Abstract
Despite the consensus that fatherhood is undergoing significant change, there is little known about how men who are deeply engaged in caregiving experience the shift away from conventional models. Examining the use of parental leave by Canadian fathers offers the opportunity to study the day-to-day reality of men’s caregiving and how time with baby may be transformative. In-depth interviews with 33 men reveal that all participants developed parenting skills and emotional bonds, yet only fathers who parented without a mother’s oversight articulated a sense of ownership and accountability over their child’s care. Those personally moved by the leave experience were most likely to integrate caregiving into their identities, provided they felt ‘accomplished’ in their employment. Leave-taking thus represented an important liminal period in which fathers could ‘test the waters’ of hands-on childcare without threatening their sense of self, ultimately increasing the visibility of men as caregivers and reshaping cultural configurations of acceptable masculinity.
The image of the new father who is highly engaged in hands-on caregiving has received much attention in the public eye and academic literature over the last thirty years. The assumption is that when men combine work and family in ways that challenge the centrality of earning (Brandth and Kvande 2016; Ranson 2012) it is inevitable that some personal and social shuffling will occur (Doucet 2006, 237). The transformative potential of this process has been examined by researchers engaging with David Morgan’s (1992) call to study masculinity by examining situations where it may be on the line—such as when men face unemployment (Chesley 2011; Shirani, Henwood, and Coltart 2012b), reduce their work commitments (Holter 2007; Ranson 2012), work at home (Craig, Powell, and Cortis 2012; Halford 2006), or become stay-at-home parents (Chesley 2011; Solomon 2014). The findings from the literature are mixed, centering on whether men with non-normative relations to paid work reproduce or challenge hegemonic masculinity—the culturally celebrated configuration of masculine practice that legitimizes men’s dominant position in society (Connell, 2005; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). This conceptualization, however, limits the ability to think about men’s subjective masculinities, experiences, practices, and possibilities for change (Hanlon 2012; Seidler 2006, 12).
Contemporary theorists of masculinity identify caregiving as a critical locus of change because doing this kind of work requires men to enact feminine values of care such as positive emotion, interdependence, and relationality (Elliott 2016). Adopting the socially subordinated status of caregiver can be resistance to inequality if it means giving up the privileges of hegemonic masculinity and risking social ostracism by not conforming to expected masculine roles (Elliott 2016; Hanlon 2012; Kimmel 2010). How the lived, affective lives of men interact and intersect with this framework remains to be seen however (Elliott 2016, 256). Does time spent caregiving lead all men to incorporate parenting into their identities? Under what conditions can learning and performing childcare tasks lead to a change in consciousness? How do men experience and negotiate the disjunction between cultural standards of appropriate masculinity and the values of caregiving? These are the questions guiding the current study.
In this paper, I build on the contributions of critical studies in men and masculinity by investigating men’s experiences of, and emotional responses to, taking parental leave using insights from symbolic interactionism. Though caregiving may be experienced in highly personal terms, this perspective holds that what individuals vest their feelings of real self in is socially shaped. It is through interaction, both real and imagined—in relation to the way people think and feel they should be acting and how they anticipate others will view these actions—that individuals develop understandings of what a particular course of action means (Finch and Mason 1993). Individual men may not feel dominant or powerful in their daily lived experiences, but they do locate themselves against masculine ideals as they construct identities and practices. Considering a “moral dimension” thus recognizes the critical role of social expectations and situated experiences in shaping fathers’ subjectivities (Doucet 2006 176; Goffman 1961; McMahon 1995).
Empirical support for transformative effect—both personal and social—of men’s caregiving has been gleaned from research on stay-at-home fathers (Chesley 2011; Doucet 2006; Solomon 2014). Prolonged daily childcare amongst men remains rare, however. Examining men’s experience of parental leave thus offers the broader opportunity to investigate how employed fathers integrate care practices into their masculine identities, a context that has been less studied (Brandth and Kvande 2016; Wall 2014). The unique time-bounded and gender-laden circumstances of early parenthood and parental leave make this a significant site of inquiry for investigating the situational adjustment required by the intense work of infant care and how the organization of this experience may be identity-producing for fathers. Canada is an ideal place to examine this process because it is one of few OECD countries where a well-compensated gender-neutral leave policy exists (O’Brien 2009), entitling parents to a total of thirty-five weeks of paid employment leave after the initial fifteen weeks reserved for mothers only.
Drawing on interviews with thirty-three Canadian couples in which fathers took statutory parental leave, this paper demonstrates the significance of both the content of parenting and the cultural context in which it occurs to men’s involvement. Specifically, I will argue that realizing the transformative potential of fathers’ caregiving hinges on the practical experience of early parenthood and how engaged men become in the mental and physical demands of routine childcare. Immersion, however, is only one part of the picture; I will show that the way fathers feel about and make sense of their time with baby, against a backdrop of gendered cultural expectations about proper family roles, is central to challenging conventional enactments of masculinity within families.
Literature Review
Given the opportunity, many fathers learn and perform childcare with great skill and sensitivity (Chesley 2011; Doucet 2006; Risman 1986). Yet research has shown that they do not necessarily put their masculinity “on the line” (Doucet 2006; Morgan 1992). The men in Doucet’s (2006, 196) study on primary care fathers, for instance, actively worked “to dispel the idea that they might be gay, un-masculine or not men” by emphasizing masculine qualities of their caregiving, such as promoting risk-taking and re-framing the home as a site of self-provisioning rather than a locus of care (see also Wilson and Prior 2010). Brandth and Kvande (1998) identified similar tendencies amongst Norwegian men on parental leave who emphasized the ways in which they were different than mothers, such as teaching the child independence and taking them out into the world. They also avoided housework (Almqvist 2008; Brandth and Kvande 1998). Just taking parental leave could be framed as a masculine act. Schmidt, Reider, Zartler, Schadler, and Richter (2015) found that in Austria a man’s ability to interrupt his career was viewed as courageous struggle against external constraints by both spouses. Almqvist (2008) thus cautions that a shift towards a “child-oriented masculinity” in which fathers enjoy close relationship with their children should not be confused with “gender-equal men.”
Although involved fathering can reinforce hegemonic masculinity, there is also evidence of men reworking their gender identities in ways that challenge conventional notions of manhood. Recent research (Johansson 2011; Solomon 2014; Wall 2014) reveals less attention to differentiating from women, and more integrating of the values and practices of care into masculine identities. In one study (Brandth and Kvande 2016), attentive caregiving was framed as a source of self-worth through skill acquisition, performance of the hard work of parenting, and being needed by the child. Because these accomplishments were also attributed to mothers, the authors suggest this may indicate an “undoing” of the gendered character of caring. Similarly, Doucet (2006), Lee and Lee (2018), and Solomon (2014) all report that taking responsibility for others profoundly changes men, who come to appreciate their ‘emotional sides’, value care work, and adopt perspectives traditionally espoused by women on the need for work–family balance.
Yet the significance of these developments in contemporary fathering remains undertheorized. A new wave of scholars suggests this is because the concept of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 1987; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005), though highly influential to critical studies of men and masculinity, overlooks the nuances of men’s experiences (Hanlon 2012; Seidler 2006). That is, conceptualizing masculinities as locked into power relations with each other “precludes a comprehensive understanding of the lived realities of men’s emotional lives” (Elliott 2016, 246) and “how men can change through processes of transforming masculinities in specific cultures, histories and traditions” (Seidler 2006, 12). Thus Elliott (2016) argues for a practice-based model of “caring masculinities,” in which the connection between doing care work and changing identities is attended to. Brandth and Kvande (2016) take up this call, and find that Norwegian men who take leave alone come to measure self-worth not in terms of the acquisition of status and resources, but against building an intimate relationship with one’s child and contributing love and security to their lives. What’s missing from their analysis, however, is greater attention to the relationship between social context and subjectivity. The authors suggest that “comparative studies on the conditions for developing caring masculinities” (2016, 17) are thus necessary.
Some theorists suggest that simply structuring men’s transition to parenthood in ways more similar to mothers’ is enough to condition men’s greater involvement (Gornick and Myers 2008; Rehel 2014; Risman 1986), but a handful of rich empirical studies make it clear that the broader organization of parenting is an overlooked, yet key, aspect to how responsibility is experienced and perceived. Although “men can mother” (Risman 1998, 46) and maternal thinking is something that fathers can develop (Coltrane 1989; Ruddick 1995), mothering and fathering must be recognized as distinct social experiences and institutions (Chesley 2011; Doucet 2006, 224; Hanlon 2012; McMahon 1995). Though gendered cultural expectations tend to render different aspects of parenting risky for men and women (Shirani, Henwood, and Coltart 2012), research shows caregiving can provide “moral verification” for men under certain circumstances (Doucet 2006, 206). Brandth and Kvande (2003) argue, for instance, that men who take leave alone develop an awareness and appreciation of the importance of spending quality or “slow time” with children in order to get to know them and understand their needs. For men who share leave, on the other hand, it is mothers who read and translate the child’s needs for the father (75). It is in the context of a break with mother’s mediation that the father’s self-definition as a capable, independent, or primary caregiver emerges, putting previous gender roles in question, in particular the idea that the mother is the natural caregiver (Wall 2014, 207). These findings are supported by research on the emergence of a “caring consciousness” in post-divorce fathers no longer able to rely on a spouse to manage caregiving (Philip 2014). And Solomon (2014) finds that over time, engaging in family work can be a source of pride, rather than shame, for stay-at-home fathers who come to see their role as supporting their wives’ successful careers.
Given that there remains scant research into what fathers do as primary parents (Brandth and Kvande 2016; Wall 2014) and even less about how men make sense of their caregiving, studying parental leave is an especially rich site for adding to this body of literature. Bringing to light the different parenting practices and understandings that emerge when conventional resources and enactments of masculinity are suspended—but not severed—has wider applicability than concentrating on men who have completely given up their breadwinner identities. The current study thus considers whether and when men who spend limited time with baby take on or even embrace maternal roles or tasks, as well as when and how men’s leave-taking can disrupt inequality within families and beyond.
Data and Methods
As part of a larger project examining fathers’ leave-taking, I conducted interviews in 2014 with 33 Canadian couples in which men took at least six weeks of statutory parental leave under the Employment Insurance (EI) program. Provided they have worked a minimum of 600 hours in the year proceeding their claim, this plan entitles biological mothers to 15 weeks of paid leave, with a further 35 available to either parent, remunerated at 55 percent of previous salary (to a maximum yearly payout of $26,730 in 2014). Participants were recruited through postings on neighborhood groups on Facebook and online discussion (parenting-related and more general) forums with a high presence of southern Ontarians. In order to participate, fathers had to be cohabiting with their partners, willing to participate in a joint interview, and have taken EI parental leave for at least six weeks within the last three years. This was selected as the minimum time at home in order to narrow down the sample to fathers who were home beyond the initial stress and chaos of the post-birth period to when parenting styles and routines begin to develop.
The resulting sample consisted of 31 heterosexual married and two common-law couples living within an hour of Toronto. The majority of couples were firmly in the upper-middle class based on occupation, income, and education levels. Household incomes ranged from $50,000 to $260,000, with an average combined salary of $163,000. This includes two single-income families where the men were currently stay-at-home fathers. The rest of the couples in this study were dual earners, with women and men each being primary bread-winners in nine families, defined here as earning at least 60 percent more than their spouses (Tichenor 1999). Those with lower education levels were found almost exclusively amongst the lower earners. One father had only a high-school degree, three of the men and one of the women had attempted some post-secondary, and another three men and one woman had received their college diplomas. Nine of the men and 13 of the women had bachelor’s degrees, and 17 of the men and 18 of the women had graduate or professional-school degrees. The average age for men and women in this study was 36. Finally, seven participants were visible minorities and the remainder were Caucasian.
Table 1 displays the characteristics of fathers’ leaves. Twenty-three of the fathers took leave as solo caregivers, while 10 were on leave with their spouse. Leaves of between three to six months were by far the most common (n = 23) amongst participants, 19 of whom spent their time as solo caregivers. Men who took shorter or longer leaves than this were distinguished from the rest of the sample by either a disinterest from one or both spouses in sharing the time, or a wife who was ineligible for leave-taking, respectively.
Fathers’ length of leave.
Couples participated in a joint interview lasting approximately two hours, usually in their homes. Interviews were semi-structured, based on a schedule of 50 to 60 open-ended questions about the decision to share leave, their time at home, and ideas about parenting. During this time, couples also completed an interactive survey in which they jointly assessed how a selection of physical tasks and mental responsibilities—capturing the less-visible work of planning, managing, and worrying (Doucet 2009, 2015; Walzer 1998)—were allocated between them before and after having children (see Doucet 2001). I refer to the sum total of this work required to meet baby’s needs as parenting throughout this article, and it was performed by mothers and fathers alike. Rather than simply tallying either spouse’s time commitment to housework or childcare, the interactive methods approximate the conditions of daily family life by providing a context for joint meaning-making between spouses. Follow-up interviews lasting 45 to 90 minutes were also conducted with the men three to four weeks later to elaborate on these topics, as well as anything else they may not have wanted to discuss with their spouse present. The data upon which this article is based draws from fathers’ personal accounts of their time on leave as well as the interactively constituted narratives of family life that emerged from the couple interviews.
All interviews were audiotaped with participants’ permission and later transcribed. Following recommendations in Kvale (1996), transcription did not include every pause or verbal mannerism, but was otherwise verbatim. Interviews were manually coded and analyzed following the principles of grounded theory and ‘theoretical saturation’ originally outlined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in which researchers attend closely to what happens in the empirical world in order to develop theoretical analysis by employing a comparative, systematic, inductive method. Initial analysis involved immersing myself in the data and developing a series of open codes reflecting the themes that emerged repeatedly as I read through the transcripts line by line. Through constant comparison and interrogating the data with analytic questions (Charmaz 2012), these initial codes were methodically raised to the more focused categories of analysis discussed here. Although the themes I present align closely with Elliot’s (2016) conceptualization of “caring masculinities,” I became familiar with her work only after conducting my data collection and initial analysis. From the beginning, I was struck by how moved participants were by the experience of parental leave—practically, emotionally, and cognitively. In the latter stages, my analysis of this data gained theoretical purchase from Elliot (2016) and other theorists in critical studies of men and masculinity (Connel 2005; Hanlon 2012; Meuser 2004), although I employed a careful process of memo writing throughout to ensure that the arguments presented in this article are grounded in participants’ understandings and experiences.
Findings
All men in this study discussed how taking parental leave enabled them to learn the skills of childcare and connect emotionally with baby. Participants differed, however, when it came to their degree of engagement. Only fathers who regularly and independently managed routine, hands-on caregiving and the mental work this entailed—what I refer to as “deep” immersion in parenting throughout this paper—developed a sense of commitment to, and responsibility for, their child. The more changed fathers felt by the experience of caregiving, the more parenting was likely to be incorporated into their identities. Yet participants still had to engage with broader cultural forces: Even if enacting parental leave much like women, fathers recognized that they were given more leeway than mothers. The gendered context of parenting could, however, put men at risk for being off work. Feeling scrutinized depended on how participants negotiated with ideals of conventional masculinity. Both this cognitive, and the more practical, experience of fathers’ parental leave are discussed in detail below.
Fathers’ Experience of Parental Leave: Coasting vs. Swimming
The most common narrative of leave-taking in this study was of being thrown in at the deep end. Parental leave was presented as a daunting and intense, but valued, opportunity to learn caregiving under pressure that could not be fully experienced on evenings and weekends only. As one father put it: “When you are changing newborn diapers every hour or two you get better at it and you figure out very quickly what’s going on.” Being at home expedited the process of getting their heads above water, but was also conceived by some as a critical occasion for fathers to develop emotional bonds with baby, in contrast to the essential connection they felt infants had or would develop to their mothers. As one participant explained: “It’s not the same type of natural attachment to the father, so fostering that kind of connection is maybe even more important.” Another surmised that “I’m not sure that had I not taken it I wouldn’t still feel isolated to a certain extent.”
Alternatively, the concept of bonding was used by other participants to capture the way leave-taking steered them to “get more into” parenting, not just in terms of an emotional closeness, but developing a sense of commitment to, and responsibility for, their child. One father suggested that he is “a little more invested in a sense” and another believed that he has “a proportionately stronger engagement to my kids” as result of leave-taking. A third reported he “came out of it feeling like I could be involved in taking care of him from head to toe, from beginning to end.” This is where important differences arose amongst participants: Feelings of competency and ownership developed only if the men were left to sink or swim because they had to regularly manage routine childcare without a mother’s oversight. Whereas solo leave-takers differed in the amount of autonomy they exercised over the schedules, with some doing activities specified by their spouse and others developing their own routines, what they had in common was being unable to rely on anyone else to take stock of baby’s needs and respond to them over prolonged periods of time. As one participant put it: “One thing that doesn’t happen if you’re home by yourself is, you know, your wife isn’t going to make the decisions, obviously.” It was within the context of deep immersion into parenting that demanded from fathers the cognizance and confidence to act independently and with an eye towards accountability, that gendered family roles were challenged: Sascha: Because you’re put into the mother role, or what was traditionally a mother role, you take on those—even if you’re not raised that way you suddenly—it’s there. So you learn how to do it and you become nurturing. You learn how to change diapers and do all those kind of things because that’s what you’re doing. [9-month solo leave]
Last, the ‘tag-teamers’ came closest to the experience of solo leave-takers due to multiple children or shift work, which meant dad was a lone caregiver for designated periods of time: Kurt: There were times where if Kim was out doing one of her classes, like working, then I would have to be the primary caregiver for both kids. But then, I would kind of get some slack, especially early on in the summer when I think, when Kyle was first born. Like I would go out a couple of mornings a week and play tennis with a buddy, and then it would kind of just balance out. [9-month shared leave] Rina: We decided it was like firefighters, you know, five on five off, that’s how. So what would happen is for five days, say Monday to Friday, I would do six to eleven and that was my time with the baby. And he was free to sleep in, go for a jog, go to Starbucks, do whatever you want with your life for those five hours, and then vice versa. [Husband took 5-month shared leave] When I was off with my daughter and I was on my own, it was a whole other world. I didn’t have that extra help. That’s when I realized that it’s taxing, extremely taxing. And I didn’t get the same feeling when I was off with my wife. So it’s that dads who share the leave are not getting the same experience at all. It’s not, you can’t even compare it. I think that if I didn’t take the time off with my daughter, I would’ve had a skewed opinion. If I only had done the joint parental leave, I wouldn’t have realized how difficult it really is.
The sense of encumbrance from having a helpless child reliant on one’s care is palpable in these quotes, but the men did not feel overcome by the job. Like mothers, those with prolonged primary responsibility developed a “need-oriented care practice” (Brandth and Kvande 2016) in which fathers learned to respond conscientiously to the unmitigated demands of their child: Daniel: Draining, just leaving the house—how long it takes you to get the kid dressed, just being out and what you’ve got to bring and plan for in terms of ‘right, I need a bib, I need spoons, I need this.’ Normally Dara just packed up the diaper bag and I never knew what she was taking. That was probably the hardest part—just planning out what I needed to do for the day and what I needed to take. [3.5-month solo leave] Sascha: One of the things I, ‘enjoy’ isn’t the right word, but just felt when you’re with him, is you’re bonding and everything, but you’re still also responsible. Like even giving a bath—knowing how that really works, and getting him dry fast enough and getting him all ready so that he’s happy through the whole process. [9-month solo leave] James: You always felt like you were getting ready for the next thing. Get breakfast ready, feed him, clean him, change him, get him ready for a nap, put him down. Then let’s go, get up. And it’s just, especially at that age—it was just a year, but still—they’re barely eating solids, they still need a lot of milk and formula. So it was just, get the formula ready. Get this ready. Oh, got to boil the water. Like you had to do all that stuff. It just felt like I was playing catch-up the entire time. [1.5-month solo leave]
Making Sense of Parental Leave: Morality and Masculinity
Clearly men can parent in ways quite similar to women when that is required of them (Chesley 2011; Doucet 2006; Risman 1986). Considering the “moral dimension” of caregiving, which captures how individuals feel they should act and think others will view these actions, however, reveals persistent gender differences (Doucet 2006; Shirani, Henwood, and Coltart 2012). Few, if any, participants exhibited anxiety over what they should be doing or feeling as parents—the hallmark of intensive mothering (Hays 1996; Wall 2010). The men were confident in their caregiving because they felt the requirements were minimal. One father reported that he was “pretty sure I would be able to keep him alive” and another said, “The needs are not that big. Feed her, make sure she sleeps, make sure she’s clean.” Despite first glance, these men are not trivializing the amount of work that goes into caring for a new baby, but articulating moral parenting identities. “Good” fathering was nothing more—or less—than ensuring that the child was content and the basic necessities of life were met. Participants were aware, however, of different standards for moms: Simon: I would get it more from old ladies. Like, “oh, what a good dad” sort of stuff. Yeah, actually those annoyed me because if I’m the good dad, there’s a very low bar for good dad. It’s like I, you show up, you get called a good dad. [4.5-month solo leave] Reuben: People would take pity upon me more because I was a useless dumb father. Like that would be really kind of what you felt. People would kind of show some sort of empathy in their faces as opposed to a judgmental head shake. [5-month solo leave] Paul: That was one way in which it was much easier to be the man I think. Cause people thought it was miraculous that the baby was still alive. And baby was clean. That was basically the standard by which people thought, so, if I met that…and they just didn’t really judge me anyways because they thought it was so great that I was doing this at all. Whereas, like I’d go to the pediatrician and see these women compete about how many teeth they [babies] had. I actually overheard a conversation where, “Oh he’s got seven teeth.” “Well he doesn’t have any teeth, but he can chew steak with these gums!” Like have you people lost your minds? [4-month solo leave] James: When I took Joey to daycare that first week, I hated it. It was the worst week of my life. When I dropped him off he cried the entire time and he cried when I picked him up for the first three days, and I was devastated; devastated for those three days. I made [my wife] take [second child] to daycare. [1.5-month solo leave] Richard: I had a really tough time just not being with him. And the first day I dropped him off at daycare for a trial, like I dropped him off for two hours, I went down to the beach and just stared at the water, blinking back tears. [8.5-month solo leave] Dylan Austen: I think if I had to define it, it made me feel more masculine. We’re not going by the traditional sense of fatherhood, I guess. The sort of fifties dad is more standoffish and all that. I think that dads who are more involved are more, I like to think are more masculine, that you can give of oneself in that way. [4.5-month solo leave]
What was notably absent from this sample were narratives of “failed masculinity” (Doucet 2006; Miller 2010). Although participants did encounter similar confusion and teasing by relatives, coworkers, and “the metaphoric lady at the grocery store” reported by stay-at-home dads (Doucet 2006, 184; Solomon 2014), it became clear that the majority had access to a resource that protected their sense of self—a job or career they would be returning to. The significance of employment was illuminated by the way fathers spoke about not working: Simon: I don’t think people were judging me. If they were, I wasn’t really paying attention. It’s not, I was pretty happy to be on pat leave, so it wasn’t…. If I was unemployed and looking after a kid because I couldn’t find a job, I’m sure I would feel a different perception. But no, not under the circumstances. [4.5-month solo leave] Scott: I used to look and think, oh, he’s been stuck with the kids, or he’s off work or he’s out of work, or whatever bundle of thoughts about a guy who’s stuck doing the groceries with his children. But now I know well that he can be fully employed and still want to take the kid out and do the groceries. [6-month solo leave] Ethan: I would go to environments that I did feel comfortable in, [chain wholesale or hardware stores], places where I was a guy. I wasn’t going to the baby stuff…. In swim [class] I’d think about that, like “geez, I’m here with all these moms. What the hell are they thinking, that I’m kind of a deadbeat guy?” [6-month solo leave] Greg: I don’t know if it was me, but it was always there. Like if I was walking down the street where someone’s going to think, “Why are you with this child?” [3-month solo leave] Len: One day I was at a light and there was three nannies beside me and they were just looking at me, looking at the baby, and I said: “What, you’ve never seen a ‘manny’ before?” They were laughing, but I had to make light of it. It’s awkward because you know they’re thinking, “Why is this guy with a baby?” [9-month solo leave] Scott: I think Canadians will be like, “Oh, that’s great, that’s great,” but really on the inside it grates on them. They think that you’re soft, that you’re taking advantage, and that comes out in different ways. [I explained] that this was a paid leave and I wasn’t just…yeah, but that made me feel even more spoiled. [6-month solo leave] Simon: Working as a government lawyer, you feel the need generally to justify why you’re not working in…so it wasn’t any different when I was on pat leave. You don’t actually feel it, but you know, the idea. If anyone’s judging you for anything, it’s “Why are you not a [financial district] lawyer?” [4.5-month solo leave]
A third small group of men had lower earnings or lesser career status, but managed gendered expectations by eschewing conventional norms. Proclaiming that they are not “the stereotypical male” or “what people consider manly” with reference to a disinterest in sports or machismo, these ‘unfazed’ men had already come to terms with having ‘failed’ at hegemonic masculinity before having children. They were at ease being on leave because it did not present a challenge to their sense of self. As one father put it: “I’ve embraced that, so, it’s, I mean there was a while, you know, when I was younger, that bothered me. Now I’m proud to be the geek dad…it doesn’t bother me at all. You get the occasional doubt every now and then but it’s fleeting.”
Being ambivalent or unfazed, however, were exceptions to the rule. The majority’s comfort confirms that a strong foothold in their working life may be a precondition for feeling good about being on leave (Brandth and Kvande, 1998) and being actively involved in infant care (Fox, 2009). The current study finds, however, that it was not father’s actual earnings or job status that shaped how they experienced leave-taking. It was a perceived lack of masculine resources—“social status acquired through being a family provider, especially in high income or status professions” (Doucet 2006, 203)—that some participants could not square with caregiving. Although nurturing one’s child was not in any way seen as un-masculine, with earning still very much tied to cultural definitions of manhood (Holter 2007; Townsend 2002), being off-work while doing so engendered feelings of wrong-doing amongst those who were already uncertain about their moral identities as men.
Conclusion
With little existing research on the actual experience of fathers’ parental leave (Brandth and Kvande 2016), it is important to understand men’s day-to-day caregiving reality and how this time with baby may be personally and socially transformative. Hearing from men about what it was like being at home with an infant reveals the significance of both the content and the context of their leave-taking to this process. First, although most fathers in this study discussed with detail and enthusiasm how taking parental leave enabled them to learn and enact the mental and physical work required to meet baby’s needs—what I have referred to as parenting through this article—only those who were “deeply immersed” in routine caregiving articulated a sense of ownership over their child’s care that could unsettle typically gendered family roles. In contrast, fathers who shared leave were able to rely on their wives to act as primary parent and were thus insulated from the weight of full responsibility, which was experienced by solo leave-takers as a lack of autonomy and unremitting “thinking about the baby” (Walzer 1998). This kind of attentive childcare, though, and perhaps because, incredibly demanding could be transformative for the men; for many, nurturing became a source of honor and pride. This explains the emphasis many participants placed on quantifying the amount of time required to produce this distinct change to their parenting, with estimates ranging from one to four months.
Like the work of Brandth and Kvande (2016), this study confirms the significance of being deeply immersed in parenting to the development of caring masculinities. Yet it also brings to light the ways in which fathers’ caregiving occurs and is experienced in a cultural context distinct from the more intensive one mothers confront. As a result, participants admittedly did not feel like mothers, even when they felt changed by the experience. This was not because the men were determined to “distinguish themselves as men, as heterosexual males and as fathers, not as mothers” (Doucet, 2006, 196, emphasis in original). For some it was because they believed mothers had a unique and essential connection to baby that as fathers they could never possess—an ideal that went unchallenged if the men never became self-sufficient parents. More commonly, however, it was because participants were held to gendered standards by their social contexts. That is, despite being fully engaged in routine parenting, as fathers they were exempted from cultural pressures to parent the “right way” that mothers face but celebrated just for spending time with baby. These findings support mothering and fathering as distinct social experiences and institutions (Chesley 2011; Doucet 2006, 224; Hanlon 2012; McMahon 1995). Yet I found low standards for men’s care may have also contributed to the ease with which many participants integrated caregiving into their self. It was only because a handful of fathers were uneasy about their time at home, however, that the majority’s confidence became recognizable as identity-building. Moved by the experience of parenting, participants fit caregiving into conventional masculinity (Lomas 2013), or broadened notions of manhood to integrate the values and practices of care (Elliott 2016), but only because their masculinity was never on the line (Morgan 1992). In contrast, those who were uncertain about meeting internalized cultural standards of manliness seemed unable to feel unreservedly good about their time spent caregiving. Nurturing was therefore something fathers could invest a new sense of self in only when the rewards of parenting were felt acutely and the risk to one’s sense of self was perceived as low. Thus, whereas Elliott (2016) suggests that the potential for men’s caregiving lies in the rejection of domination and non-conformance to expected masculine roles, this study finds that this is unlikely without a secure connection to hegemonic masculinity.
Although the institution of fatherhood may not have yet undergone a radical transformation, it is noteworthy that some men are negotiating the bumpy terrain of changing gender norms and practices. The relevance of class and significance of employment as a resource of masculinity, however, must be theorized. Without putting one’s career in jeopardy, taking parental leave enabled ‘accomplished’ fathers to experience deep immersion into daily caregiving. In doing so, many were moved to incorporate parenting into their self-concepts alongside their roles as earners. This was a privileged position to occupy; it suggests exposure to contemporary middle-class discourses of involved fathering and the resources, such as employer top-ups and eligibility for EI, to enact this ideal. Yet not all participants felt able to invest in caregiving. Parental leave only exacerbated feelings of insecurity for dads that were ‘ambivalent’ about their career success. Although there was no significant difference in relation to education, income, or occupation between these two groups, there was a sense amongst the ‘ambivalent’ dads that they were not fulfilling their masculine potential. As a result, these men seemed unable to ground their self-concepts in earning or caregiving. Yet other fathers, including some who worked in low income or status jobs or were not earning as stay-at-home parents, were ‘unfazed’ by their distance from masculine ideals. Having already accepted their “failure,” anchoring one’s identity in caregiving presented no risk to these men’s moral selves. Conceptions of, and attachments to, masculinity were clearly far from monolithic in this study. For the majority, however, middle-class resources provided the firm grip on masculinity needed to cross conventional gender boundaries (see also Doucet 2006; Thorne 1993).
The temporary nature of fathers’ time off work may limit the potential for more radical change because leave-taking does not necessarily disrupt hegemonic masculinity for the men who do it, nor change gendered divisions of work and care in the family in the long term. Nevertheless, if we accept that gender is an “ongoing emergent aspect of social interaction” (Deutsch 2007, 107; West and Zimmerman 1987), then fathers’ everyday struggles to balance work and family must be understood as a “constitutive part of a wider societal process, involving slow changes both in consciousness and in practice” (Ranson, 2012; Sullivan 2004, 219). This study set out to examine the transformative potential of hands-on caring in relation to the lived, affective lives of men who take parental leave, and confirms that the greater involvement, especially as solo caregivers, that fathers have in the early weeks and months of parenthood, the more likely they are to feel personally moved by the experience and ultimately incorporate the values and practices of care into their identities (Elliot 2016; Lomas 2013). When men come to be practiced in, and feel accountable for, their parenting they become, and see themselves, as equal and active caregivers, but only if they have the confidence to do so. As much as men are challenging conventional family arrangements by taking parental leave, the strong grip on manhood required for most to feel comfortable as nurturers makes it clear that parenting is very much a moral endeavor, embedded with gendered and classed expectations about men and women’s proper roles. Nevertheless, leave-taking is an important way that cultural configurations of acceptable masculinity can be reshaped. Whereas only a small group of fathers could embrace caregiving without feeling secure in their manhood, it represented an important liminal period in which men with stronger ties to conventional masculinity could ‘test the waters’ of hands-on caregiving and develop a more personal and less gendered stake in parenting—all without threatening their sense of self. Although these findings may represent a uniquely upper-middle class approach to father involvement given the sampling of this study, over time, it increases the social visibility of men as caregivers, contributes to loosening gender roles, and may ultimately mean nurturing becomes a less threatening endeavor for all men.
Footnotes
Authors Note
I am grateful to the couples who let me into their homes and their lives in order to understand how fathers use and make sense of parental leave in Canada. I am especially indebted to Bonnie Fox for her advice and guidance on this article and throughout my time at the University of Toronto, and to Judith Taylor and Josée Johnston and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this article.
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.