Australian news media constructions and categorisations of primary caregiving fathers

Abstract

Increasing cultural and academic attention is being paid to fathers who assume the primary caregiving role, stemming from interest into whether contemporary masculinity is evolving away from traditional, hegemonic ideals. This study utilises a Discourse Analysis informed by Membership Categorisation Analysis to explore how this relatively new category – primary caregiving father – is discursively constructed in 193 Australian newsprint media articles. The analysis identified that the category of ‘primary caregiving father’ was defended and discursively managed so as to remain consistent with the activities and predicates typically associated with the category ‘normative man’. This was routinely achieved in two ways. First, descriptions of traditional uninvolved fathers were contrasted unfavourably against the ‘new’ primary caregiving father, working to position primary caregiving fathers as the new norm. Second, accounts of men’s decision to take on the primary caregiving role routinely relied on the category-tied predicates of rationality and stoicism, thereby working to position primary caregiving fathers as normatively masculine. Overall, this article concludes that, despite fathers taking on roles inconsistent with normative gendered categorisation, constructions of fatherhood in news media routinely work to align (or re-align) primary caregiving fathers within hegemonic ideals. Therefore, while masculinity is evolving and shifting, it remains within the bounds of what is considered hegemonic.

Keywords

Caring masculinity discourse analysis hegemonic masculinity membership categorisation analysis primary caregiving fathers

Introduction

The last two decades have seen increased interest in shifting understandings and practices of fatherhood (Doucet and Merla, 2007; Duckworth and Buzzanell, 2009; Latshaw and Hale, 2015; Rochlen et al., 2008). In particular, there has been a focus on the increasing number of fathers who assume a primary caregiving role (Chesley, 2011). This interest largely stems from the co-construction and interdependence of fathering and masculinity. Specifically, traditional definitions of fathers as the distant financial provider are closely linked to dominant images of hegemonic masculinity, such that men are strong, self-sufficient, in control, independent, stoical, rational and emotionally inexpressive (Connell, 2003). However, assuming the primary caregiving role typically means stepping away from the financial provider role and taking on a more nurturing, caring role. As such, the concept of hegemonic masculinity does not necessarily capture nor reflect the experiences of these fathers. Concepts such as a ‘caring masculinity’ are now emerging to account for fathers who are exploring a more nurturing, caregiving aspect of their fathering identity (Ammari and Schoenebeck, 2015; Elliott, 2015). In this article, we utilise a Discourse Analysis informed by Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA) (Sacks, 1992) to explore the construction and categorisation of primary caregiving fathers within Australian news media. We identify the gendered categorisations and associated norms and expectations that are routinely presented and worked-up discursively within these texts, and how the deployment of these categories shapes specific understandings of contemporary fatherhood.

Background

Traditional images and understandings of fatherhood have been long informed by hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987, 2003). While a contested concept, hegemonic masculinity can be understood as the most honoured or desired form of masculinity, dominating over all other styles of masculine as well as feminine expression (Connell, 1987). The emergence of a ‘new’ type of father – the nurturing caregiver – has been discussed extensively in the literature (see Hunter et al., 2017c), with considerable emphasis on a father who is attentive, caring and involved in their children’s upbringing as beneficial for fathers, children, mothers and society more generally (Henwood and Procter, 2003). While it could be argued that the emergence of this ‘new’ father has led to a deconstruction of fatherhood and hegemonic ideals, with notions of a distant provider role being left behind, recent work has suggested that this supposedly new category might instead demonstrate a broadening or shift in workings of hegemonic masculinity (Hunter et al., 2017a, 2017b). Primary caregiving fathers are thought to exemplify this broadening of hegemonic masculinity in that they engage in traditionally feminine activities (caregiving) while simultaneously retaining their dominant masculine position through a demonstration that they are ‘man enough’ to be caregivers (Hunter et al., 2017b).

It is argued, then, that contemporary fathering is fragmented and uncertain, both adhering to and resisting traditional hegemonic masculine ideals (Johansson and Andreasson, 2017). This has led to exploration of the experiences of primary caregiving fathers, and more specifically, why men take on this caregiving role, the reactions and attitudes towards them doing so and the coping strategies they use in the face of adversity (e.g. Burkstrand-Reid, 2012; Chesley, 2011; Doucet and Merla, 2007; Dunn et al., 2013; Fischer and Anderson, 2012; Latshaw, 2011; Latshaw and Hale, 2015; Rochlen et al., 2008a, 2008b). Taken together, these studies indicate that primary caregiving fathers primarily take on the role due to economic reasons that they face largely negative reactions and attitudes, and that they engage in both proactive and dismissive coping strategies. Despite the crucial knowledge these studies provide, to truly understand contemporary fatherhood it is critical to explore the sites in which dominant discourses of fathering are constructed and reproduced, and to consider the implications of such discourses.

The media constitutes a crucial source of information on fatherhood, and exerts a powerful influence on public understandings of, and responses to, contemporary parenting practices (Lupton and Barclay, 1997). The media circulates regulatory notions of what is appropriate, expected and normal regarding fatherhood, and this influences how individuals construct and negotiate their identities (Blackman and Walkerdine, 2001). Despite the media’s claims to report objectively on world events, news media should more properly be understood as a social construction, commonly drawing upon and simultaneously constructing (and reinforcing) existing norms and available discourses (Eldridge, 1993).

Limited research has thus far explored how the media constructs primary caregiving fathers. In an analysis of the constructions and representations of primary caregiving fathers in Hong Kong newspapers, Liong (2015) identified workings of hegemonic masculinity. Fathers were constructed as remaining tied to the public sphere and as aspiring to return to paid work in order to continue their provider role, while simultaneously praised for their sacrifice of giving up their economic power and careers. In an exploration of the constructions and representations of primary caregiving fathers in Australian television media, including how primary caregiving fathers themselves negotiate these constructions, Stevens (2015) identified that primary caregiving was not framed as a choice for fathers, but as resulting from extenuating circumstances. The media emphasised and reinforced primary caregiving fathers’ masculine attributes by framing involved fathering as an addition (rather than replacement) to paid work (Stevens, 2015). While the fathers included in this study struggled to identify with the assumption that they did not choose to be primary caregivers, all argued that financial and economic factors were behind their decision to take on the primary caregiving role. This study, therefore, demonstrated that the image of the ideal contemporary father in Australia is one who is a financial provider as well as an involved father (Stevens, 2015).

The media clearly serves as a crucial site to explore and examine understandings of contemporary fatherhood. However, despite the insights offered by previous studies, little is known about how primary caregiving fathers are categorised within news media. Analysing the ways in which categories are built up and deployed in text and talk provides crucial insight into the everyday production of gender and the reinforcement of gender normativity. This focus on the use of categories is the premise of MCA (Stokoe, 2004). Within this methodological approach, categorisation is seen as action-oriented; a discursive device designed to accomplish social action (Schegloff, 2007). For instance, categorisation implies certain social obligations for category members, with the nonfulfillment of these obligations being an accountable matter (Stokoe, 2004). Hence, when men engage in what are thought of as traditionally feminine activities (e.g. caregiving), they might be seen to contravene the expected obligations of the category ‘man’, and subsequently engage in discursive work to account for their engagement in these activities. MCA and its focus on categorisation can therefore provide crucial understanding of how normatively gendered identities are constructed and reinforced.

MCA has been usefully employed to explore the construction of masculinities in news media. Hall and Gough (2011) explored constructions of ‘metrosexuality’ within men’s lifestyle magazine articles and its associated readers’ responses. Their analysis identified how common-sense knowledge relating to gendered identities, and specifically the heteronormative assumption that there are two sexes with distinct gendered attributes and associated activities, is drawn upon when talking about new and emergent identities. The authors argued that it is complex and difficult for new categories and identities to emerge when these categories encompass the attributes and activities commonly associated with the opposite gendered category. In a similar study, Hall et al. (2012) explored men’s accounts of makeup use. They identified how men reframed their non-normative behaviour and inoculated themselves against potential categorisations of being ‘gay’. Both studies argued that traditional or hegemonic masculinity are not in decline or at threat of being destabilised, but rather are being reworked to suit contemporary society (Hall et al., 2012; Hall and Gough, 2011)

Despite its utility, MCA has not been employed to examine constructions of primary caregiving fathers in news media. MCA would provide crucial insight into how this category, which deviates from traditional masculinity and encompasses traditionally feminine activities, is worked up and deployed discursively and to what end. This study, therefore, uses a Discourse Analysis approached informed by MCA to explore how Australian news articles categorise primary caregiving fathers and shape specific understandings of fatherhood and the meanings and challenges of being a father in contemporary society. The innovative use of MCA in this new context provides specific insights into how primary caregiving fathers are categorised and how these categorisations construct and reinforce normative understandings of men, masculinities and fathering.

Method

Analytic approach

This article is part of a larger body of work (Hunter et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2017c) that seeks to discursively analyse constructions of primary caregiving fathers in various popular media (i.e. parenting texts and newsprint media). The focus of these analyses is not merely on how primary caregiving fathers are described in popular media, but rather focuses on the constructive and action-oriented nature of discourse, and on what the text is constructing and accomplishing (Edwards and Potter, 1992; Potter, 1996; Potter and Wetherell, 1987). This approach is typical of a discursive, or discourse analytic, methodology.

There is no single way to define what constitutes a discursive approach or discourse analysis. As a result of being utilised by a variety of disciplines and adopting a variety of theoretical perspectives, there are many different ways to understand and approach a discourse analysis (see Edwards, 1997; Edwards and Potter, 1992; Potter and Wetherell, 1987, for extended discussions on approaches to discourse analysis). However, all discourse analytic approaches share an interest in how language is used to construct differing versions of reality. In other words, the focus is on the function of discourse. Therefore, a discourse analysis generally focuses on the different ways in which texts are organised to determine what is being accomplished, and the consequences of using some organisations rather than others (Potter and Wetherell, 1987).

Within this study, a broad discourse analysis approach was taken. However, upon analysing the newsprint media there appeared to be a consistent orientation to the status and categorisation of men as primary caregivers. Therefore, this article draws on elements of MCA (Sacks, 1992) to examine how this category was built up, oriented to and deployed in this context.

MCA is a powerful analytic tool that provides insight into how individuals organise, use and rely on cultural knowledge as a means to construct and negotiate social identities and relationships (Sacks, 1992). MCA focuses specifically on the construction and use of categories in text and talk. Rather than constituting neutral descriptions or labels, categories are seen as inference-rich, providing insight into the expected, common-sense characteristics and behaviours of category members (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008). Categories embody different properties, known as ‘category-bound predicates’, that describe the characteristics of individuals within a given category (Sacks, 1992). Hence if a person is categorised in a particular way, it is presumed they embody the attributes related to that category and vice versa (i.e. ‘motorbike rider’ is associated with being a thrill seeker, adventurous and fearless) (Schegloff, 2007). Relatedly, members of a category are understood in relation to ‘category-bound activities’, which provide inferences into, and boundaries around, the accepted activities of members (Sacks, 1992). Therefore, when a category is deployed to describe a person or a group, a set of assumed, category-bound activities and characteristics of those individuals or groups are simultaneously deployed. For instance, as discussed earlier in this article, hegemonic masculinity traditionally defines fathers as distant financial providers who are in control, independent, rational and emotionally inexpressive (Connell, 2003). Therefore, when the category of father is deployed, these are the attributes traditionally associated with this category.

In this article, aspects of MCA are drawn on to explore how the category of ‘primary caregiving father’ is constructed and negotiated in relation to the traditional attributes and obligations associated with more hegemonic definitions of the category father. This method allows for this examination of how taken-for-granted ‘facts’ or ideas about gender-appropriate identities and activities are worked up in everyday text.

Data

The data were identified from a comprehensive search of the Factiva database for Australian newspaper articles where the topic of discussion was primary caregiving fathers. A search was conducted of all Australian newspapers within the Factiva database and was restricted to articles published over a 5-year period, between 1 January 2012 and 20 October 2016. The following search terms were used: ‘stay-at-home dads’, ‘stay at home dads’, ‘stay-at-home fathers’, ‘stay at home fathers’, ‘caregiving dads’, ‘caregiving fathers’, ‘men who mother’, ‘Mr. Mom’ and ‘Mr. Mum’. These search terms are the most commonly used terms as identified by the academic literature (i.e. the papers outlined in the Introduction to this article). The search term ‘house husbands’ was excluded due to the number of articles retrieved relating to the popular Australian television series of the same name (see Bartholomaeus and Riggs, 2016, p. 158). Such articles focused largely or exclusively on the actors, ratings and season renewals of this series, and were not deemed relevant for this analysis.

In total, 351 articles were found using these criteria. After excluding 101 duplicate articles, and excluding articles that were not relevant (i.e. articles that only referenced primary caregiving fathers and did not engage in a discussion of them), 193 articles remained for analysis.

Analysis

The analysis is organised into two sections. The first section relates to how the news articles discursively attend to an assumed threatened masculinity, and subsequently work to defend the category and associated activities of primary caregiving fathers. The second section focuses on the routine use of the category-tied predicates rationality and stoicism (tied to the category ‘man’) in accounts for men’s decision to become primary caregiving fathers, and explores how these predicates are used to re-align men with hegemonic ideals.

Defending primary caregiving fathers

Hegemonic masculinity is a context-bound, common-sense understanding of a socially legitimised masculinity that serves to regulate male behaviour, despite how unrealistic or unachievable it might be (Connell, 1987). Primary caregiving fathers, through the uptake of the caregiving role, are seen to step away from this expression of masculinity. In this section, we show how Australian newsprint media attends to the potential charges of ‘effeminacy’ for primary caregiving fathers, while simultaneously arguing for the legitimacy of this ‘new’ role. This is accomplished through contrasting the ‘traditional’ father with the ‘new’ father, with the latter typically constructed favourably, in order to establish involved fathering as the new norm. This contrasting can be seen in the following four extracts.

The first extract comes from a news article on primary caregiving fathers that acknowledges and rewards them around the time of Father’s Day in Australia.

Extract 1: Article 15 – Herald Sun.

The modern father isn’t the guy who comes home from work and plonks himself in front of the TV any more. On the eve of Father’s Day, MEGAN MILLER speaks to some hands-on dads.

Extract 1 draws on a set of category-bound activities for both ‘traditional’ fathers (engaged in paid employment, watches TV rather than engages in parenting) and ‘modern’ fathers (hands-on). Through the deployment of these contrasting categories, traditional fathers, who engage in paid work and do little in the way of caregiving or domestic tasks, are pilloried, while primary caregiving fathers are praised for being ‘modern’ and ‘hands-on’. The use of ‘plonks’ highlights this contrast by positioning traditional fathers as lazy as well as having connotations of being careless and unskilled. In this way, the ‘new’ category of the modern father is legitimised and even constructed as favourable to the traditional fathering role. This category work highlights the ‘flexibility of categories’ (Speer, 2005: 119–120). In other words, the category ‘primary caregiving father’, which is at risk of positioned as feminine and therefore marginalised, is in this extract worked up as a category that is worthy of praise. This can be further seen in Extract 2.

Extract 2: Article 1 – Townsville Bulletin.

These days people are far more likely to seek partners with complex and varied qualities rather than the largely stereotypical and gendered prerequisites of the past. `Research has found most of the stay-at-home fathers are very secure, emotionally strong, say they’re quite happy and have successfully divorced their self-concept from the size of their pay cheque and the size of their ego.”

Extract 2 positions the long-held expectation for fathers to be financial providers as no longer a desirable norm. This is achieved through the suggestion that people are looking for partners that incorporate the qualities of the ‘new father’ (those who engage in the primary caregiving role), as opposed to traditional, gendered qualities, such that men are engaged in gainful employment. The contrast between the ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ father serves to legitimise primary caregiving fathers and provide them with more social capital than the uninvolved, hegemonic father of the past. Uninvolved fathers are therefore positioned as morally accountable for their lack of involvement and continued alignment with paid work and traditional masculine norms. Extract 2 also describes primary caregiving fathers as ‘emotionally strong’, which arguably strikes a balance between normative assumptions about femininity and masculinity. Specifically, describing these fathers as ‘emotional’ places them at risk of being positioned as feminine, while the use of ‘strong’ works to masculinise these men and their activities.

Extract 3: Article 14 – Wentworth Courier.

THERE was a time when it would have seemed odd for a husband to stay at home with the children when the wife went to work. But Jonathon Smith, of Clovelly, said he was part of a growing number of stay-at-home-dads embracing the role of the primary carer.

Extract 3 demonstrates how, for fathers, primary caregiving is a departure from traditionally normative boundaries of masculinity that dictate specific and separate parenting roles for men and women. However, this traditional, gendered model of parenting and family is framed as no longer the only form of parenting available to men in contemporary society. This allows us to see how the emergence and ‘growing number’ of primary caregiving fathers can be used to hold more traditional and uninvolved fathers accountable for not aligning with social change. The extract, therefore, demonstrates the discursive work accomplished to position involved fathering as an emerging norm. This can be further seen in Extract 4, where an article quotes a primary caregiving father.

Extract 4: Article 15 – Herald Sun.

St Kilda West’s Simon Blake is among the ranks of stay-at-home dads. With the difficulty of securing a childcare place and soaring costs when you do, it made financial sense for Blake to be two-year-old son Isaac’s primary carer when wife Karen returned to her job in IT. He says he’s not emasculated by not being the breadwinner and has always been a nurturer. . . “people who think parenting is women’s work are selfish and are missing the point of a family unit as a whole,” he says. “Or perhaps they’re very, very traditional and have been brought up seeing that culture. It’s unproductive to continue that line of thinking, though.”

In this extract, the news article defends a primary caregiving fathers’ masculinity through drawing on traditional war language such as ‘ranks’ and justifies the uptake of the role through outlining the financial strain of childcare. Interestingly, the extract describes the father as having always been a nurturer, but discursively protects this by outlining how he has not been emasculated. This account is bolstered through the use of active voicing (Reporting someone else’s speech; Wooffitt, 1992). Rather than relying on the journalist’s perspective of fathers’ masculinity, the inclusion of fathers’ perspective strengthens claims that they do not feel emasculated due to their uptake of the caregiving role. Furthermore, the quoted father engages in the work of identity and stake management to establish involved fathering and primary caregiving fathers as the new norm for men. Specifically, he critiques uninvolved fathering and people who adhere to this role in order to legitimise his own identity as a primary caregiver. Fathers who adhere to traditional norms are positioned negatively – as being ‘selfish’, ‘missing the point’ and ‘very, very traditional’ – which works to imply that they do not understand contemporary norms, are stuck in the past and even adhere to harmful or ‘unproductive’ thinking. This demonstrates how primary caregiving fathers defend their own identity in the face of a presumed threatened masculinity (i.e. a potential claim that they are engaging in ‘women’s work’).

Overall, this section of analysis has identified that the category of ‘primary caregiving father’ requires considerable accountability work. The analysis identified how the newsprint media attended to potential threats of ‘effeminacy’ by discursively defending the involved father and positioning traditional fathering as an outdated norm. In this way, the news articles argued for the legitimacy of the ‘new’ and engaged primary caregiving father and potentially privilege it as worthy of more social capital than uninvolved fathers.

Rationality and stoicism as category-tied predicates

The previous section of analysis demonstrated how the news articles defended primary caregiving fathers by attending to potential charges of ‘effeminacy’ and arguing for the legitimacy of this new and involved role for fathers. The current section of analysis delves specifically into the use of two category-bound predicates (characteristics that establish a member of a category) – ‘rationality’ and ‘stoicism’ – commonly associated with the category ‘man’. As the analysis demonstrates, these two category-bound predicates were routinely employed in descriptions of men’s decision to become the primary caregiving. The use of these predicates worked to categorise primary caregiving fathers as ‘normative’ (i.e. fitting with the category of ‘man’), despite the non-conforming activity of primary caregiving, and worked to defend them against potential claims of ‘effeminacy’.

The following extracts (Extracts 5 and 6) demonstrate how the news articles invoked category-bound predicates to facilitate the readers’ orientations to what is perceived as normative for members of the category ‘man’. In these extracts, fathers’ decisions to take on the primary caregiving role are described as rational, driven by financial and economic benefit, and not motivated by emotional or personal interest.

Extract 5: Article 35 – The Sun Herald.

With wife Sarah a high-level marketing consultant who travelled a lot for work, it made economic and professional sense that Dennis, an artist, would give up his job to be at home once she returned to work after six months’ maternity leave

Extract 6: Article 6 – The Sun Herald.

Four Australian men provide a male perspective on professions still viewed as “women’s work.” “When Lewis was six-months-old, we decided that I’d become the stay-at-home parent. Tania’s a physiotherapist with a PhD who loves her career. I didn’t have a lot invested in mine, so basically it came down to what was going to make us happiest, and ended up being a good financial decision. I get my satisfaction now from writing, which I can do from home. This way has worked for us.”

Extracts 5 and 6 demonstrate how primary caregiving fathers are categorised as normative through attempts to frame their decision as driven not by desire but by rational, pragmatic and sensible reasons (i.e. economic benefit). Specifically, the extracts frame the decision as focused not on the importance of or desire for caregiving, but rather on who is able or willing to step away from paid employment. The desire or interest in being a primary caregiver does not appear to be a factor into the decision-making process. However, by not being the financial provider, and conceding that their partners’ employment and financial situations are superior, these men are not aligning with traditional, hegemonic masculinity and the predicates and activities of the category ‘man’. Therefore, these fathers are at-risk of positioning themselves as less than masculine. However, by invoking the category-predicate of rationality to account for their primary caregiving, these men can be seen to defend against this risk and re-align with traditional hegemonic ideals.

Furthermore, in Extract 6 the father highlights how he now gets satisfaction from his writing, rather than highlighting the satisfaction from parenting. Therefore, despite being the primary caregiving, he is arguably still involved in some form of ‘work’. Also notable in Extract 6 is the use of ‘we’ when referencing who made the decision, reinforcing that fathers are not making the decision to be a primary caregiving alone; it is a collaborative decision negotiated by both partners. The implication is that taking on the primary caregiving role is a democratic decision-making process between heterosexual partners, based primarily on professional and financial considerations, with the desire to be a caregiver not mentioned. However, presenting this decision as collaborative and not the sole choice of the father is contradictory to hegemonic notions of men as ‘independent’, and as having the ‘power’ and ‘authority’ to make their own decisions. What we see here is an account of fathers employing and relying on traditional norms of masculinity that serve a hegemonic identity (rationality, pragmatism), while rejecting the ones that do not (power, authority).

Constructions of rationality in the data set were complex, and, in some instances, a parallel predicate of stoicism was worked up. Specifically, the news articles positioned primary caregiving fathers as though they were taking on the caregiving role out of a sense of responsibility, as men, to step up and do the right thing when facing financial or other pragmatic challenges. This construction appeals to the normative notion that masculine men do what is considered right, even if it might be difficult. The news articles presented accounts from fathers who engaged in identity work that constructed them up as stoic for taking on the primary caregiving role. These masculine descriptions of primary caregiving fathers were prominent across all of the articles. One was even titled ‘Manning up for role change’ (Article 14 – 2016). The following two extracts demonstrate how primary caregiving fathers were typically constructed as stoic.

Extract 7: Article 30 – The Sunday Times.

IN thousands of homes across WA, there’s a quiet revolution gaining pace. On its frontline are the fathers bold and brave enough to buck centuries of entrenched stereotypes to stay at home and look after their children. By their side are the wives and partners whose richer pay packets and greater ambition anoint them as family breadwinners.

Extract 8: Article 30 – The Sunday Times.

“There is also an expectation that dads are more hands-on with kids and an acceptance of that . . . and a generation of dads that are more equipped at being able to look after their kids.” Workplace rules are keeping up with the changing family dynamic. More men are being allowed to take paternity leave from government agencies and bigger companies with flexible and progressive employment policies, according to Gary Segal, who runs the Dads In The Early Years program at Perth children’s charity Meerilinga. Mr Segal established a playgroup in Woodvale six years ago for stay-at-home dads to chat with like-minded souls. Earlier this year he opened a second one in Cockburn. But moving into the full-time role of being a stay-at-home dad is still a “very brave decision.” “These guys often cop it about not having a real job. They have to fight for acceptance from others sometimes,” he said.

In Extracts 7 and 8, primary caregiving fathers are described in hegemonic masculine ways, in keeping with the normative expectations for the category ‘man’. Extract 7 describes primary caregiving fathers as ‘bold’ and ‘brave’ in resisting stereotypical norms, while Extract 8 describes taking on the primary caregiving role as a ‘very brave decision’, with men positioned as receiving and bracing against (‘copping’) negative backlash and ‘fighting’ to prove themselves. The use of active voicing, again, bolsters claims that fathers are doing the ‘right’ thing and responding to new social and organisational trends that they are to be more involved in caregiving, despite the challenges they face in doing so. The potential challenges for men taking on the primary caregiving role (a typically feminine role) are therefore dealt with by positioning this role as part of a masculine script, that is, linking the feminine role to conventional masculine behaviours and attributes. This is further reinforced by traditional war metaphors such as that these fathers are on the ‘frontline’, arguably the most dangerous, heroic and brave position. Indeed, these accounts serve to position primary caregiving fathers as potentially more masculine than fathers who adhere to traditional models of fathering.

Despite this, Extract 7 does describe their female partners as having ‘greater ambition’ which is a traditional hallmark of masculinity, thereby complicating accounts of fathers as remaining within the bounds of normative masculinity. Furthermore, Extract 8 outlines how this father set up a fathers group for fathers to ‘chat’ with other fathers. This term has been long associated with women’s talk (c.f. ‘gossip’). Therefore, despite primary caregiving fathers being discursively positioned within normative masculine bounds, the articles appear to attempt to contend with social expectations that the financial breadwinner role has long been considered the masculine archetype. What is shown then, is the simultaneous rejection and uptake of hegemonic masculinity.

Overall, this section demonstrates how traits of hegemonic masculinity (i.e. rationality and stoicism) are traded on to normalise a departure from hegemonic masculinity (Wetherell and Edley, 1999). This section has demonstrated that primary caregiving fathers were constructed as taking on the role due to pragmatic or financial reasons (not out of desire), and that they stoically undertook this untraditional role, often in the face of adversity, in order to do the ‘right’ thing when considering these pragmatic and financial factors. The category-tied predicates of rationality and stoicism were therefore invoked for primary caregiving fathers in order for them to be categorised within the bounds of hegemonic masculinity.

Conclusion

This article used principles of MCA to explore how primary caregiving fathers are categorised and positioned in contemporary Australian newsprint media. Overall, it can be argued that the categorisation of primary caregiving fathers is flexible, serving both to legitimise the role and locate these men within the bounds of hegemonic masculinity, while simultaneously attending to the departure from traditional notions of masculinity.

The first section of analysis explored how the media defends primary caregiving fathers. Through the uptake of a primary caregiving role, fathers are seen to step away from traditional and normative masculinity. However, the articles attended to potential charges of ‘effeminacy’ by arguing for the legitimacy of this new and involved role for fathers. The analysis identified how this was accomplished through contrasting the categories of ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ fathers in order to hold ‘traditional’ fathers as morally accountable for their continued lack of involvement. In this way, the articles positioned involved fathering as the new and desired norm for fathers.

The second section of analysis explored how the category-tied predicates of rationality and stoicism were drawn upon to position primary caregiving fathers as members of the category ‘normative man’. These two category-bound predicates were routinely employed in descriptions of men’s decision to become the primary caregiver. The use of these predicates worked to categorise primary caregiving fathers as ‘normative’ (i.e. fitting with the category of ‘man’), despite the non-conforming activity of primary caregiving. In other words, by demonstrating that assuming the primary caregiving was rational or stoic, primary caregiving fathers can be considered as normative, masculine men.

Significantly, there were no instances in the data set where being the primary caregiver was presented as the sole choice or desire of a father. Rather, the decision to become a primary caregiver was made through a normative masculine lens, approached pragmatically and rationally. This construction ensured that fathers were not positioned as feminine, as they did not desire to take on a traditionally feminine role. The analysis, then, highlighted that it is normative for a father’s decision (to assume the primary caregiving role) to be justified or defended. This is a significant contrast to mothers who are often not required to explain or account for why they are primary caregivers; it is assumed they simply desire to do so (conversely mothers are often required to account for decisions to work full-time). These findings are significant in that they demonstrate how fatherhood continues to be a contested site of competing societal discourses (Hunter et al., 2017c; Lupton and Barclay, 1997; Merla, 2008; Stevens, 2015). This study shows how primary caregiving fathers are categorised as simultaneously normative and as breaking away from norms, demonstrating that contemporary images of fathering remain unclear and scattered (Johansson and Andreasson, 2017).

This article demonstrates the utility in drawing upon different methodological approaches such as MCA to explore how contemporary fathers are categorised in everyday informal and formal discourse. In this article, MCA provided insight into what is constructed and categorised as normative for men and fathers, what activities fit within these normative categories, and how this categorisation work is accomplished discursively. Future research should draw on MCA to analyse fathering and masculinities in other sites (i.e. online media, television etc.). This would allow for a deeper understanding of whether new and emerging categories fit within normative bounds.

Overall, this study challenges how we think about hegemonic masculinity, and destabilises arguments that a new masculinity has replaced traditional hegemonic ideals. While fathers are taking on roles inconsistent with their gendered categorisation (i.e. the primary caregiver), implying that as a society we are departing from rigid hegemonic definitions of fatherhood, this article demonstrates how constructions and categorisations of fatherhood are routinely worked up such that primary caregiving fathers remain aligned with traditional, hegemonic ideals.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Sarah C Hunter, BPsych(Hons), PhD, is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow in the College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University. Her research interests pertain to men, masculinities and discourse, as well as fathering and families. She also has an interest in knowledge translation and implementing evidence into practice.

Damien W Riggs is a Professor in Psychology at Flinders University and an Australian Research Council Future Fellow. He is the author of over 150 publications in the fields of gender/sexuality studies, family studies and mental health.

Rebecca Feo is a Research Fellow in the College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University. Her research expertise involves exploring the experiences and perspective of receiver and providers of healthcare, as well as examining, through Conversation Analysis, the ways in which health care and advice are delivered in real-life, naturally occurring interactions.

References

Ammari

Schoenebeck

(2015) Understanding and supporting fathers and fatherhood on social media sites. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Seoul, South Korea, 18–23 April, pp. 1905–1914. New York: ACM.

Bartholomaeus

Riggs

(2016) Homonormativity in representations of gay fathers on television: Reproductive citizenship, gender roles, and intimacy. In: Garrett

Jensen

Voela

(eds) We Need to Talk About Family: Essays on Neoliberalism, the Family and Popular Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Blackman

Walkerdine

(2001) Mass Hysteria: Critical Psychology and Media Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Burkstrand-Reid

(2012) Dirty Harry meets dirty diapers: Masculinities, at-home fathers, and making the law work for families. Texas Journal of Women & the Law 22(1): 1–44.

Chesley

(2011) Stay-at-home fathers and breadwinning mothers: Gender, couple dynamics, and social change. Gender & Society 25: 642–664.

Connell

(1987) Gender and Power. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Connell

(2003) Introduction: Australian masculinities. In: Donaldson

Tomsen

(eds) Male Trouble: Looking at Australian Masculinities. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Pluto Press Australia, pp. 9–21.

Doucet

Merla

(2007) Stay-at-home fathering. Community, Work & Family 10(4): 455–473.

Dunn

Rochlen

O’Brien

(2013) Employee, mother, and partner: An exploratory investigation of working women with stay-at-home fathers. Journal of Career Development 40: 3–22.

10.

Edwards

(1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: SAGE.

11.

Edwards

Potter

(1992) Discursive Psychology. London: SAGE.

12.

Eldridge

(1993) Getting the Message: News, Truth and Power. London; New York; Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Routledge.

13.

Elliott

(2015) Caring masculinities: Theorizing an emerging concept. Men and Masculinities 19: 240–259.

14.

Fischer

Anderson

(2012) Gender role attitudes and characteristics of stay-at-home and employed fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 13: 16–31.

15.

Hall

Gough

(2011) Magazine and reader constructions of ‘metrosexuality’ and masculinity: A membership categorisation analysis. Journal of Gender Studies 20(1): 67–86.

16.

Hall

Gough

Seymour-Smith

(2012) ‘I’m metro, not gay!’ A discursive analysis of men’s accounts of makeup use on Youtube. The Journal of Men’s Studies 20(3): 209–226.

17.

Henwood

Procter

(2003) The ‘good father’: Reading men’s accounts of paternal involvement during the transition to first-time fatherhood. British Journal of Social Psychology 42(3): 337–355.

18.

Hunter

Augoustinos

Riggs

(2017a) Ideological dilemmas in accounts of primary caregiving fathers in Australian news media. Discourse, Context and Media 20: 116–123.

19.

Hunter

Riggs

Augoustinos

(2017b) Constructions of primary caregiving fathers in popular parenting texts. Men and Masculinities. Epub ahead of print 13 September. DOI: 10.1177/1097184X17730593.

20.

Hunter

Riggs

Augoustinos

(2017c) Hegemonic masculinity versus a caring masculinity: Implications for understanding primary caregiving fathers. Social and Personal Psychology Compass 11(3): e12307.

21.

Hutchby

Wooffitt

(2008) Conversation Analysis. London: Polity.

22.

Johansson

Andreasson

(2017) Fatherhood in Transition: Masculinity, Identity and Everyday Life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

23.

Latshaw

(2011) Is fatherhood a full-time job? Mixed methods insights into measuring stay-at-home fatherhood. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers 9(2): 125–149.

24.

Latshaw

Hale

(2015) ‘The domestic handoff’: Stay-at-home fathers’ time-use in female breadwinner families. Journal of Family Studies 22(2): 97–120.

25.

Liong

(2015) Sacrifice for the family: Representation and practice of stay-at-home fathers in the intersection of masculinity and class in Hong Kong. Journal of Gender Studies 26: 402–417.

26.

Lupton

Barclay

(1997) Constructing Fatherhood: Discourses and Experiences. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

27.

Merla

(2008) Determinants, costs, and meanings of Belgian stay-at-home fathers: An international comparison. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers 6(2): 113–132.

28.

Potter

(1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

Potter

Wetherell

(1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.

30.

Rochlen

McKelley

Suizzo

M-A

, et al. (2008a) Predictors of relationship satisfaction, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction among stay-at-home fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 9(1): 17–28.

31.

Rochlen

Suizzo

McKelley

, et al. (2008b) ‘I’m just providing for my family’: A qualitative study of stay-at-home fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 9(4): 193–206.

32.

Sacks

(1992). Lectures on Conversation, vol. 2 (ed. Jefferson

). Oxford: Blackwell.

33.

Schegloff

(2007) A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39(3): 462–482.

34.

Speer

(2005) Gender Talk: Feminism, Discourse and Conversation Analysis. Hove: Routledge.

35.

Stevens

(2015) Understanding discursive barriers to involved fatherhood: The case of Australian stay-at-home fathers. Journal of Family Studies 21(1): 22–37.

36.

Stokoe

(2004) Gender and discourse, gender and categorisation: Current developments in language and gender research. Qualitative Research in Psychology 1(2): 107–129.

37.

Wetherell

Edley

(1999) Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology 9(3): 335–356.

38.

Wooffitt

(1992) Telling Tales of the Unexpected: The Organization of Factual Discourse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.