Fatherhood and Masculinity
In this essay I will examine the positions “pro-equality” and “pro-family”. I will include Joel Anderson’s view on gender equality, and provide reasons in support of his claim. I will explain the opposing position of neo-traditionalism, using support from the essay by Michael Blankenhorn. I will point out which position I agree with and my reasons for doing so.
Feminist Joel Anderson believes that gender equality is not to blame for problems within the family. In his essay “Is Equality Tearing Families Apart?”,Anderson explains that for some people there is conflict between the positions pro-equality and pro-family, but the positions can be compatible with another, by saying “stable, rewarding family life is perfectly compatible with egalitarian feminist demands for genderless parenting, equal power, and freedom of opportunity (Anderson 365).” Instead of choosing one position over another, Anderson says that “a good society” must be both pro-family and pro-equality (365).
Pro-equality means that women should be not treated like they are inferior to men. Anderson points out three main features that characterize pro-equality: genderless parenting, equal negotiating positions, and equality of individual opportunity. Genderless parenting does not deny that there will be differences between the role of mother and the role of father, but that the parents should not be stuck in one position or the other. (367). This gives the parents flexibility and maintains their role differences at the same time.
Neo-traditionalists are against genderless parenting because they believe that families lose stability when they break from the traditional “male breadwinner” and “female homemaker” molds. Neo-traditionalists also assert that genderless parenting goes against what is natural, since women are “natural nurturers (Blankenhorn 366).”
Neo-traditionalists such as Blankenhorn are also against the idea of equal negotiating positions. They say that equality “destroys the climate of love” (369) because the focus is on equality instead of love and fidelity. However, this does not necessarily mean that neo-traditionalists condone inequality, but that they are against the “stronger positions taken by the egalitarians (Anderson 370).”
On the other hand, Anderson supports the idea of equal negotiating positions. He believes that when a man and woman have a child, it should be up to both the mother and the father to decide who goes back to work and who stays at home with the baby, instead of just making the assumption that the mother should stay at home and the father return to work. An unequal negotiation position takes away a woman’s choice for career-advancement opportunities.
Another reason for the acceptance of equal negotiating positions is in the case of divorce. Both spouses should have equal access to divorce, should they choose to do so. Beyond availability, divorce affects the finances of men and women differently. Usually the woman gets the short end of the stick in a divorce. In fact, “income for mothers and children declines on average about 30 percent, while fathers experience and 10 to 15 percent increaseâÂ?¦(Hirschman 370).” If there were equal negotiating positions, the financial consequences of divorce would affect both parents equally.
Another aspect of pro-equality is that of equality of individual opportunity. Anderson does not agree with Blankenhorn’s claim that increasing individualism is a threat to the family (372). Anderson brings up the fact that there is a choice regarding which occupation a person chooses, however, there is still a wall which women are up against. “Developing the social conditions under which women have real opportunities requires significant transformations (Anderson 372).” This also goes back to the point I raised before about the unfair notion that the mother should stay home with the child while the father should go to work.
In his essay “The Unnecessary Father”, Blankenhorn’s claims his main issue with pro-equality is that “fathers are less born than made. Fatherhood is a cultural invention with an important social purpose (Blankenhorn 355).” For Blankenhorn, that important social purpose is to work/be the breadwinner and provide for the family.
The concept of the new father (men who are more sensitive and less masculine than tradional/old fathers) goes against everything that Blankenhorn says is essential to being a father. Blankenhorn implies that if a man cannot provide for his family, he has nothing else to contribute. Since males/fathers are best in the role of the breadwinner, to take that away would make fathers disposable. “The New Father model does not merely unburden men of breadwinning as a special obligation. Ultimately, it unburdens them of fatherhood itself (Blankenhorn 357).” That is why Blankenhorn believes that androgyny is bad for marriages. He also says that the strongest advocates for the new father are generally those in favor of single-parent homes.
Blankenhorn also links the act of breadwinning with the trait of masculinity. To take away a father’s breadwinning capacity would be to take away his masculinity. The new father is an oxymoron, according to Blankenhorn. When you take away the masculinity, “what remains is essentially new, but there is no more father (Blankenhorn 357).”
Personally, I think that Blankenhorn feels threatened by the idea of a woman with power. That’s one of the reasons why I agree with Anderson rather than Blankenhorn. The whole time I was reading Blankenhorn’s essay, I imagined him to be the type of man who wants to keep a woman under his thumb in order to feel powerful. Michael Kaufman says that men equate masculinity with power and control. Obviously Blankenhorn agrees with that statement, because to take away his masculinity would take away his power over a woman.
Although I don’t agree with Blankenhorn’s position, his essay really helped me to better understand Kaufman’s essay “Men, Feminism, and Men’s Contradictory Experiences of Power”. Kaufman says that the power men wield comes with a price: pain and fear. For many men power is synonymous with control over their emotions, and dominating the less powerful (usually women). To be caring would be considered feminine, so men have to suppress their emotions in order to maintain their power (25).
I saw a lot of fear in Blankenhorn’s essay. I think it’s a possibility that Blankenhorn clings to the idea of masculinity because he might be afraid of losing control over himself (emotionally) and control over others (women in particular). Without the crutch of inequality, Blankenhorn would have to face his feelings, and that would make him feel like less of a man. “Our alienation increases the lonely pursuit of power and emphasizes our belief that power requires an ability to be detached and distant (Kaufman 26).” Thus, the desire for power and feelings of fear that accompany it creates an endless cycle.
I’m not saying that this is Blankenhorn’s fault. After all, “the equation of masculinity with power is one that developed over centuries (25), and likewise, it won’t go away over night either. However, just because things have been one way for a long time, does not mean that it is the right way.
Another reason why I disagree with the Neo-traditionalist view is because it is just not financially feasible for most families to have the mother stay home and care for the children while the father works. Granted, there are some material things that a lot of families can do without and it would be nice if families could support themselves with the income of only one working parent, but owning a home and raising children usually takes the income of both parents at some point.
If there are going to any changes in the family at all, those changes are going to take time, as well as the cooperation of both parents. While I don’t see the resurrection of the classic “Dad works and Mom watches the kids” scenario happening anytime soon, I also don’t think that fathers will ever lose their masculinity, even if they are stay-at-home dads. In that same sense, I don’t think a woman with a career is any less feminine than one who is a stay-at-home mom. Lastly, I feel that stay-at-home parents (of either gender) don’t get the credit they deserve.
