I can't agree with the headline of this piece, but then, I'm not sure the writer does either (The Guardian, 10/26/09).  And beyond the headline, it's a pretty good piece.

"Men Should Be Encouraged to Be Full-Time Fathers" is not an idea I can support.  For decades now, feminists have rightly argued that full-time parenting tends to mean full-time dependency on someone else to earn the money it takes to support you.  If that's not a good idea for women (and it's not), it's not a good idea for men either. 

The goal I see is easy to understand - couples raising their own children with each earning part of the family's income and each doing part of the domestic work including childcare.  That certainly doesn't mean a slavish conformity to all tasks shared 50/50; obviously, couples will work that out themselves.  But what it does mean is that in the event of divorce, each adult would be able to support him/herself and care for the child.  Into the bargain, family law would respect the child's right to - and interest in - a relationship with each parent. 

Now, to me, that doesn't seem like a radical notion, but it seems remarkably hard for some people to grasp.  My guess is that the writer of the article, Anushka Asthana, probably does get it, although I'm not sure she really appreciates the many systemic barriers between fathers and children.  Like another Guardian piece by Richard Reeves, Asthana's fails to notice the fact that short-end-of-the-stick laws like those governing parental leave are just part of a vast array of laws, customs and societal notions of men and fathers that clearly show that we still see men primarily as earners and fathers secondarily, if that.

A recent study in the U.K. shows that men don't tend to take the meager parental leave the country offers them, and Asthana grapples with the reasons for that.  She seems to understand that social norms tend to produce parental leave laws that say loudly and clearly that mothers are valued at home with the kids and dads are valued at work.  Asthana sees that, until we change social and legal concepts of men and women, we won't change the roles we play.

Now, before anyone throws up his/her hands and cries out "But men and women are different; gender is not just a construct!" let me make myself clear.  Fatherhood is not a social construct.  Men's desire to be fathers is biological; our bodies produce the same hormones that are designed by nature to connect us to our children that women's do.  What I'm arguing for is not to construct a New Man in a Brave New World.  I'm arguing for society to get out of men's way and allow fathers to fulfill the role we're designed to play - that of hands-on, caring father.

And that means we have to stop telling men in all the ways we do - in law, popular culture, public policy, etc. - that fatherhood is unimportant to us and that we're no good at it anyway.  From conception to adulthood and beyond, our western English-speaking cultures tell men in countless ways that we are unimportant to children except as a wallet.  As long as we do that, men will get the message and even the meager parental leave we give them will be left unused.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 at 7:28 pm and is filed under Family Law, Fatherhood. You can trackback from your own site.