debates of unique fatherhood and gender equality relate with these self-perceptions of fathers?
These sub questions are well expressed in an article of ‘The Good Men Project’ on January 13 2014, where Christian Clifton writes about questioning masculinity. He sees himself as two different kinds of men. The first kind of man is sensitive, extremely sentimental, able to cry at movies, cooking and cleaning. He would be deemed as being contrary to stereotypical masculinity. The second man is talking about shooting guns, drinking beer and smoking pipes. Many people would see this picture as typically masculine. However, Clifton thinks that no activity makes you less of a man, nor is there one that makes you more. Only your own opinion of being a man matters. Related to fathers, their taking care of children would not make them lesser men (like cleaning diapers). Further, their own opinion of how to be a good father is the most important one, that I would like to find out in the interviews. Discourses of unique fatherhood and/or gender equality might exist in their opinions and perceptions. Asking about their experiences in the way of feelings, thoughts and activities could reveal difficulties, tensions or insecurities that fathers have to deal with. Further, there might be discrepancy between their opinions and their actual activities as father beings, as Grünell (2002) argues that discrepancies between opinions in general about desired labour division between women and men and the opinions about the establishment of their own lives are regularly found in research on men and care, just like contradictions in promising and not doing.
1.2. Construction Thesis.
After this introduction I will discuss in my theoretical framework the power of gender stereotypes and expectations and the connection between gender and media. I will further discuss several representations of fatherhood and how the concept of masculinity can be related with fatherhood. In the third chapter I will discuss two methods I use to conduct my research. I will describe the data collection and the data analysis and I will refer to ethics and considerations of possible problems that might occur using these methods. Chapter four is my first data chapter, with results from the discourse analysis of the advertisements. Further I will discuss the reactions of fathers on the advertisements, finding out what kind of discourses exist with them. Further, I will answer my first sub question here. Chapter five is my second data chapter, where I will in particular come back to my theoretical frame with the three most important concepts of gender equality, masculinity and fatherhood (father feeling). Here I will answer my second and third sub questions. In chapter six I will conclude with a summary of linking my results with my theoretical framework and with a further discussion part. As an ideal of gender equality is coming up more and more nowadays I think this concept can be important for fathers experiencing their fatherhood. I am curious if such an ideal is feasible for fathers and what kind of difficulties in general they experience.
2. Theoretical Framework.
In this theoretical framework I will discuss the role of gender in media advertising and the
importance of gender stereotypes and expectations in how women and men think and behave. I will further use both debates of unique fatherhood and gender equality to frame my research on
fatherhood. Within these debates there are several discourses and representations of fatherhood which I will describe in this chapter. Such discourses and representations can be internationally discussed but my focus will be on the Dutch context as my research is about Dutch media and fathers in the Netherlands. So I will include some specific Dutch discussions with authors like Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004), Grünell (2002) and Zwaan (2013), but I will use international theories as well to find out if such representations are also occurring when analysing the Dutch television advertisements and the fathers in the Netherlands. According to professor media studies Jeanne Prinsloo (2006, 7) a “diversity of roles and representations enables more complex
negotiations of identities and expectations around fathering.” I will find out if such complexities exist. I can further use these representations of fatherhood for analysing the representations in advertisements, which will help to answer my first sub question: “How do these representations construct masculinities in relation to femininity?”
2.1. Gender and Media.
As I already argued with Reichert and Lambiase (2003) above, television advertisements are important for spreading images and representations of fathers. Prinsloo (2006) further argues that it is broadly accepted that society is not reflected by the media but that the media provide us with roles and images with which we engage. The media have an important role in circulating and mediating ideas, attitudes and actions. A focus on only television advertisements would make me more specific in my conclusion about the content and impact of these advertisements. They have to be broadcasted in the Netherlands, so that they could be exposed to fathers in the Netherlands whose perceptions can be compared with the advertisements. According to sociologist Deborah Lupton and maternal child health researcher Lesley Barclay (1997), the way audiences response to popular media texts may vary enormously. Factors like gender, sexual identity, age, social class, ethnicity and personal life experiences influence the ways in which they respond to the media. I will discuss the characteristics of my research group of fathers in the methodology section.
With sociologist Erving Goffman (1979) and his concept of gender display I would like to explain how women and men could be differently displayed. Goffman (1979) argues that gender is important in our social situations because our ceremonial life is deeply informed by differences
between women and men. Displays provide evidence of an actor’s emplacement in a gathering, the position he is taking in what is happening in the social situation. If gender is defined as the
culturally established connection (interdependence) with sex, gender display refers to
“conventionalized portrayals of this connection” (Goffmann 1979, 2). Although it is argued that behavioural gender display draws on animal life, it seems to do not only in such a direct
evolutionary way but “as a source of imagery, a cultural resource” (Goffman 1979, 3, 4). However, such biological thinking is further grounded in the doctrine of natural expressing, containing a belief that objects give off natural signs. Gender is a basic characteristic of humans, deeply rooted, with femininity and masculinity as prototypes of essential expression. According to Goffman (1979) one difficulty with this doctrine is that expression is not instinctive but socially learned and socially patterned. Individuals learn to be the kind of object to which the doctrine of natural
expression applies. In this way we are socialized to confirm our own hypotheses about our nature. As mothers are often considered to be natural caregivers because they give birth this could have consequences for how we confirm this female natural characteristic, with less focus on caring abilities of fathers. According to Goffman (1979) the human nature of women and men really consists of being able to learn providing and reading depictions of femininity and masculinity and people are willing to adhere to a schedule for presenting these pictures. There is only a schedule for the portrayal or description of gender. Therefore it can be said that there is in fact no gender
identity. We do not see a different nature of women and men, but their common willingness to subscribe to the conventions of display. Gender expressions are a mere show. Further, Florence Geis (1993), gender psychologist, argues with this that stereotypes represent rationalizations that assign women and men to different social roles. Stereotypes do not represent perceptions of real differences between the sexes. According to Goffman (1979) any scene can be defined as an opportunity to depict this gender difference, therefore enabling the scene of television
advertisements as such an occasion that shows a schedule for the expressions and expectations of fatherhood.
Media as a scene for depicting gender difference is clear from the arguments of Lupton and Barclay (1997). They argue that media may inform but also entertain to gain a wide audience. However, there are few analyses of contemporary media representations of fathers and fatherhood. Stereotypes of the comic, slightly pathetic, middle-class professional and distant father are
frequently reproduced in television advertisements. Some research shows that the most dominant representation of men in the 1980s portrayed them as displaying qualities of independence,
autonomy and forcefulness in a public setting rather than a domestic one. Contemporary Australian television advertisements demonstrate a similar conservative portrayal of fatherhood. Women are the loving, caring wife and mother, responsible for the domestic tasks, while men represented in
performing such tasks are often shown to be “foolishly incompetent” (Lupton and Barclay 1997, 68). Prinsloo (2006) argues these clumsy, awkward, slightly ridiculous fathers and husband are also occurring in a working class scenario in American comedy series. However, middle class fathers and husbands are represented as kind, sensitive, caring and domesticated, a kind of “comical superdad” (Prinsloo 2006, 6). Prinsloo (2006) argues with Hanke (1992) that the myth of middle class professional men being less sexist than working class or third world men is perpetuated in series. Lupton and Barclay (1997) further show how fathers in other advertisements simply do not know or understand the routines of their young children’s day, like forgetting to take the child to school or being unable to make a home-prepared breakfast. The intention of such advertisements is to be humorous. However, such similar humorous advertisement depicting the mother in this role will be difficult to imagine. Therefore, gender difference is depicted in television advertisements where women and men, mothers and fathers perform different roles.
These different gender roles are also argued by Prinsloo (2006) who states that the media tend to replay specific masculine scenarios that assume heterosexuality and fatherhood as normal but they do not particularly focus on fatherhood. With several media and gender theorists she argues that these scenarios are predictable and limited, playing an important social role with regard to gendered identity. Poststructuralists see gender as socially constructed. Feminine and masculine identities are distinct, located in different spheres. The feminine is located in the private sphere which is associated with the domestic, the natural, the family, caring and intimacy while the masculine is located in the public sphere which is associated with production, waged labour and rationality. As Prinsloo (2006, 3) argues, “This dichotomy is argued to be gendered and deployed to preserve ‘traditional patriarchal and heterosexist practices.’” Women are assigned to the caring parental role and men are located in the public sphere, which excludes the importance of the private sphere for them. So the primary role of fatherhood in this discourse is limited to “bringing home the bacon, but not cooking it’” as Prinsloo (2006, 4) calls it. The discourse of hegemonic masculinity is privileged by the media. While familial patriarchy is presumed as normal in this discourse,
hegemonic masculinity is generally performed in the public sphere which denies a role for the patriarch in the private sphere of intimate and caring relationships. In this way, the media maintain hegemonic gendered relations of power which view a good father as a protecting and responsible breadwinner. These roles are not emphasized but assumed. The good mother is conversely caring and nurturing her family, having intimate relationships with them. Prinsloo (2006) states that such binary distinctions are also challenged by discourses of social and gender justice which emphasize that both parents can care, nurture and have intimacy in combination with providing and protecting children. Further, in the 1980s things changed towards a new male role model which had aspects of the patriarchal world but also entailed a changed trend in advertisements that displayed the ‘New
Man’ as able to be emotional in relationships. As the ‘New Father’ this man is able to express his love and affection for his children and he wants to spend quality time with them. Prinsloo (2006, 9) further shows that studies researching changes in gendered roles in British magazines point to “a small and gradual movement toward the non-sexist portrayal of men over the twenty year period.”
Johansson and Klinth (2008) show more of this changed and different portrayal of men in advertisements, however, using pictures instead of television material. They wrote an article about the ideology of gender equality and masculine positions, exploring Swedish men’s relations to fatherhood in general and in particular to the creation of the ‘new’ father with the ideal of caring and being present. They showed four groups of Swedish men normative images of paternity leave campaigns that aim to encourage a new type of father, not only supporting women in caring, but also emphasizing gender equality with shared responsibilities. They wanted to find out how men construct fatherhood in the field of tension between societal visions and their own lived reality. They discussed issues of new gender ideals, the modern father and fathers as important caretakers. They found out that all these different men are clearly related to the ideal of gender equality, regardless of what one thinks about it. Most men had a positive view and showed relatively great involvement in the discussed issues. So the hegemonic structure of masculinity is changing. It is not enough anymore to be rational, goal-means oriented, career oriented and disciplined. Today, men must also show their readiness to engage in child care and their willingness to live up to the ideal of gender equality. I will continue with this concept of gender equality later in this chapter with
representations of fatherhood.
2.2. Gender stereotypes and expectations.
Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) argue that caring tasks are considered to be female. Such a link between caring tasks and femininity may result in confirming gender stereotypes. However, this link between femaleness and a certain task or activity is culturally determined and therefore open to change. Geis (1993) also argues that stereotypes reflect cultural assumptions, not our conscious beliefs. Gender stereotypes influence our self-concepts, perceptions, interpretations and memories. They are implicit and we are often unaware of their operation. They create expectations that cause selective perception. Therefore we could have selective perceptions and expectations of fathers, limited by stereotypical thinking. According to Grünell (2002) such social expectations related to masculinity live on and are deeply rooted in the psyche, although they have a historical origin and are sometimes highly old-fashioned.
According to Geis (1993) such stereotypes and expectations operate as a self-fulfilling prophecy, in the way that beliefs cause behaviours and behaviours cause beliefs. Stereotypical
beliefs about women and men cause biased perceptions and discriminatory treatment. Old gender stereotypes are tacit or implicit beliefs that consider men as dominant, rational, objective,
independent, competitive, aggressive and interested in business. Women are considered as
submissive, emotional, subjective, dependent, sensitive to others, caring and good at domestic tasks and childrearing. Both sexes were considered to be lacking in the characteristic traits of the other sex. Geis (1993) further argues that such different expectations and treatment of women and men could cause differences in tasks and status of women and men. The difference in tasks can be linked to the debate of unique fatherhood. Zwaan (2013) argues that mothers learn their children to relax, to care, to express their emotions and to talk, while fathers learn them to undertake action, to deal with stress, to have confidence and to feel safe in a difficult or troublesome situation. The female stereotypes of being sensitive, emotional and caring can be linked with these unique maternal qualities of expressing emotions, caring and talking. On the other hand, stereotypes of men as independent, dominant and business related can be linked with the paternal qualities of having confidence, dealing with stress and undertaking action. Fathers would be better protectors and financial providers of the family. However, such stereotypes and statements of unique female or male qualities are very hetero-normative and restrictive. I will discuss this later with sociologist R.W. Connell (2005) and her theory about masculinity.
The unequal status between women and men that gender expectations cause in society acts like an automatic, unconscious expectation. Men would be better or worse in certain things and situations compared to women. However, the actual competence of women and men in these things and situations is unknown (Geis 1993). In this way, the automatic stereotypical assumption that women are better caregivers and men are better breadwinners prior to someone’s actual behaviour, obscures the real competences of women and men in the opposite of their traditional roles. Such competence will remain invisible as gender expectations are normative and women and men are punished for violations of them. Women showing their professional effort are disliked because they do not act in a feminine manner (Geis 1993). The other way around with men showing their caring skills can be punished too, for example with prejudices as Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) argue.
The differences perceived between women and men and the related stereotypes are omnipresent. Geis (1993) mentions three things that turn observations of behaviour into implicit stereotypical beliefs. The first is the fundamental attribution error that change certain status characteristics in internal personality traits of women and men. These traits are innate and sex linked, like high-status characteristics as internal male traits and subordinate characteristics as female dispositions. Secondly it is assumed that stereotypical gender attributes are true because they are consensual in society, where they are still depicted in the media for example. Consequently, women and men are seen or assumed to possess stereotypical traits. Consensus defines the truth and
it transforms gender stereotypes from assumed facts into values. In this way descriptions ‘what is’ becomes prescriptions ‘what is desirable.’ Thirdly there is the familiarity effect. When stereotyped behaviour and assumptions are prevalent in society, they will be considered likable, acceptable and valid. Because of these three things stereotypical gender beliefs are constantly reinforced, while they are consciously denied.
However, Geis (1993) also sees countertrends occurring, like the disappearance of
stereotypical beliefs at the conscious level (at least among the educated) that might also transfer to our unconscious schemas. It might be interesting to include lower and higher educated fathers to find out if this countertrend is true, with higher educated fathers having less stereotypical beliefs about the roles in fatherhood and motherhood. Further, Geis (1993) points to more acceptability for men to be sensitive and for women to do paid employment with changing family roles: employed wives do less housework and husbands do more. Again this is something interesting for my research to look at. Grünell (2002) also argues that the ‘play area’ of men is getting bigger.
Expectations are moving and men also want to acquire meaning emotionally and relationally in the family. Men are allowed to feminize, which could be more for fathers who also take care of the nurturing part.
How can we make more change possible and offer more alternatives of representations of fatherhood? Geis (1993) argues that changing roles, status, behaviour and treatment of women does change the gender stereotypes of perceivers. So in this way we could also change gender
stereotypes if we show more alternatives of roles, status, behaviour and treatment of fathers. Gender stereotypes of men/fathers as being only real men if they work full time, providing their family could change in new ideas around men/fathers as being involved and caring for their children. Geis (1993) shows two concrete ways of breaking the traditional cycle of gender stereotypes. The first approach is making people aware of their unconscious stereotypical assumptions and their unintended effects. This will make people rethink their perceptions. The second approach is providing multiple role models in the social environment (a group, organisation or society). The more widespread these models are, the more effective they become because in this way the consensus will be increasing. Geis (1993) mentions that accepted, multiple female authorities as role models for women will disconfirm gender stereotypes with their behaviour and the way others treat them. This approach does not require conscious understanding or effort and could also be done with male caring models that would break the masculine stereotype. The media could be useful in this, spreading multiple role models (the caring model also included) for men/fathers and increase consensus. In this way, there will be space for different images of fatherhood with the caring man/father included.
Geis (1993) concludes that stereotypical behavioural traits are not masculine or feminine, but human. All people are born with certain predispositions, that occur in both sexes, but only for different levels. Differences are social. Gender beliefs and behaviour can therefore be understood as an overall self-fulfilling prophecy that consists of specific self-fulfilling prophecies that are related and mutually reinforcing. Gender stereotypes act as unconscious expectations and prophecies. Despite people’s conscious beliefs in gender equality, traditional stereotypes remain in our knowledge structures or schema’s that automatically and unaware interpret and guide our perceptions, inferences, memories and treatment of women and men. We see and believe that women and men have stereotypical traits, whether they have or not. Then we treat women and men as if they possess these traits and finally the stereotypes lead us to prefer women and men for certain roles, for example the female caregiver and the male breadwinner. These stereotypes reflect status differences between women and men and also perpetuate them. However, Geis (1993) argues that links between tasks and gender through stereotypes do not represent perceptions of real
differences between the sexes. Stereotypes rather represent rationalizations that assign women and men to different social roles. Different roles could indeed cause a belief in the truth of such
difference. However, it is impossible to say what comes first in this self-fulfilling prophecy, the stereotypical belief or the behaviour that is both cause and effect of the belief.
2.3. Representations of fatherhood.
In this section I will discuss several authors and their theories about what fatherhood entails; what kind of roles, feelings, behaviour and thoughts fathers have. This would be especially in the case of the west, as the authors and their theories are about western countries. For example, sociologist and anthropologist Andrea Doucet (2009) did research in Canada and questions how we should define a primary-care giving father and what it means to be one: we can measure the time allocated to parental and household activities or focus on time at home or using a self-definition of a father’s role by both fathers and their spouses. In looking at the concept of fatherhood in general, I will use such self-definitions of fathers. This could be for their biological children, adoptive children or stepchildren. Fatherhood can be a complex concept with several layers as De Kanter (in Lupton and Barclay 1997) argues that there are at least three different levels of meaning with regard to ‘the father’: the person of the father (individual’s embodied presence), the socio-cultural position of the father and the more abstract symbol of the father.
As Grünell (2002) argues, fatherhood has become more than taking the financial
responsibility for the family. However, caring is often linked with women. It has two faces: on the one hand, caring is low paid and low valued women’s work. On the other hand, the care of the
mother is a high valued, priceless good and therefore also powerful. Sometimes women can hardly let go of caring and therefore they make less space for caring men. So caring is especially attributed to women and appropriated by women, being an ambiguous good which is both high and low valued. It is a source of subordination, self-realization and exercise of power. However, caring men are also ambiguous. Border crossings of men are controversial: can care be united with masculinity and with the interests that are involved with the traditional masculine mode of life, like in the case of single fathers? At the same time, these border crossings are cheered. Men’s care is highly necessary and it has two different dimensions, providing and nurturing. Men have to deal with expectations and cultural stereotypes, especially about the traditional masculine mode of life, namely breadwinning (Grünell 2002). In this section I will show these two different dimensions of men’s caring and the difficulties they entail.
Discourses.
Lupton and Barclay (1997) give more insight in the construction and negotiation of fatherhood and the role of discourses in this. They use poststructuralist perspectives that recognize the importance of language and visual images for constructing understandings of reality and subjectivity. Reality is not simply reflected by language and visual images but these tools constitute reality and our
knowledge of the world. As television advertisements also contain a combination of images and language they are important in constituting our knowledge of the world. Discourses contribute to the understandings and experiences of fatherhood and could be understood as “ways of representing (talking, writing or visually) phenomena and the practices or material conditions associated with these representations” (Lupton and Barclay 1997, 4, 5). Discourses are sites of struggle, they can be challenged and therefore some discourses are hegemonic over others, claiming to be true related with systems of power. This is for example the case if discourses come from privileged and
authoritative social institutions such as the government, religious institutions, mass media and the legal system. These institutions frame meanings about the family for example, with a hierarchy of discourses. So there is never a fixed way of thinking about and representing phenomena such as fatherhood. Discourses and practices are intertwined, each shaping each other. For example, popular and medical texts can emphasize the importance of men participating in the birth of their children, which can contribute to a man’s decision to be present at that moment. The more this is happening, the more textual sources may point to this importance, that identifies a norm or trend (Lupton and Barclay 1997).
Gender and (in)equality.
Post-structuralists believe that knowledge is constructed by social and cultural processes and therefore gendered positions like fatherhood and motherhood are not instinctive or inherent but “learnt through acculturation into a particular socio-cultural and historical context” (Lupton and Barclay 1997, 10). Despite of this social constructionist position, feminists also argue that
biological realities of differences between women and men can not be ignored, as women can give birth and have therefore different roles and experiences than men. However, the meanings ascribed to these inevitable anatomical differences between women and men are socially constructed and differ historically. Therefore anatomical phenomena have no inevitable consequences for embodiment and social experience. Instead, meanings are culturally specific with varying consequences (Lupton and Barclay 1997).
Gender as a dynamic project of the self is important in the experiences of men, according to Lupton and Barclay (1997). They argue that “The gendered self is conceptualized as a series of constantly shifting practices and techniques” that also “take place in the context of institutions like the family and the workplace” (Lupton and Barclay 1997, 12). Masculinity is performed and constituted by men and is contextual with a diversity of understandings. It does not have one dimension, nor an inner core of the individual. Such one-dimensional, natural view of masculinity often ignored the wider social structural and historical aspects that shape gendered subjects. Therefore the term ‘masculinities’ is better to use as masculinities are often contradictory and slippery (Lupton and Barclay 1997). I will discuss masculinity in relation with fatherhood and linked with heterosexuality later in this chapter.
Lupton and Barclay (1997) argue (with Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 1995) that traditional notions around gender-defined roles and expectations have dissolved and have been replaced by a more androgynous approach. More negotiation and egalitarianism in intimate relationships is also evident in contemporary discourses about fatherhood. People should combine feminine intimacy and emotional expression with masculine independence and competence. In this way, fathers need to show emotions and affection and mothers need to engage in paid labour. Parents are devoted to the child’s needs and desires and parenting becomes an important practice of the self.
Such a changing role for parents, in this case fathers, towards more gender equality is visible in changing expectations and norms around ‘good’ fatherhood. Lupton and Barclay (1997) give an overview of phases that American fatherhood contains: the authoritative father in the eighteenth to early nineteenth century, the distant breadwinner in the early nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, the father as sex role model in 1940 to 1965 and the new, nurturing father who is engaged in paid work in the late 1960s to the present. Grünell (2002) further argues that since 1975, the inequality in commitment at home has decreased. However, according to Lupton and Barclay (1997) these are
rigid categorizations that do not pay attention to differences between men of different social classes, backgrounds etc., as the ‘new’ father is considered to be a middle-class phenomenon. This ignores the diversity, richness and constantly changing nature of the father experience for individual men. They are confining in how men may engage in fatherhood. Further, Lupton and Barclay (1997) argue that men experience tensions and paradoxes in the representation of the ‘new’ father. Modern fathers could express their nurturing feelings and take an equal role in parenting with mothers. It challenges traditional notions of masculinity and it is in contrast with the notion of the ‘strong father’. However, there is little changed towards this participative, gender equal fatherhood, despite of the ideals of ‘new’ fatherhood in the 1980s. Fathers are still expected to participate entirely in the economic sphere and play a providing role for their family, working full-time and valuing career over domestic duties. Fathers experience competing obligations between spending time with their children and supporting their family economically. This still dominant expectation of working, financially providing fathers is also notable with researcher in the field of fathers, work and family life Margaret O’Brien and behaviour and health researcher Ian Shemilt (2003) who argue that this economic dimension of fathering is still important to men’s behaviour and identity as parents. However, their satisfaction about the work-family balance and their involvement with children are reduced by excessive working hours. O’Brien and Shemilt (2003) render the situation of working fathers in Great Britain, where there is an increasing appreciation of the importance and diversity of fatherhood. New socio-economic and cultural contexts are created by changes in parental
employment patterns and family structures to negotiate what it means to be a father. Johansson and Klinth (2008) argued above that gender equality is more occurring in advertising and in men’s thinking and acting which makes hegemonic masculinity changing.
However, they also point to some obstacles, especially experienced by immigrant men in this study. These men live in conditions of poverty and have to work to survive. So gender issues are
interwoven with economy and class. Economic and social conditions, like material obstacles and social exclusion, impact the whole issue of shared parenting (Johansson and Klinth 2008). Other men in the research argued that the campaign material was stereotyped around a certain male image of the physically fit man of high status (Johansson and Klinth 2008). Obstacles to such gender equality are further visible by statistics showing that fathers still earn two-thirds of the family’s income and that more men than women work full time. The greatest obstacle fathers may
experience in developing gender equality is in the organization of their working life. Many parents are forced to choose between work and family life. Fathers who want to become involved and take responsibility are limited by what is sanctioned by employers (Johansson and Klinth 2008).
Grünell (2002) also argues that the structure and culture of labour organisations and the
social partners who must improve the conditions, business culture is also important, in which executives usually set the tone and therefore could change this tone in favour of employees who also want to be involved at home, taking care of their children.
Another obstacle, causing an unequal division, could be disagreement about the standards in domestic labour. It causes tensions in a relationship, leading to women doing more work and the possible resentment coming from this (Doucet 2009). Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) think it is important for women and men to express more tolerance to each other. Men should be able to learn new behaviour without being penalised for it. Women often like to keep control over certain tasks, therefore hindering men in becoming involved. Doucet (2009) and Grünell (2002) further argue that women also often do not let go of their role as caregivers and usually take over the domestic realm when they come home from work, to take pressure from the ‘stay at home’ father. The power struggle that is associated with entering the traditionally female domain gets a specific
interpretation here: women like to keep overall control and men are fine with that (Grünell 2002). This would give men no chance to be a (primary) caregiver and forms an important obstacle in changing the division of labour. Further, a working father will not take such pressure from the ‘stay at home’ mother. This can point to deeply rooted differences in parenting that are social, emotional, community, moral and embodied. When equality or shared care giving is assumed, profound differences in the social worlds of women and men can be overlooked. This also includes the ways women and men express and are expected to express emotional connections to their children and others and the gendered moral norms of parenting. Besides, such assumptions of equal parenting downplay the issue of hegemonic masculinities in men’s lives and how embodiment can matter a lot (Doucet 2009).
In the Emancipatiemonitor 2012 of Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau and Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2012) it is argued that most women and men in the Netherlands think that
partners should divide the tasks at home equally, this was 80% in 2006. However, this is not real for their own situation. Further, a majority of people does not prefer formal childcare which means that children are most days of the week at home with their parents taking care of them. As both women and men believe that women are more handy or adequate in the household and in taking care of the children, this would conflict with the equality norms with in particular mothers not working (that much) outdoors to do most of the caring part. Susanne Burri (2000), professor jurisprudence, also argues that objectives of the Dutch emancipation policy can be widely supported as a large majority of the Dutch population advocates an equal task division inside and outside the house between women and men. However, differences are still notable, although a decrease of differences between women and men in working, caring and income between 1987 and 1995.
According to Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004), gender inequality maintains because men choose selectively the tasks they perform, like the outdoor activities. Such a division often results in men doing the fun parts of fatherhood (Johansson and Klinth 2008). However, Zwaan (2013) argues that it might be good to accept the differences in interest and skills regarding to household tasks as the expectations we have of dividing household tasks are often in practice not realistic. Nevertheless, Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) argue that when male and female tasks are disassociated from their gender, everyone can perform them without feeling conflict with their gender identity. This still leaves space for gender differences, however, people are not limited by them anymore. They could give a number of meanings to these tasks that are sometimes related to gender and sometimes to different associations. When women perform male tasks and men female tasks, the rigid
association between an activity and its gender will gradually disappear. This might be further important in persuading men to do more caring tasks as Grünell (2002) argues that men might position themselves dependent on the expected caring behaviour of other men. The choice of caring is weighed against what is considered as norm. It is easier to reproduce the existing instead of transforming it. Grünell (2002) argues that social dilemma’s are actually in a transition time and stimulate traditional choices. Opinions of others, for example from the partner, friends and family can enforce or dispute each other. Grünell (2002) further argues that the counterwork and negative reactions from this environment are the most important obstruction of caring and involved fathers. Therefore, social networks are important in breaking social dilemma’s.
Unique fatherhood.
There seems to be some overlap between the debates of unique fatherhood and gender equality. Johansson and Klinth (2008) argue that in the period of the gender equality debate in the 1960s in Sweden, people began to question the traditional gender relations and women’s and men’s social roles. As argued in the intro, women’s equality with men could only be realized when men were also educated and encouraged to take an active part in parenthood and when they are given the same rights and duties as women in parental capacity. Notably, these same rights and duties are also encouraged by Zwaan (2013) in the debate of unique fatherhood, pointing to fathers who have a weak position after a divorce in seeing and raising their children. However, at the same time she criticizes the equality ideal caused by the individualization of society which considers fathers as only important for contributing more in the family to enhance women’s emancipation. Maternal characteristics are more important than paternal ones which gives only space for one-dimensional thinking and one truth, with less space for the coexistence of male and female powers. We do not want differences. Zwaan (2013) argues instead that we need diversity as the ideal that would consist of the male and female example that give you the baggage you need in life. These examples could
also be found in family or friends. Fathers have an important contribution in raising children, irreplaceable by mothers. This view of the unique share of fathers in raising children is more emerging nowadays. Fathers do not do it better, but different than mothers. Therefore they should be fathering, not mothering.
According to Zwaan (2013) both mothering and fathering contains different qualities for raising children that is already argued above under the section of gender stereotypes and
expectations. Mothers learn their children to relax, to care, to express their emotions and to talk. Fathers learn their children to undertake action, to deal with stress, to have confidence and to feel safe in a difficult or troublesome situation. This is further argued by Lupton and Barclay (1997) who point to several expert discourses that are important in the constitution of the categories of mother, father and child, identifying normality and abnormality. The different contribution of fatherhood and motherhood in raising children is emphasized in these discourses. In professional literature of psychology, family health and sociology, a specific audience is addressed that works in the field of child and family health and welfare. Here, fatherhood is positioned as problematic and a pathological experience, requiring help and advice from experts. Fathers experience stress,
difficulties and strains, related to their lack of readiness for their role, to demands from their partner, to role dissatisfaction or confusion as a father. So fathers need help while mothers are assumed to have this knowledge naturally. Other differences are striking in psychologists’
arguments that the interactions of fathers with children are more playful, rough-and-rumble, while mothers demonstrate more affections and interact more caretaking and controlling. Sociologists argue that mothers function more as expressive or emotive in childcare, while fathers have a more instrumental function, in terms of engaging in paid work to support the family. This constructs a model of complementarity, supporting traditional gender roles with the masculine father in contrast to the feminine mother. There is a reliance on sex role models of behaviour that present a fixed and biological notion of masculinity and femininity as mutually exclusive dichotomies. Next to this different contribution of fathers, their equal importance is also emphasized. Both contemporary developmental psychological literature and sociological literature call for more participation of men with their children. A major reason for this is to protect children from ill effects of father absence.
Doucet (2006) states that fathers feel the weight of a moral responsibility to earn while mothers feel a moral responsibility to care, which makes them different. She examines if men can mother or can be mothers (Doucet 2006). According to Doucet (2006), men document personal and relational losses from not being involved in caring for their children, like stress, work-family conflict, the burden of being breadwinner and the lack of opportunities to develop close emotional and relational attachments. More involvement would not only improve men’s well-being and their adult development, it is also important for women in co-parenting and for children’s social,
emotional and cognitive development. This is also argued by Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004), stating that the freedom of choice of both women and men would increase.
However, the main domestic responsibility still lies with women (Duyvendak and
Stavenuiter 2004; Doucet 2006). This could have disadvantages for fathers in feeling like complete outsiders to the inner female worlds of parenting at school gates and playgrounds. They experience stress, as already argued by Lupton and Barclay (1997), however, not from lacking abilities or readiness to take care of their children, but because of isolation and difficulties of entering or creating their own parenting networks (Doucet 2006).
Male breadwinner and female caregiver.
In the previous section things were already said about the traditional role division of the male breadwinner and the female caregiver. Female-dominated parenting can have many causes, like the fact that men still earn more and have more opportunities on the labour market than women which makes it profitable that men work more and care less. Further, caring tasks can be problematic for men because they challenge their masculinity and masculine identity. However, Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) argue that these reasons of economic theory and male gender identity are not satisfactory and not able to effect a change in the distribution of tasks. When women and men have the same opportunities on the labour market and in earning capacities, the asymmetric division of household labour remains. They show with research how men carry out even fewer tasks when their wives earn more and that male gender identity can be transformed through the inclusion of new elements like caring capacities. The ‘hardiness of tradition’ is much more important. This is evident in the way people are brought up and ideas about traditional female/male roles appear. The
discrepancy between the preferred and the real division of labour can not only be traced back to the lack of organizational possibilities but is also a question of appreciation and preferences (Grünell 2002). This ‘hardiness of tradition’ consists of certain discourses. Grünell (2002) thinks we may assume that a discursive process is prior to caring fatherhood, in which there is talked and negotiated and choices of caring are weighed against what is considered as norm, while the
breadwinner system is still a life route that is more taken for granted, which needs little explanation. The breadwinner system expresses the strength of tradition and the power of obviousness. So next to change, there is also continuity. Social dilemma’s are actually in a transition time and stimulate traditional choices. To maintain the existing is easier to realize than accomplishing changes. Policy can be considered to be important in the production of change or continuity. According to Grünell (2002), policy is meant to influence affairs, which takes place via device (like money and budgets) and normative frames (like legislation). I will show below how policy could produce certain discourses, important for change or continuity.
Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) argue that macro conditions are necessary to redistribute caring tasks and involve men more in the domestic sphere. Examples of such conditions are part-time work and leave schemes, which are in many countries often limited for men. In the Netherlands, part-time work is still mostly a female phenomenon and paternity leave consists of only two paid days in comparison with 16 weeks for women. This makes it hard for men to stay more at home and become more involved with their children. Doucet (2006, 15) argues that “such decisions made by societies about how the care of others will be defined, evaluated and supported (or not) has important symbolic, social, political and economic consequences for all its citizens. The ways in which caring gets done has profound implications for the lives of women, men and children and the societies that they inhabit.” Policy showing limited conditions for men to stay at home demonstrates a discourse in which the financially providing role is one of the most important tasks in fatherhood. However, there are also countries who apply certain policy to encourage men to take more parental leave, like the quotas in Sweden where a proportion of parental leave is only for fathers which can not be transferred to the mother (Duyvendak and Stavenuiter 2004). Here, men’s care is more marked in the discourse.
Another example of discourses in policy that emphasize the breadwinning role of fathers is according to sociologists Lynne Haney and Miranda March (2003) in welfare reform politics in the United States, that advance powerful conceptions of fatherhood. Social conceptions of fatherhood are in flux. Many scholars see a shift from viewing fathers as merely breadwinners to highlighting their roles as nurturers, shifting from the practical aspects of paternity to their emotional attachment to paternity. However, this shift seems less the case in the policy of welfare reforms, targeted at African-American low-income women. Policymakers emphasize men’s biological or financial connections to children, putting paternal form above paternal function. Paternal form in marriage and breadwinning will make men more caring and responsible and social problems will be resolved. However, the target group of African-American women has different real-life experiences, putting paternal function above paternal form. According to these women, all kinds of men could be good fathers (not only biological ones), as long as they identify as a father who takes responsibility and participates in paternal activities in which quality of the relationships with their children is more important than the formalities of their ties. The category of father points here to the social ties and emotional attachments rather than the simple biological connection. When paternal function is established, paternal form can be solidified (Haney and March 2003).
Grünell (2002) argues that there is a wish or will in changing the mutual division of labour. However, this is not yet realized. At this time, the arrangement of half earning is the dominant pattern and men are not caring substantial more than in breadwinners situations. As regards to behaviour, on average there are few changes in the extent of men’s caring behaviour in the last
decennia. When we look more detailed than certainly meaningful shifts can be established, among fathers of young children. With my interviews I will also look at a more detailed level of the lives and experiences of fathers in the Netherlands.
2.4. Fatherhood and masculinity.
According to Lupton and Barclay (1997), change is the significant characteristic of fatherhood, that has competing discourses and desires and fluctuates between various modes of subject positions. However, this changing fatherhood is not found in literature. Fatherhood is typically gendered in western societies, signifying maleness. However, it is much more complex and different modes of masculinity are expressed between and within fathers. At the same time, fatherhood should not be linked with masculinity and heterosexuality, because lesbian couples or single mothers could also perform the father role (and single fathers could perform the mother role). “There is nothing particularly linear or predictable therefore about the interaction between the subject position of ‘father’ and discourse and practice” (Lupton and Barclay 1997, 17). Sociologist R.W. Connell (2005) is well known for her study on masculinities. I will use her theory to explain more about fatherhood and masculinity. I will further focus on the concept of heterosexuality, as it occurs in Zwaan’s (2013) hetero-normative and biological statement that female and male aspects are needed in the development of children, associating femininity and masculinity with the female and male body. Heterosexuality is in this way connected with masculinity and fatherhood.
Masculinities.
A first insight is that men’s bodies are important for the concept of masculinity, because true masculinity is almost always thought to be something inherent in a male body. Connell (2005) argues that we should acknowledge that bodily experience is indeed often central in our understanding of who and what we are. Therefore we should recognize the physical sense of maleness and femaleness as being central to the cultural interpretation of gender. However, the body is not fixed. Bodies have various forms of recalcitrance to social symbolism and control. Bodies are plural and therefore men’s bodies are diverse and changing, having both agency and being objects. This is called body-reflexive practice which is not internal to the individual but involves social relations and symbolism, forming a social world. So bodies are addressed by social processes and drawn into history, without ceasing to be bodies with their materiality continuing to matter (Connell 2005).
Connell (2005) criticizes several strategies to characterize someone as masculine. The essentialist strategy usually picks a feature that defines the core of the masculine. However, Connell
(2005) criticizes this strategy as the choice of the essence is quite arbitrary. Claims about a
universal basis of masculinity therefore tell us more about the claimant. The positivist strategy sees masculinity as what men actually are, which is the basis of masculinity/femininity scales in
psychology. However, Connell (2005) argues we use the terms masculine and feminine to point beyond categorical sex difference to the ways men differ among themselves and women differ among themselves, in matters of gender. We often call some women masculine and some men feminine and we also use the terms to describe actions or attitudes regardless of who displays them. This statement undermines the statement that unique female qualities are associated with women and unique male qualities are associated with men as we saw above with stereotypical thinking and with Zwaan (2013). When Connell (2005) argues that masculinity and femininity go beyond categorical sex difference and women can be called masculine and men can be called feminine, it would be also possible for both gay and lesbian couples and single parents to raise children with female and male examples. Gay men and single fathers could also transmit feminine qualities and lesbians and single mothers could also transmit masculine qualities to their children. Femininity and masculinity are divers and multiple and not assigned to women’s and men’s bodies. Therefore, certain female and male tasks in raising children are not assigned to women’s and men’s bodies either. This would place the debate of unique fatherhood with an unique male contribution against a concept of contextual fatherhood with no inner core of the individual.
The link between gender and certain tasks is culturally determined, as I argued with
Duyvendak and Stavenuiter (2004) above. It is therefore open to change and if tasks, like caring, are disassociated from their femaleness, they will become neutral and beyond gender and therefore possible for every person to carry out without feeling conflict with their gender identity. In this way, fathers can also possess feminine qualities and mothers masculine qualities, both unique in their own way but not limited by gender stereotypes. According to Connell (2005) it is also necessary that fathers perform more caring tasks. This is evident in production relations where women are nowadays more participating in paid employment outside the house. This leads to changing situations at home and in the division of childcare tasks. In order to understand the making of contemporary masculinities we need to map such crisis tendencies of the gender order.
Another strategy to characterize someone as masculine is the normative strategy, that recognizes differences and offers a standard in a way that masculinity is what men ought to be. Connell (2005) criticizes this strategy for the fact that men are often not able to realize this standard. So what is normative about a norm when hardly anyone meets it? The last strategy is the semiotic approach that defines masculinity as not-femininity. The level of personality is abandoned and masculinity is defined through a system of symbolic difference with masculine and feminine places as opposition of each other. In this semiotic opposition masculinity is unmarked, involving
