Fathering and Fatherhood

Questions:
1.) According to Joseph Pleck, how did the role of fathers change in the United States over time? What are the expectations about fatherhood today, both according to the article and based on your own observations?

Pleck states that the roles of fathers have changed over time greatly. Beginning in the 18^th and early 19^th centuries, the father was considered the moral overseer. The mother had much less of a role (at least socially and politically) than would be otherwise expected. Fathers were though to have an immense amount of influence on their children and all advice about child rearing was directed towards the father. They were the family’s center of moral teaching, with the role of instructing the children about God and the world, girls and boys alike. He was expected to teach his children to read if he himself was literate, to guide his son into a profession and to deal with marriage negations of both sexes. Children had duty to their fathers as they had duty to their children. They had to teach their children to stray from sinful urges and teach them reason and logic, unlike a mother who was considered overtly emotional and affectionate. Also, if parents were for some reason to be granted a divorce, custody was almost solely given to the father. Instead of expressing affection and anger, fathers were to express their approval or disapproval. Often, children who left the family for work or marriage, kept in touch with the family through letters with the father. In the 19^th to mid 20^th century there was a shift to the role of father as distant bread winner. Because fathers work was taken outside of the home, naturally they played a lesser role in rearing their children. There was a greater role for the mother for sure. Usually mothers were blamed or praised for how their children grew up in this time and they were often emotionally attached to their children well into adult hood. They gained custody for divorce and their affections were now scene as a positive role for children. Fathers were not apart from their children for the majority of the day, the only time spent with children being Sundays. The fathers made the money that kept the family secure, though he still had a small role as moral teacher and discipliner –though usually only when the efforts of the mother failed. Fathers were easily manipulated by their wives and children because of their absence, and often children longed to have their fathers back home. Mothers were now seen is overly mothers their children, so for awhile after the war the father had an important role as rearing their children as a sex role model –that is teaching them what is right and wrong for their sex. Because the father was often absent, mine childhood psychological disorders were linked to this absence, as it was believed children needed a positive male role model. At present, the dominant theory is still the distant father breadwinner idea but of course more and more fathers are being pushed to take a greater role in their children’s, wives and houses. They are now more than ever expected to play, teach, change, talk to and clean their children. This has a lot to do with the women going back to work and feminist movements. This new image of father involves being ever present in the kids lives, daughters and sons. In fact, many work places now grant paternity leave to expectant fathers. This is of course met with much taboo.

While I do think that the roles of fathers have changed more recently, I still think it is a lot of media hype. I think fathers are still over workers, detached and clueless when it comes to their children. But I’m only speaking from a white suburban upper middle class perspective. I know most fathers in my town are always working, mothers stay home because they live comfortably enough to do so and fathers are often clueless and absent about anything to do with the children’s lives. Many do attend sports games on the weekend and attempt to play with the children, but I feel when it comes to important things like just talking and spending time together, fathers are all together absent. I think it’s going to take a lot more then a call for more paternal involvement to change the way children are reared in this country. It’s going to require a complete overthrow of the way we think and operate for that to happen, but in the mean time its good that father’s at least trying to play a bigger role in their kid’s lives.

2.) According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? How does these families' division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family?

There are many reasons why couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and some of the reasons are surprising. One of the most prominent is monetary. Frankly, these families need two incomes to get by. By alternating shifts, they ensure that one parent is always home to take care of the kids why the other parent is earning money. They simply do not have enough money to afford child care, whether that is a babysitter or regular child care, and thus they have dual earners while an actual parent watches the kid. Many others choose alternate shifts in order to have a more comfortable life for their family. By saving money on child care and having two parents earn, they can save up for things like college and maybe even a vacation –things that really matter. They can use the extra money to help make their family better. Another reason for choosing this lifestyle is that many parents believe that no one but themselves or family should take care of their kids. They seem to not trust strangers to take care of their children, very possibly because their finances wouldn’t allow for top quality child care. Also, many parents believe its important to be the sole raiser of their kids for bonding and value reasons. They think its important to foster this relationship with their kids, especially when they’re young. They then hope their kids will learn right from wrong and the values their parents hold strong. They wish to have control of their offspring in every aspect of their lives. Because these parents are clearly working shift labor, they are working class families. Their decision to live this way generally stems from an economic necessity –moms need to work to get by.

These families show very interesting gender ideologies. It seems as if these working class families hold more strongly to traditional gender roles than do middle class families –at least in practice. The men all seem to state that if financially it were possible, their wives would stay home and take care of the kids. Most of the men still seem to identify themselves as head of the household and primary bread winner. Some families even rearranged their schedules as such so the man as earning more and working more, even if the wife had greater earning capacity. The wives seemed to say they wanted to be the main parent, the one their kids turn to for emotional support and what not. Interestingly enough though, when asked about why they work, most women stated apart from obvious economic need, that they wished to get out of the house. Working was the only time they had to talk to adults apart from their husband (and children). They stated needed a sense of purpose, whether in having a skill, completing a task other then parenting, or contributing to the family income. In fact, as much as the working class families held strong to the traditional family rolls, they seemed to be much more egalitarian that middle class families claimed to be. They were equally dividing working and family obligations. They wished to have traditional family roles, but in many ways this is not how it happened.

I don’t think I would choose an alternate shift arrangement for my family because I am thus far college educated and I’m sure my husband will be as well. Most likely we’ll never have to choose this arrangement. One income will probably suffice in holding the family, and if I choose to work, I will probably have enough to afford child care. If though, I were to take a blue collar job along with my husband, because financially it were required, I suppose this would be a good system. I think though the alternate shifts would be unnecessary strain on the family. I feel like both parents would always be exhausted and that it would be more practical to work at the same time while the kids are in school and perhaps have one parents come home by the time the kids are out or arrange for child care or another family member to watch them. I can’t see giving up all my time with my husband and kids together along with working odd hours just to make sure that only a parent raises the kids. I can see this working well for some families, but I don’t suppose I would choose this option myself.

3.) According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?

Roberts makes several very interesting claims about the relation of father absenteeism and race. We always tend to associate such issues with of faithlessness with African American males for whatever reason. Roberts gives several reasons for why this is the case. There are a plethora of societal forces that discourage family participation of black fathers –father absenteeism being only associated with African Americans. They seem to represent as Roberts puts it “the dangers of fathering uncivilized by marriage”. Conveniently, by saying that Black fathers are always not around, we make a racial problem out of something that is more so economic. It makes fatherlessness immoral in nature and it also gives a supposed explanation for black peoples problems. But in fact, what people don’t realize is that the female headed household is the dominant family structure for African Americans, not the nuclear family as we see it portrayed in the media. But there are reasons for this other then the fact that black fathers are lazy, degenerate, or don’t care about their children. When the instance of white single mothers rose, society explained it has an individual problem suffered by that family. We blame single mothers instead of trying to help them and when white mothers become single mothers it becomes it is looked down upon because it’s like becoming African American. It makes single motherhood an abnormal condition and male-centered families normal. This makes it easy to say that family disintegration is the reason for African American failure of success. The ruin of the black family is the heart of the ruin of black society. And thus, the absent black father is a symptom of “rebellious Black mothering.” Black fathers are only seen as playing a negative role –because they aren’t there. They aren’t around to supposedly teach morals and educate. For these reasons, they’re simply unable to be suitable role models for their children.

There are many reasons why the myth of the absent black father has been created. Some believe that the promise of welfare promotes have children outside of marriage and also that black mothers resist patriarchy. But in fact, racial repression resulting in high unemployment and incarceration are reasons for fathers being absent. Incessant poverty leads to unstable marriages and thus many women choose to stay single. If a man can’t contribute to the family, he’s probably not going to stay in the home. Also, if a man is in jail, he can’t be married, provide for his family or have a stable family life. As Roberts explains “Black men to not value family relationships any less than other men do. But many have been restrained by unemployment, imprisonment, and other deprivations from developing the family ties they desire” (150). Clearly, there are reasons outside of being a “bad father” that black men are absent form their families.

In fact, Roberts would argue that the only reason why we say that a father is absent from the home is because of the way we describe a father contributing to his family –generally economically. If racial injustices make it nearly impossible for man to earn enough for himself or his family (or not have a job at all) then in white societies definition, he is absent from the home. Because he is not the breadwinner –he is not around. We say that fatherlessness is interchangeable with single motherhood. Thus, black men have to be married in order to be considered “around”. The most generous type of social security or welfare is given to widows or married women who are poor. This way of giving welfare is “gendered and racialized.” The eligibility of a mother for welfare is determined by her relationship to a man, that is, whether she was married to someone who had a job or not. Also, in black culture, women share child raising responsibilities with other mothers. Black men just father differently then what popular society dictates. Just because they can’t support their children doesn’t mean they’re all around. Most black men actually have more contact with their kids than white fathers. They seem to be more nurturing in fact, just not able to provide for their family financially. As Roberts explains, “What condemns the absent Black father, then, is not his lack of involvement with his children but his marital and economic status. A good father is married breadwinner. And Black men typically have not fit that role. Trying to live up to this mainstream ideal historically has been the source of internal turmoil within Black families” (154). Of course this makes him a bad man. Marrying is not going to solve the problem of poverty though for the black family if the black man can’t get a job or earn wages. And demanding child support from a father who can’t support himself is going to drive the father away from the family, not closer to it.

Roberts makes a lot of good points about the state of black fathers. Their absenteeism is a product of social and economic barriers that have been placed on them from the very roots of racism. We then blame the way their lives turn out on their own shortcomings. It’s easy and convenient to do this because then we come up with supposed solutions that will clearly never change a thing.