Exploring Single,Stay-at-Home,and Gay Fathers’ Perspectives of Masculinity and the Influence These Have on Their Understandings of Their 4- to 12-Year-Old Children’s Outdoor Risky Play

Abstract

Fathers’ perspectives on masculinity can influence their perspectives on their children’s outdoor risky play. This study makes a novel contribution to bridging a gap in knowledge that exists between the fields of sexuality, family dynamics, and child injury prevention by exploring single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ perspectives on masculinity and the influence that these have on their perspectives of their 4- to 12-year-old children’s outdoor risky play practices. Through the use of semistructured interviews and critical discourse analysis, three discourses were identified: Masculinity and fatherhood are being redefined, fathers play an important role in their children’s experiences of outdoor risky play, and fathers should enforce limits during their children’s outdoor risky play.

Keywords

fatherhood masculinity child health injury

Fathers play an important role in their children’s development through play (Doucet, 2006a). Although past research has focused on heterosexual and secondary caregiving fathers’ perspectives on play (Brussoni & Olsen, 2011, 2013), single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers offer important insights into how nontraditional parenting roles can influence perspectives on masculinity and play (Doucet, 2006a, 2006b). What was once considered typical of fathers, such as being emotionally disconnected from their children, is faltering, and there has been a recent redefinition of fatherhood to encompass the caring activities and behaviors typically associated with mothers (Dowd, 2000). With an increasing amount of research showcasing fathers’ importance in their children’s physical activity, safety, play, and injury prevention (Brussoni & Olsen, 2011, 2013; Doucet, 2006b; Olsen, Oliffe, Brussoni, & Creighton, 2015), it is crucial to understand how changing understandings of fatherhood and masculinity affect fathers’ roles in these areas. Past research has shown that fathers spend more time than mothers engaging in physical activity and active play with their children (Featherstone, 2009; Sinno & Killen, 2009), and that fathers are more likely than mothers to allow children to take risks outdoors (Doucet, 2004). Furthermore, past research has revealed that how fathers’ perceive, engage with, and embody their own masculinity contributes to their own values and beliefs surrounding their children’s safety (Brussoni & Olsen, 2011, 2013; Doucet, 2006b; Morrongiello, Zdzieborski, & Normand, 2010). This study examines single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ perspectives of their 4- to 12-year-old children’s outdoor risky play by asking an important question:

Research Question 1: Do single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ perspectives of masculinity influence their understandings of their 4- to 12-year-old children’s outdoor risky play behavior?

To discuss the relevance of the results of this study, it is first important to consider fathers’ roles in their children’s play, the need to include single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers in research, and how masculinity discourses are currently being challenged.

Literature Review

In the past, fathers would spend more time with sons than daughters in sport and leisure; however, more recently, fathers’ supervision and participation in activity for both sexes is closer to being balanced (Lundberg & Rose, 2002). This is especially important following the acknowledgment in research that fathers typically spend more time than mothers being involved with recreational, play, and leisure activity with their children (Featherstone, 2009; Sinno & Killen, 2009). According to Doucet (2006b),

The international literature on fatherhood has repeatedly emphasized that within and across cultures, fathers’ caregiving with infants and young children is overwhelmingly characterized by play, a rough and tumble approach, and a high level of activity. (p. 700)

Fathers have profound engagement in their children’s family-oriented leisure and also in child-oriented activities (Marsiglio, Roy, & Fox, 2005). This engagement is fueled not only by duty but also by a father’s values and beliefs, and cultural and societal expectations that generate a type of self-identity that includes nurturing and protecting their children during play (Marsiglio et al., 2005).

Fathers Influence on Their Children’s Safety

Fathers play an important role in introducing their children to risk-related settings (Brussoni, Creighton, Olsen, & Oliffe, 2013; StGeorge, Fletcher, Freeman, Paquette, & Dumont, 2015). StGeorge et al. (2015) described fathers’ ability to “open their child to the world” (p. 1412) by promoting healthy physical and rough-and-tumble play that helps children gain knowledge by experiencing the environment. When fathers are both sensitive and challenging during roughhousing, this helps children develop perseverance, and to learn how to regulate their emotions during play (StGeorge et al., 2015). Fathers’ interactions with their children during play helps develop better relationships with their parents and their peers (StGeorge et al., 2015). Furthermore, StGeorge and colleagues (2015) found that fathers’ engagement in play with their children can result in fewer injuries for their children. “By encouraging their child to extend themselves—take on new challenges, be independent, develop strength or complete difficult tasks—fathers stimulate risk taking as well as provide emotional and instrumental support” (StGeorge et al., 2015, p. 1412). According to Fujiwara, Okuyama, and Takahashi (2010), infants who have highly involved fathers can experience fewer injuries than those with less involved fathers. This is because fathers can take their children out of the home setting for outdoor activities, such as a walk together, and the supervision may mitigate potential injury experiences. Furthermore, according to Schwebel and Brezausek (2010), fathers who perceive themselves as having very positive relationships with their middle-aged and school-aged children believe that their children experience less injury than fathers who do not perceive their relationship as highly positive. Thus, there is evidence that fathers’ involvement and care of their children influences children’s experience of injury and social and physical development. Research has showcased fathers’ abilities to care and provide for their children (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000; White, 1994). Importantly,

Fathers’ emotional investment in, attachment to, and provision of resources for their children are all associated with the well-being, cognitive development, and social competence of young children even after the effects of such potentially significant confounds as family income, neonatal health, maternal involvement, and paternal age are taken into account. (Cabrera et al., 2000, p. 130)

The Need to Include Single, Stay-at-Home, and Gay Fathers in Research

While past research has primarily focused on the perspectives of heterosexual and secondary caregiving fathers (Brussoni, Olsen et al., 2013; StGeorge et al., 2015), single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers can offer important insights into fatherhood and their influences on their children’s development (Doucet, 2004). Now more than ever, “the seemingly impermeable boundaries of the traditional family have become permeable” (Emmers-Sommer, Rhea, Triplett, & O’Neil, 2003, p. 100). Indeed, Emmers-Sommer, Rhea, Triplett, and O’Neil (2003) have pointed out that the traditional family (i.e., primary caregiving mothers at home and secondary caregiving, working fathers) has changed to include more diverse representations of the family context.

In the 21st century in North America, single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers make up a large and increasing portion of the parenting demographic. For the period of 2006-2011, “Lone-parent families increased 8.0% over the same period. Growth was higher for male lone-parent families (+16.2%) than for female lone-parent families (+6.0%)” (Statistics Canada, 2011b, para. 3). In 1976, stay-at-home fathers only accounted for one in 70 families that had a stay-at-home parent, but in 2015, that number rose to one in 10 (Statistics Canada, 2011a). Furthermore, “The number of same-sex married couples nearly tripled between 2006 and 2011, reflecting the first five-year period for which same-sex marriage has been legal across the country” (Statistics Canada, 2011b, para. 6). These statistics show the growing demographic of single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers in Canada and how families are expanding from the traditional married and heterosexual mother and father to include those who are nontraditional (single, stay-at-home, and gay).

Cabrera et al. (2000) stated that the increase in single parenting in the United States is in part responsible for the progression toward accepting paternal involvement with children, paternal custody, and fathers seeking custody of their children. Cabrera et al. (2000) stated that due to more women entering the workforce and an increase in wages for American women, fathers are more prone to seek involvement with their children and to be primary caregivers. Furthermore, according to Coley (2001), minority fathers in general are rarely included in child research topics. The result of this is that health research lacks a critical insight into minority fathers’ perspectives on a variety of issues, including parenting and child protection. Indeed, Coley (2001) posited that the exclusion of minority fathers from research stems from a societal perception of minority (e.g., single) fathers being a burden to society and as having insignificant perspectives on child rearing. In accordance with Coley’s views, Parke (2000) stated that as we are in the 21st century, we must address the lack of research of minority fathers. Parke (2000) also argues that it is necessary to approach the challenge of including minority fathers in family research. This is because further exploring the perspectives of all minority fathers will help researchers gain critical insights into the changing dynamics of the family and a better understanding of what fatherhood entails for an ever-growing population of people. It is, thus, abundantly clear that there is a need to include single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers in research, as they make up an important component of the parenting demographic. This is especially true given that the majority of research on nontraditional families focuses on the perspectives and roles of mothers and not fathers (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2003). When fathers are considered in research discussions on family contexts, they are often discussed in relation to their absenteeism and their physical and emotional distance from their children, and not in terms of their potential to nurture and care for their children (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2003). This is in part largely due to traditional masculine discourses in fatherhood, which do not consider fathers’ emotional connectedness to their children (Messner, 1997).

Challenging Discourses of Masculinity in Fatherhood

There is currently little understanding of how masculinity and fatherhood perspectives affect men’s lives, health, and families (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013). Dominant discourses portray fathers as conventionally masculine: stoic, brave, and emotionally reserved. Nevertheless, recent research has suggested that masculinity is expanding to include nurture and care (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013). Fathers who hold more flexible perspectives on what masculinity entails may identify as more intimate and nurturing toward their children than those who subscribe to dominant or traditional beliefs (Benson, Silverstein, & Auerbach, 2005). Importantly, the nurture and care that fathers provide do not necessarily have to be physical but can also be emotional and given through the provision of resources (e.g., cooking and reading; Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013). In line with this, research has shown that while fathers may still identify with masculinity as encompassing risk, protection, and more traditional values, they also prioritize their emotional connectedness to their children (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013).

Changing gender roles

Conventionally masculine and feminine parenting roles shape what behaviors are considered normal in the family context, with mothers often cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the children’s needs, and fathers often building, fixing, and providing financially for their family (Doucet, 2004; Medved, 2016). Single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers challenge traditional views on masculinity, such as working away from home, being tough and brave, and being emotionally distant from their children (Brandth & Kvande, 1998; Messner, 1997). These are fathers who, on a daily basis, partake in a large variety of activities with their children, supervise their children, bathe and feed their children, and prioritize their children’s wellness (Doucet, 2006a). They often take on roles that were once perceived as motherly due to their closeness to their children (Doucet, 2004).

Traditional discourses of masculinity in Canadian society construct gay men as less masculine than their heterosexual counterparts (Phua, 2007; Sánchez & Vilain, 2012) and rarely portray gay men getting their hands dirty, playing with their children, or engaging in conventionally masculine behaviors, such as participation in sport. Although many people believe that gay men may be effeminate or “less masculine” than their heterosexual counterparts, researchers have argued that many gay men do not wish to be portrayed as effeminate (Sánchez & Vilain, 2012). Instead, many gay men identify with traditionally masculine behaviors (such as enjoying a beer with other men and enjoying sports) and seek partners who also exhibit traditionally masculine characteristics (Phua, 2007; Sánchez & Vilain, 2012).

Single, stay-at-home, and gay men “work in a female world” (Doucet, 2006b, p. 705), as they fulfill roles that are largely considered to be mothering roles. Indeed, as Doucet (2006a) argued, discourses surrounding caring in general are heavily tied to femininity and mothering. More specifically, caring for children is often associated with the nurture and care that a mother provides. In line with this, the societal feminization of safety places mothers at the forefront of safety research, which often means that fathers are not considered to be emotionally attached to children (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013). Indeed, providing care for their children is sometimes misconstrued as perversion (e.g., taking their baby to a wellness clinic is misconstrued by mothers at the clinic as a man wanting to see their breasts while they breast-feed), and being active in the school system is met with hesitation and distrust by school administrators and parents (Doucet, 2006b). Acknowledging single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ ability to care for their children allows us to gain a better understanding of how these fathers contribute to the expansions and changes in masculinity that is currently taking place.

Fathers’ masculine identities can influence fathers’ engagement in risk-related play activities with their children (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Fathers who identify as more conventionally masculine can identify as their family’s breadwinner and view themselves as people who encompass the role of protector for their families (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Furthermore, another role that conventionally masculine fathers identify with is that of the risk taker (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). An example of this would be protective fathers who not only value risk but also want to ensure that their children remain safe. They, thus, choose to participate in activity (such as climbing ladders) with their children and control their children’s exposure to risk by setting rules (such as not being allowed to climb the ladder alone; Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013). Thus, masculinity may influence parents’ influence on their children’s leisure pursuits, the risky strategies that are taught to their children, and how their children perceive risk. According to Cabrera et al. (2000), it is important to study the diversity of fathering perspectives and the father role in the 21st century because of the shift of father roles from prioritizing work to encompassing care and supervision with children in the household and child-rearing contexts. The research contained in this paper responds to Cabrera et al.’s call by examining single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ perspectives of masculinity and how they influence their understandings of their children’s outdoor risky play.

Theoretical Framework

Our reasons for employing poststructural feminist theory for this research were twofold. First, poststructural feminist theorists are sensitive to populations of people who have been subjected, ostracized, and oppressed by dominant discourses (Kondo, 1990; Weedon, 1988); this approach is, thus, an appropriate one for conducting research with single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers. Second, poststructural feminist theory enabled us to use language, power relations, and discourse as platforms through which to better understand the socio-historical and political contexts in which the participants in this study live their lives.

According to poststructural feminist thought, language is a site for the construction of meaning (Weedon, 1988). Language is, thus, a gateway to understand social phenomena and cultural experiences (Kondo, 1990; Weedon, 1988). Power relations are sites of struggle and resistance, where power is exercised by multiple parties (Weedon, 1988). Poststructural feminist theories examine power relations to uncover the mechanisms through which discourses are (re)produced (Jackson, 2001; Weedon, 1988). Poststructural feminist theorists posit that discourses are sites where discussions, ideologies, and dialogues, both written and spoken, contribute to the production of knowledge (Jackson, 2001; Weedon, 1988). Thus, dominant discourses serve to influence knowledge uptake and production by subjugating nondominant discourses (Weedon, 1988).

Due to mothers, and not fathers, being regarded as children’s primary caregivers (Brussoni, Olsen, Creighton, & Oliffe, 2013), it was imperative to examine the language, power relations, and discourses at work that result in single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ perspectives of children’s outdoor risky play being subjugated.

Method

Feminist methodology provides a lens through which to value and examine gender (Hesse-Biber, Leavy, & Yaiser, 2004) and serves as an excellent means through which to access and discuss perspectives on outdoor risky play as they relate to the gendered practice of fathering. Feminist methodology also provides a means of challenging gender discourses that exist in society (Taylor, 1998). One of the main tenets of feminist methodology is that all knowledge should be represented in research (Hesse-Biber et al., 2004). Thus, it is an excellent methodology to use to represent minority and underrepresented perspectives in society in general and in research (Hesse-Biber et al., 2004). Currently, single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers are populations who are discursively produced as being overtly feminine (Doucet, 2006a). This gender-based discourse and the exclusion of fathers, especially single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers, from past outdoor risky play research renders feminist methodology an appropriate lens for our research.

Participant Recruitment and Procedure

We recruited participants from three major Canadian cities: Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto. Prior to commencing recruitment, the research received approval from the Research Ethics Board at the University of Ottawa. To be able to participate in the study, participants needed to be single, stay-at-home, or gay; understand and be able to communicate in English; be primary caregivers or have joint custody of their children; and have at least one child in the 4-to-12 age range. Our reason for recruiting fathers with children in the 4-to-12 age range was twofold. First, children of 4 to 6 years of age participate in unstructured, free, and preschool-based play in outdoor settings (Cardon, Van Cauwenberghe, Labarque, Haerens, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2008), while children aged 6 to 12 adopt strategies for how to approach risk and danger and learn how to avoid injuries during play (van Mechelen & Verhagen, 2005). Furthermore, children of the 6-to-12 age range learn fair and safe play practices that they carry with them throughout their lives (van Mechelen & Verhagen, 2005).

We were able to recruit participants in person in both Ottawa and Montreal. Due to the fact that we are based in Ottawa, we did not have enough time to recruit in person in Toronto. For all three cities, we sent recruit posters online to interested community and related organizations that represent single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers. We were present in both Montreal and Ottawa at various community-organized events for single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers, and were available for people who were interested in our study to speak with them about potentially participating. After asking the owners and members, the first author posted flyers in Ottawa and Montreal in local single, stay-at-home, and gay father community organizations and centers. The first author also posted flyers in local gay bars after asking for permission from the owners. The first author recruited one father that was a public figure online and was active in the stay-at-home fathering community. The first author did this by sending a Facebook message indicating that she would be able to speak about the research with him to see if he was interested in participating. When fathers indicated interest in participating, we would speak with them in person or send them information about the study over e-mail. We used snowball sampling (Cohen & Arieli, 2011) to recruit as well. This happened organically, as some of the fathers who indicated interest in participating also indicated that their friends would be interested. Thus, the already-participating fathers sent the recruit posters to their interested friends and told their friends to contact us if they wished to participate. When fathers indicated that they would like to participate in the study, the first author met with them at locations of their choosing that were local and public. Two fathers who knew the first author’s friend met with the first author at their houses. Some interviews were conducted over the phone, as certain participants indicated an interest, due to time constraints, location, and preference, for speaking with the first author without meeting. A total of 12 fathers were interviewed (see Table 1): six single (three primary custody, three split-custody), four stay-at-home, and two gay fathers. All participants except one are White, with the exception of one stay-at-home father (Mark), who is Asian Canadian. Examples of questions asked to participants during their interview are, “In your own words, how would you describe your child’s play style outdoors?” “Does your child ever participate in outdoor play that you think is risky?” and “In your own words, how do you keep your child safe?”

Table 1.

Participant Information and Number of Interviews.

Pseudonym	Single, stay-at-home, or gay	Age of children (S = son, D = daughter)
Jake	Single	D: 11, D: 13, D: 15
Peter	Single	S: 3, S: 6
John	Single	D: 2, D: 4
Brent	Single	D: 11, S: 20, S: 40, S: 45, D: 30, D: 30
Adam	Single	S: 4, S: 6
Ben	Single	S: 6, S: 9
Michel	Stay-at-Home	S: 2, S: 4
Brad	Stay-at-Home	D: 8, D: 11
Mark (Asian Canadian)	Stay-at-Home	S: 7, S: 9
Kyle	Stay-at-Home	D: 5, S: 9, S: 11
West	Gay	S: 8, S: 10
Luke	Gay	S: 5, D: 5

We used an exploratory qualitative research method: semistructured interviews (Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008). Before all interviews commenced, the participants were provided with a consent form that allowed them to choose whether they wanted to be recorded and quoted. We were granted permission to record and quote all conversations. We used member checking after the first author transcribed the interviews to ensure that participants felt comfortable with what they said and how the first author had transcribed the interviews. One participant expressed that he wanted the first author to change one piece of text to better reflect his perspective. None of the other participants requested changes.

Analysis

For the present study, we employed critical discourse analysis (CDA), which was supported by our use of NVivo10^TM software, to explore single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ understandings of their children’s outdoor risky play. CDA was well suited for our research, as this form of analysis is typically used to represent oppressed and subjugated perspectives and serve to correct imbalances that exist in society (Fairclough, Mulderrig, & Wodak, 2011). Indeed, Mogashoa (2014) posited that CDA is best suited as an analytic tool to foster representativeness for oppressed populations, as can be used to acknowledge how social issues are sites of struggle.

Willig (2003) developed a six-stage approach for researchers to efficiently use CDA. We, thus, followed Willig’s (2003) framework by (a) familiarizing ourselves with the text and discourses on fatherhood, masculinity, and outdoor risky play, and by transcribing the recorded text; (b) The first author compared the construction and portrayal of children and participants to one another to examine similarities and differences; (c) The first author examined how the discourses compared with one another; (d) The first author explored the position and context of each participant relative to the discourses on fatherhood, masculinity, and outdoor risky play; (e) The first author explored each participant’s position to gain insight into whether there was opportunity for action (e.g., if perspectives on masculinity could challenge heteronormative gender displays in child injury prevention campaigns); (f) The first author examined the positioning of participants in the discourses to better understand the perspectives the participants have concerning masculinity and their children’s engagement in outdoor risky play.

Results

Our CDA revealed the following discourses: Masculinity and fatherhood are being redefined, fathers play an important role in their children’s experiences of outdoor risky play, and fathers should enforce limits during their children’s outdoor risky play.

Masculinity and Fatherhood Are Being Redefined

The fathers in this study explained that masculinity and fatherhood are redefined when fathers take on roles that actively challenge the way fatherhood has typically been perceived. They argued that fathers are generally expected to exude a type of macho masculinity that discourages emotionally intimate connections with their children. In contrast, the fathers who were interviewed rejected the traditional masculine expectations placed on men by stressing their roles as fathers who encompass many different values and behaviors, including those that were considered within the realm of feminine responsibility and motherhood.

The fathers discussed the many ways through which masculinity and fatherhood are being redefined by providing examples of experiences with their own fathers or of fathers they had known. West, who did not have a father in his life when he was growing up, described what his friends shared with him about their experiences with their fathers: “I wasn’t allowed to cry, he never hugged me . . . I hear this very often . . . I would just assume that’s the kind of macho masculine fatherhood upbringing.” Adam remembered his own father’s lack of expressed emotions: “I think [fatherhood is] changing because I never saw my father cry, just one time in my whole life.” Overall, the participants stated that their own fathers were less emotionally involved with them as children compared with the way they choose to be engaged with their own children.

All of the fathers, except two, attributed expressing emotion through affect and crying as masculine. The two fathers who did not associate masculinity with expressing emotion in this way held dominant perspectives on masculinity and believed that there was a separation between masculinity and femininity. For example, Brad, who did not associate masculinity with emotional expression in this way, said,

I try to play the role of someone who is . . . bravery, courage, standing up for right things, which is similar to what a female would have to, but I guess in the eyes of my children, I’m more of a rock. I don’t give in to my emotions as much.

The two fathers who framed masculinity outside of affect and crying believed that men and women can be both masculine and feminine. However, masculinity was associated with toughness and emotional reserve, while femininity was associated with intimacy and emotional expression. These two fathers verbally communicated with their children to express their feelings instead of demonstrating their emotions through affect and crying.

The fathers who believed that masculinity can encompass traditionally feminine attributes believed that masculinity is being redefined. When asked to describe what masculinity means as a father, Mark replied,

I think, today, things are always changing, like, if you asked that say 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, there are stock answers right? Like being the strong silent type, being the provider, those sorts of things, and you can say from the other side like women are nurturing, caregiving . . . Right? But I think those lines are blurred.

Thus, fatherhood was redefined by the fathers who were interviewed as being involved and emotionally connected to their children, which helped establish relationships that were central to their experiences of being fathers and being masculine. This idea was explained by Peter, who said, “I’m a single, divorced father. My goal is that when they’re with me, I’m there . . . They’re happy, they’re safe, they’re comforted . . . give them comfort, warmth, security, and love.”

Fathers Play an Important Role in Their Children’s Outdoor Risky Play

When asked to describe their roles within their child’s outdoor risky play, the fathers described them as protection and supervision. Through the provision of care in outdoor risky play activities, the fathers encouraged their children to pursue outdoor risky play activities. For example, Peter, a father of two young boys, expressed a need to supervise his children and to protect them from danger. He recalled an instance when his sons were engaging in outdoor risky play that he believed was becoming dangerous.

So when I was playing with [my oldest son], he was actually on the side where if the ball passed him he could go down the cliff. I would always have to tell him, move forward, come closer, I don’t want you to fall over the cliff. But I would always be there, don’t get close to the cliff. Meanwhile [my younger son], whenever he was near the steps, I’d like bolt over there and be like, “grab my hand, I don’t want you to go to the steps.”

The fathers noted that it is important to know how their children are feeling about the activities and environments in which they are engaged. Adam said he urges his sons to talk to him about their outdoor risky play experiences. When asked why he feels establishing communication with his sons is important, Adam said, “I think it helps. With my boys, I don’t want to be not close. I want them to be close, and if they feel bad, I want them to tell me. I don’t want them to hide something.” The desire to communicate with their children was voiced by all the fathers. The fathers especially wanted to know what upsets or injuries their children experienced when engaged in outdoor risky play. When his daughter has been injured during outdoor risky play, John said, “we’ll have discussions about it like, what did you do? How did you feel? . . . Would you do that again? Was it smart?” The fathers wanted to speak with their children about their children’s injury experiences to mitigate their children’s future experiences with injury during outdoor risky play. Although all the fathers were comfortable with discussing injuries after outdoor risky play, West preferred to speak with his children before they engaged in outdoor risky play to try to prevent any injury from occurring. He stated, “In general, I’m Mr. Safety. Don’t run too fast, you might get hurt. Don’t go too fast on the bike, you know, all those things.” The fathers, thus, play an important role in their children’s experiences with outdoor risky play by protecting and supervising their children and by establishing open communication about injury prevention and experiences.

Fathers Should Enforce Limits During Their Children’s Outdoor Risky Play

The fathers all believed that being a father meant enforcing limits when their children engaged in outdoor risky play. The fathers agreed that despite their children wanting to engage in outdoor risky play, the children needed to have some boundaries and limits to be kept safe. As a result, the fathers positioned discipline as synonymous with striking a balance between their children’s safety and experiences of fun. Luke said that when his children are engaged in outdoor risky play, a “balance of having discipline and learning what’s acceptable and not acceptable” was required. Adam stated that while allowing his children to experience things for themselves when they are engaged in outdoor risky play was important, he also enforced rules to ensure safety. According to Adam, a father’s role is to mitigate the potential dangers that their children may experience during outdoor risky play, and, as a result, he considers himself strict at times.

For the fathers interviewed, providing discipline for their children involved setting rules for their children’s outdoor risky play. When Peter discussed his fathering style when his children engage in outdoor risky play, he said,

I can be pretty strict with them, like I want them to follow rules. So I think as a father even though I’m fun and engaged with them, I can lose my patience easily with them. I think I’m a good balance between the fun father [and the father] who’s trying to maintain some discipline.

Luke responded to the question of what a good father is by saying, “it’s the opposite of being rigid kinda thing. . . . But sometimes you definitely have to—in terms of some level of safety. . . . You gotta put your foot down.” Thus, the fathers considered it good to provide their children with some limits because it meant that their children would be safer and less likely to experience serious injury. When Mark was asked whether he allows his children to engage in outdoor risky play, he said, “I think [I’ll allow them to] just as long as they’re safe, uh, like, the risks are acceptable . . . especially for young kids, they need their limits and they need to know what their limits are.” The fathers, thus, believed that it was their job as good fathers to enforce limits to outdoor risky play to keep their children safe.

Discussion

The present study places single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers at the forefront of the discussion on outdoor risky play, and it showcases the ways in which these fathers challenge dominant masculinity discourses (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Doucet, 2004). The three identified discourses support the way that fathers’ expression of masculinity is discussed in the scholarly literature on fatherhood by attesting to the current redefinition of masculinity and fatherhood and how this relates to the fathers’ perspectives on outdoor risky play.

The results of this study are important in relation to the current state of concern surrounding children’s exposure to outdoor risky play (Tremblay et al., 2015). Currently, there is widespread concern about the decline in children’s engagement with outdoor, active, child-centered, and risky play (Tremblay et al., 2015). Fathers encourage their children’s risk more than mothers; however, the results of my study present the fathers as carers and protectors who enforce limits and boundaries on their children’s engagement in outdoor risky play. Importantly, the results of this study with single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers are similar to the results of research with heterosexual and secondary caregiving fathers.

Brussoni, Creighton and colleagues (2013) used photo-elicitation interviews to explore personal connection, risk, and protection perspectives in relation to masculinity to gain insight into how these perspectives influenced their fathering practices. They explored perspectives of 25 fathers (all heterosexual, with three divorced fathers being primary caregivers). Brussoni, Creighton and colleagues (2013) found that these fathers perceived risk-related activities as important for children to engage in, as the fathers believed they helped to foster children’s self-esteem and confidence. They, thus, encouraged their children to engage in risky play in order for their children to challenge themselves and grow physically and mentally. The participants in Brussoni and colleagues’ (2013) research believed that their children engaging in risk-related activity was a facilitator of their children’s enjoyment. Furthermore, omnipresent in their results were the fathers’ perspectives on masculinity that encompassed being a protector for their children. This translated to their role as a father as protecting their children against experiencing injury, whereby some of the men but not the majority indicated that the removal of all risk from their children’s environment was necessary. Finally, Brussoni and colleagues (2013) also found that the fathers wanted to connect emotionally with their children. Thus, they perceived their children as individuals with unique character traits whom they needed and wanted to better understand. The fathers were, thus, affectionate, engaged in routines outside of physical activity (such as reading and cooking), and provided nurture for their children. It was important for the fathers in their study to feel as if they had a more emotional connection with their children than the relationship they had with their own fathers when they were children. Importantly, the fathers’ perspectives on masculinity, risk, and protection influenced their perspectives on their children’s safety. Being emotionally connected with children and in tune with their needs provided safer experiences for their children during physical activity. The fathers’ role and beliefs concerning protection influenced their restrictions and allowances of risk-related activity for their children.

The similarities between Brussoni and colleagues’ (2013) study and the present study are important to consider. Our results showed that the single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers in our study believe that masculinity and fatherhood are being redefined. The fathers discussed this redefinition by providing evidence of the nurture and care they provide for their children during outdoor risky play by communicating with their children and asking their children about their children’s experiences with outdoor risky play. They are attentive to their children and believe that masculinity and fatherhood should reflect the care they provide. Thus, the fathers held masculinity perspectives that directly influenced their perspectives on fatherhood. This was displayed when they discussed that their own values, attitudes, and beliefs surrounding what is important for a man (i.e., being protective, caring, and nurturing) influences their perspectives on fatherhood (i.e., being able to protect, care for, and nurture their children). Consequentially, these perspectives had an impact on their role in their children’s outdoor risky play. When their children were engaging in outdoor risky play, the fathers felt the need to protect their children from danger, care for their children by enforcing limits, and nurture their children if their children were injured. The fathers actively challenged the dominant discourse surrounding masculinity and fatherhood that perpetuates the notion that fathers are unable to care (Doucet, 2006a, 2006b) by providing examples of how they are nurturing caregivers for their children. This runs contrary to dominant and preexisting masculine discourses, as masculinity for men in general is often discussed in relation to violence and physical aggression (Messner, 1997).

The redefinition or expansion of masculinity that has taken shape over the past few decades, and arguably since the participants in this study were children, may, thus, influence traditional and nontraditional fathers’ understandings of their children’s risky outdoor play regardless of sexuality and primary or secondary caregiving position. The redefinition of masculinity and fatherhood to encompass nurture and care as well as protection is becoming increasingly prominent in fathering research (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013; Doucet, 2004, 2006a, 2006b; Goodsell & Meldrum, 2010). This expansion can be seen in the balance that fathers find between promoting their children’s risky activity and protecting their children from injury (Brussoni & Olsen, 2011). The single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers in the present study demonstrated this balance through their enforcement of limits during their children’s outdoor risky play and the important roles they play in their children’s engagement in outdoor risky play. In this study, we found that enforcing limits, such as rule setting during outdoor risky play, was not used with an intention of aggression or punishment; rather, enforcing limits was used to navigate their children’s safety. Importantly, the focus of this study on single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ masculinity perspectives allows us to compare between present perspectives and traditional heterosexual fathers’ and mothers’ perspectives on masculinity in existing literature. The fact that there are similarities between these perspectives in terms of the redefining of masculinity that is taking shape is important to note (Brussoni, Creighton et al., 2013; Doucet, 2004, 2006a, 2006b; Goodsell & Meldrum, 2010). Currently, single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers are perceived as unfit to parent because they are believed to hold nontraditionally masculine perspectives (Coley, 2001). The results of this study would indicate that there are similarities between these populations. Thus, the results of the present study challenge societal perceptions of single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers as unfit to parent.

Conclusion

Single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers need to have their perspectives heard in scholarly research on child injury prevention. Exploring their perspectives on masculinity and fatherhood in connection to their perspectives on outdoor risky play provides a unique opportunity to explore a great variety of kinds of fathers’ influence on their children’s outdoor risky play practices. Although the fathers in this study showed strong similarities to fathers in studies with predominantly heterosexual fathers, there are important limitations to this study.

Only 12 fathers participated in the study, and there was not an equal representation of single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers. This research is, thus, in no way representative of all single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers. Furthermore, we acknowledge that there are other possible explanations for influences on fathers’ perspectives on masculinity (e.g., children could play a role in shaping their fathers’ perspectives on masculinity). We suggest that more work needs to be done to explore potential influences on fathers’ perspectives on masculinity. Nevertheless, it makes an important contribution to the field of child injury prevention by providing an opportunity for these fathers to have a voice on matters they deem important.

The results of this study paint a picture of single, stay-at-home, and gay fatherhood as being intimately tied to children’s outdoor risky play experiences. The fathers in this study believed that masculinity encompassed values that were once considered feminine, such as caring and nurturing; they believed that their many roles provide a unique opportunity to provide supervision, protection, and care to their children when their children engage in outdoor risky play; and they believed that good fathers enforce limits for their children during outdoor risky play to keep their children safe and protected from danger or serious injury.

Further research on single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ perspectives on their year children’s outdoor risky play are needed. Furthermore, it is important to consider other minority fathers’ perspectives on this topic, such as adoptive, immigrant, and low socioeconomic fathers. We encourage all readers to consider the current lack of knowledge on fathers’ perspectives on many topics within child injury prevention, and the consequences that this may have on our understanding of fathers’ roles in their children’s safety. While this research makes a small contribution to our understanding of single, stay-at-home, and gay fathers’ perspectives on their 4- to 12-year-old children’s outdoor risky play, it provides a much needed starting point for future studies.

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

Michelle E. E. Bauer is a doctoral student in the Population Health program at the University of Ottawa and Project Officer for the Unstructured Child-Led Play Project at the Canadian Public Health Association. Her research consists of working with families to better understand child injury experiences and development during outdoor play.

Audrey R. Giles is an applied cultural anthropologist and full professor at the University of Ottawa in the School of Human Kinetics. Her research interests focus on Indigenous peoples living in the NWT, Nunavut, and Northern Alberta, and she examines the intersections between ethnicity, gender, and injury prevention and health promotion in a multitude of contexts.

References

Benson

A. L.

Silverstein

L. B.

Auerbach

C. F.

(2005). From the margins to the center: Gay fathers reconstruct the fathering role. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1, 1-29. doi:10.1300/J461v01n03_01

Brandth

Kvande

(1998). Masculinity and child care: The reconstruction of fathering. The Sociological Review, 46, 293-313. doi:10.1111/1467-954X.00120

Brussoni

Creighton

Olsen

L. L.

Oliffe

J. L.

(2013). Men on fathering in the context of children’s unintentional injury prevention. American Journal of Men’s Health, 7, 77-86. doi:10.1177/1557988312462739

Brussoni

Olsen

L. L.

(2011). Striking a balance between risk and protection: Fathers’ attitudes and practices toward child injury prevention. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32, 491-498. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e31821bd1f5

Brussoni

Olsen

L. L.

(2013). The perils of overprotective parenting: Fathers’ perspectives explored. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39, 237-245. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01361.x

Brussoni

Olsen

L. L.

Creighton

Oliffe

J. L.

(2013). Heterosexual gender relations in and around childhood risk and safety. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 1388-1398. doi:10.1177/1049732313505916

Cabrera

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Bradley

R. H.

Hofferth

Lamb

M. E.

(2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127-136. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00126

Cardon

Van Cauwenberghe

Labarque

Haerens

De Bourdeaudhuij

(2008). The contribution of preschool playground factors in explaining children’s physical activity during recess. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5, Article 11. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-11

Cohen

Arieli

(2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 423-435. doi:10.1177/0022343311405698

10.

Coley

R. L.

(2001). (In)visible men: Emerging research on low-income, unmarried, and minority fathers. American Psychologist, 56, 743-753. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.9.743

11.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829-859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639

12.

Doucet

(2004). “It’s almost like I have a job, but I don’t get paid”: Fathers at home reconfiguring work, care, and masculinity. Fathering, 2, 277-303.

13.

Doucet

(2006a). Do men mother? Fathering, care, and domestic responsibility. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

14.

Doucet

(2006b). “Estrogen-filled worlds”: Fathers as primary caregivers and embodiment. The Sociological Review, 54, 696-716. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00667.x

15.

Dowd

N. E.

(2000). Redefining fatherhood. New York: New York University Press.

16.

Emmers-Sommer

T. M.

Rhea

Triplett

O’Neil

(2003). Accounts of single fatherhood: A qualitative study. Marriage & Family Review, 35, 99-115. doi:10.1300/J002v35n01_07

17.

Fairclough

Mulderrig

Wodak

(2011). Critical discourse analysis. In Van Dijk

T. A.

(Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 357-378). London, England: SAGE.

18.

Featherstone

(2009). Contemporary fathering: Theory, policy and practice. Portland, OR: Policy Press.

19.

Fujiwara

Okuyama

Takahashi

(2010). Paternal involvement in child care and unintentional injury of young children: A population-based cohort study in Japan. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39, 588-597. doi:10.1093/ije/dyp340

20.

Gill

Stewart

Treasure

Chadwick

(2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204, 291-295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192

21.

Goodsell

T. L.

Meldrum

J. T.

(2010). Nurturing fathers: A qualitative examination of child–father attachment. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 249-262. doi:10.1080/03004430903415098

22.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

Yaiser

M. L.

(2004). Feminist approaches to research as a process: Reconceptualizing epistemology, methodology, and method. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Yaiser

M. L.

(Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 3-26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

23.

Jackson

A. Y.

(2001). Multiple annies: Feminist poststructural theory and the making of a teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 386-397. doi:10.1177/0022487101052005005

24.

Kondo

D. K.

(1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

25.

Lundberg

Rose

(2002). The effects of sons and daughters on men’s labor supply and wages. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 251-268. doi:10.1162/003465302317411514

26.

Marsiglio

Roy

Fox

G. L.

(2005). Situated fathering: A focus on physical and social spaces. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

27.

Medved

C. E.

(2016). Stay-at-home fathering as a feminist opportunity: Perpetuating, resisting, and transforming gender relations of caring and earning. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 16-31. doi:10.1080/15267431.2015.1112800

28.

Messner

M. A.

(1997). Politics of masculinities: Men in movements. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

29.

Mogashoa

(2014). Understanding critical discourse analysis in qualitative research. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(7), 104-113.

30.

Morrongiello

B. A.

Zdzieborski

Normand

(2010). Understanding gender differences in children’s risk taking and injury: A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ reactions to sons and daughters misbehaving in ways that lead to injury. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 322-329. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.05.004

31.

Olsen

L. L.

Oliffe

J. L.

Brussoni

Creighton

(2015). Fathers’ views on their financial situations, father–child activities, and preventing child injuries. American Journal of Men’s Health, 9, 15-25. doi:10.1177/1557988313515699

32.

Parke

R. D.

(2000). Father involvement: A developmental psychological perspective. Marriage & Family Review, 29, 43-58. doi:10.1300/J002v29n02_04

33.

Phua

V. C.

(2007). Contesting and maintaining hegemonic masculinities: Gay Asian American men in mate selection. Sex Roles, 57, 909-918. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9318-x

34.

Sánchez

F. J.

Vilain

(2012). “Straight-acting gays”: The relationship between masculine consciousness, anti-effeminacy, and negative gay identity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 111-119. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z

35.

Schwebel

D. C.

Brezausek

C. M.

(2010). How do mothers and fathers influence pediatric injury risk in middle childhood? Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35, 806-813. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsp130

36.

Sinno

S. M.

Killen

(2009). Moms at work and dads at home: Children’s evaluations of parental roles. Applied Developmental Science, 13, 16-29. doi:10.1080/10888690802606735

37.

Statistics Canada. (2011a). Changing profile of stay-at-home parents. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016007-eng.htm

38.

Statistics Canada. (2011b). Portrait of families and living arrangements in Canada. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.cfm

39.

StGeorge

Fletcher

Freeman

Paquette

Dumont

(2015). Father–child interactions and children’s risk of injury. Early Child Development and Care, 185, 1409-1421. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.1000888

40.

Taylor

(1998). Feminist methodology in social movements research. Qualitative Sociology, 21, 357-379. doi:10.1023/A:1023376225654

41.

Tremblay

M. S.

Gray

Babcock

Barnes

Bradstreet

C. C.

Carr

. . . Brussoni

(2015). Position statement on active outdoor play. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 6,475-6,505. doi:10.3390/ijerph120606475

42.

van Mechelen

Verhagen

(2005). Essay: Injury prevention in young people—Time to accept responsibility. The Lancet, 366, S46. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67,846-4

43.

Weedon

(1988). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

44.

White

N. R.

(1994). About fathers: Masculinity and the social construction of fatherhood. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 30, 119-131. doi:10.1177/144078339403000202

45.

Willig

(2003). Discourse analysis. In Smith

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 159-183). London, England: SAGE.