Fathers’ Views on Their Financial Situations,Father–Child Activities,and Preventing Child Injuries

Finances Not Limiting

Eight participants suggested that their finances did not pose concern and these men generally felt they could afford to do what they wanted with their children. Seven of the fathers reported an annual household income level of more than CAD$60,000, and one between $30,000 and $59,000. One 43-year-old, self-employed, married father of three children expressed feeling fortunate that he had the means to do the things he wanted with his children:

Yes, it’s great . . . we’re very lucky. . . . I have a business that allows me to take time off when I need to. . . . I can go and get the kids . . . take them to skating or . . . do this . . . do that, it’s no issue, we’re very lucky that way. . . . I mean they could do anything they want . . . it’s just kind of exposing them to stuff and seeing what they like to do.

This excerpt highlights his financial resources and flexible work schedule that he mobilized toward his ideals of contemporary fathering, prioritizing being involved with his children and providing them with opportunities. Evident were also traditional masculine ideals of autonomy and self-reliance. Yet masculine hierarchies are implicit here by virtue of the participant’s concession that he (relative to other men and families) is able to share his good fortune to afford his children choice.

Similarly, a 50-year-old self-employed consultant in the resource sector who was married with three children, expressed how finances were not problematic for him: “in terms of basic needs or whatever, if we need it then we just go get it . . . it’s not that big of an issue.” In both these examples, fathers were self-employed, and emphasized their capacity to be the sole family breadwinner and the purchasing power that afforded them. Within the context of involved fathering was evident the men’s comfort at being able to fulfill more traditional breadwinner and provider roles.

A divorced 31-year-old father had primary custody of his two children; his ex-partner lived in another city, regularly visiting the children. He felt fortunate to have significant assistance from his ex-partner’s family, including child care that coincided with his irregular work schedule. This outside help along with full-time employment in the transportation sector allowed him, despite being a single father, to be an effective financial provider to his children:

I mean just with the divorce, it’s been a little tougher trying to manage . . . but because it’s at the tail end of [the divorce], no it’s not an issue. I find that the first thing they want to do, we just go and do it.

These examples indicate that for a number of the fathers, income issues were not seen as constraining despite holding the position of sole financial provider. Their professional and resource sector occupations provided them with stable income and allowed them to engage with their children in financially nonconstrained ways.

Financial Constraint Framed as Parenting Choice

Some fathers described how their finances posed moderate constraints. The household income levels reported by the three fathers in this group were in the range of CAD$30,000 to $59,000. Although these fathers described some financial hardship, they tended not to speak directly of a lack of resources preventing them from being able to do things with their children. Rather, they framed their financial status in terms of choice and control over making the necessary adjustments to their children’s activities. For example, one 34-year-old divorced father with three children working as a clerk in a small, rural center affirmed that his current financial situation was “definitely an issue. No doubt, in everything. . . . So, I don’t think its necessarily sacrificing activities, we’re just changing them.” Men also framed their financial limitations as deliberate choices based on philosophies about parenting, for example, their desire to have one parent stay at home with their children. As one 28-year-old carpenter with three children and a wife who stayed at home mentioned:

We’re not people motivated by the dollar, we think it’s worth it in these first few years; it’s worth a million dollars to have a stay-at-home parent for the first five years.

Drawing on similar philosophies another couple, both teachers with boys aged 1 and 3 years old had decided that the mother would not work but rather stay home with their children. Their reduced income was framed by the 32-year-old father as a deliberate choice that reflected their priorities:

So we’re making ends meet with me just going to work and my wife being here at home and that’s what we feel our priority is and we’re glad we have that ability . . . we’re happy with our choice and we know it limits us in other things but we’re okay with that.

Thus, fathers living with moderate financial difficulty framed their situations in terms of parental choices about childrearing as serving the best interest of the child and worthwhile in terms of sacrificing the higher levels of family income. For some, this reflected an adherence to a more traditional pattern of the father in a breadwinner role, with an acknowledgement of the financial challenges associated with having only one financial provider for the family.

Experiences of More Severe Constraint

Four fathers expressed living in situations with more severe levels of financial constraint. These fathers reported having annual household incomes ranging from less than CAD$15,000 to between CAD$30,000 to $59,000. One father reported that he was living on income assistance, while the occupations of two others included modest paid jobs in the automotive and transportation sectors, and one participant who was waiting to begin a new out-of-town resource sector job. The hardship experienced by these fathers was expressed in different ways. One single 48-year-old father who was the main caregiver to six children described how his limited capacity to earn a full-time wage affected the things he was able to do with his children:

I’m in a bit of a special boat. I can’t work full-time, sometimes I can’t work even part-time. . . . Most things that I want to do I can’t do.

His ex-partner had a severe mental illness and was able to visit the children but unable to help care for them. His primary caregiver role allowed him only part-time, irregular work in the transportation sector. He expressed both financial and time-related constraints on the kinds of activities that his children were able to do.

A 32-year-old, married father of two children who worked two jobs while his wife also worked part-time noted that his financial situation “somewhat” curtailed the things he would like to do with his children. He described his efforts to make ends meet and how time limitations also came into play:

The fact that I have to work a second part-time job, actually almost sometimes almost full-time. Then, in order to make ends meet means that we may have less time for shuttling them around to their activities.

This father also spoke of how accessing financial assistance, despite its limitations, helped make some of his children’s activities more affordable:

When there is something the kids do like dance or figure skating, those things all cost money. Now there are subsidies, for some of those things you can get grants and whatnot. So that kind of alleviates that, but definitely, like ‘hey, there’s a soccer camp coming to town, oh, it’s a hundred and fifty bucks per kid,′ well, you know.

Another 34-year-old, married father of four children who was a single income earner spoke of currently waiting to start a new job out of town in the resource sector. This change came about because of a lack of local work to keep his contractor business viable. In considering whether his financial situation allowed him to do the kinds of things he would like with his kids, he responded that “typically it does, but at this point it doesn’t because our work is so depressed.” He saw his current year as “atypical” and described how it affected his family’s activities:

I’d like to get out skiing a little bit more and I’d like to start snow shoeing with at least [daughter] because she’s old enough, but as of right now, we can’t do those things . . . we’re kind of taking care of what we need to take care of . . . everything is getting kind of pushed back for activities, but in a typical year, we try and get out and do more.

While their actual income levels were comparable to those fathers expressing more moderate constraint, these fathers described more severe constraint amid the challenges of having to work multiple jobs, or relocate because of a lack of work—situations that limited or entirely halted any “extras” such family activities or recreational pursuits. As a group, they did not position their reduced income in terms of choices but rather due to changes imposed from external forces such as economic downturns, which reduced their paid work opportunities. For men whose primary role was strongly aligned with breadwinner status and having economic power to purchase goods such as children’s activities, these external challenges could affect their ability to adhere to both masculine and contemporary fathering ideals.

Purchasing Power to Optimize Childhood Safety

Among fathers who saw themselves as unconstrained, some described the importance of supervising their young children. However, most placed emphasis on how safety equipment and material goods were useful to help prevent injuries. For example, a 43-year-old, self-employed father, who ran a local business, described how he and his family enjoyed nearby recreational activities such as skiing in winter and boating in summer. He described his ability to purchase needed safety equipment for his children’s recreational pursuits while recognizing that it might not be so easy for other families to do so:

His account emphasized aspects of quality, comfort, and aesthetics of the safety equipment he purchased for his children. This aspect was also mentioned by a 31-year-old single father of two boys (aged 3 and 4 years), who enjoyed cycling with his children. He mentioned the importance of buying high-quality equipment that he saw as more effective in preventing injury amid reflecting on how his well-paid job allowed him to do so:

I make a good enough wage that when I bought them helmets, I shop at [name of store], that’s where I buy all my bike stuff and it’s not cheap, right? . . . Instead of buying the 15 dollar one, I might have spent 28 dollars on a helmet, but then I know its adjusted perfectly. . . . I would never cheap out on that kind of stuff, it just doesn’t make sense . . . especially safety equipment, a lot of it is designed to take that impact and you’d want something that hasn’t been beat up because they have a shelf life, right? . . . It’s not worth a brain injury, so why wouldn’t I do everything that I can, having the economics to do that is quite helpful. . . . I’m thankful that I just don’t have to question it, I just do it.

These fathers conveyed how they associated keeping their children safe from injury with being able to provide for them through the purchase of high-quality consumer products perceived as functional and appealing. The fathers’ interviews reflected their alignment to ideals of hegemonic masculinity related to being a good provider and protector amid signaling a more affluent, middle-class lifestyle. The provider role was reflected in fathers’ descriptions of purchasing high-quality goods and taking advantage of recreational opportunities in the community. Thus, in these dad’s accounts of how their financial situations related to injury prevention strategies, hegemonic masculine ideals were reflected in how they portrayed themselves and their children (both boys and girls) as action-oriented, recreation seekers. While in more rural settings such recreational opportunities could be seen as typical and affordable activities, the descriptions of well-resourced fathers reflected a focus on not just the functional aspects of equipment but also on comfort and aesthetic appeal. These extensions reflected linkages between consumerism and the male provider role with purchases of higher end consumer products allowing fathers to express alignment to hegemonic masculine ideals.

Practices reflecting the protector role were also evident in the fathers’ description of being able to provide gear and safety equipment as part of recreational pursuits. Participants talked about qualities of safety-related equipment that related to the effectiveness of equipment to prevent children’s injuries such as the need for a helmet to be able to take an impact and prevent head injuries. Furthermore, these fathers’ could afford the time to engage in the protector role during recreational activities, for example, being “out on the boat all day” or bike riding. In spending this time with their children, fathers also had opportunities to engage in other safety-related interactions with children such as teaching or supervision.

Therefore, those fathers with better resourced financial situations reflected hegemonic masculine ideals of both provider and protector. Engaging in safety practices such as purchasing high-quality safety equipment for the pursuit of high-end recreational activities with their children afforded them opportunities to express their protective practices. At the same time, fathers also drew purchase on masculine provider ideals through their safety related consumer preferences and buying power.

Safety Practices as a Means to Display Resourcefulness and Accept Economic Vulnerabilities

For some fathers with moderate financial constraints, the need to manage limited household finances influenced their strategies for preventing children’s injuries. One father positioned his constrained finances as affecting other aspects of his family’s life, but not the children’s safety. He explained that although they were “making ends meet,” they did experience limitations in the things they could do as a family, but he also emphasized how he managed his finances such that the purchase of safety related material items held priority:

I wouldn’t say it [financial circumstances] would hinder it because I think the safety things would be more priority than other things . . . for example, my wife wanted me to get one of those chain locks for our front door because our oldest son has figured out how to unlock it and open the door . . . so something like that we don’t feel the pressure of finances to hinder us from buying that . . . and we’re going out to the lake this afternoon and we don’t have a life jacket for our older one so we’re going to stop at [store] and pick one up for him before we go . . . so I wouldn’t say finances is a hindrance to getting the safety things we need for our boys. (Father, 32 years old, two children)

Evident in this father’s response to financial constraints is his alignment with masculine ideals of provider and protector. He positions himself as the sole income earner, an active seeker of recreational opportunities for his children (a signifier of dominant masculinity in this cultural context), and as action oriented in his explanations of setting priorities and strategizing to manage the family financial situation amid protecting his boys’ well-being. Thus, he understands himself as being in control of the situation and emphasizes the role of personal choice in being able to manage finances in a strategic way.

Other fathers also positioned themselves as actively taking charge of their situations and placing priority on their children’s needs. For example, one father focused on the benefits of having a stay at home parent for their children and emphasized the value of spending time coaching or teaching his children about safety:

I don’t think my economic situation at all hinders their danger level. If I was working all the time I wouldn’t be able to spend time coaching them then that would be a hindrance. We have been able to offer the kids at least one stay at home parent all these years and that’s been a huge priority. . . . I don’t care how much money I put in their college fund, its more worth it for their betterment as people in society to have somebody at home. So, I think that relates to their safety in every facet of their exercise and activities. (Father, 28 years, three children)

He also noted how he and his wife were “very much open to used goods or hand me downs.” While he maintained that he would “use judgment” and never “buy junk,” he also acknowledged that these items could “potentially have a fault in them”’ or have “something that’s totally unsafe and has been recalled and I don’t know about it.” His fathering and child safety practices in the context of constrained finances revealed implicit resistance to the values assigned to money versus human connection. His focus on child-centered safety strategies that included teaching and coaching was also evident. He also favored used sports and safety equipment, despite the possibility they might be less than perfect condition and expressed his willingness to use extended family resources and hand-me downs. These orientations with a focus on teaching and coaching, a disregard for materialism, and a willingness to acknowledge and work with financial constraints reflected adherence to some dominant masculine ideals but not others. This father’s explanations showed a resistance to dominant discourses around affluence and consumerism, evident through his explicit assertions that child safety was achievable through diligent fathering rather than limitless financial resources.

Resisting and Accepting Marginalized Economic Situations

Several fathers spoke of experiencing severe levels of financial constraint; however, they asserted that these challenges did not encumber their strategies to promote their children’s safety. In fact, some viewed having a low income level as protective and keeping their children safer. As a single, 48-year-old father of six children suggested “where we live, it’s safer to be broke,” explaining,

Because you can’t afford going somewhere or doing something that may present a danger . . . or you don’t join the skidoo club . . . you just don’t have those machines.

One 32-year-old father of a 2-year-old child, who was living in the home of one of his parents, also objected to the idea of child injuries being linked to low income levels:

I’ve been on income assistance now since [son] was born . . . and I don’t think that has anything to do with it at all. . . . I mean the economics, it’s up to the individual parent, I think keeping your child safe is, yeah, it doesn’t have nothing to do with money for sure . . . it’s about the actual parent.

While these participants acknowledged their marginalized breadwinner status, they refuted the idea that their fathering abilities might be compromised. This positioning can be understood as demonstrating the plurality of masculinities whereby specific characteristics of hegemonic masculinity are triaged while others are explicitly contested. In other words, participants aligned with fathering protector roles while distancing themselves from salary man ideals—especially as a means to an ends for keeping their children safe.

In contrast, two fathers described ways that they thought their significant financial constraints could affect their efforts to prevent children’s injuries. For one 34-year-old father of four children who due to job relocation would soon be away from his family for several weeks at a time considered the possible impacts on his children:

It might affect safety issues a little bit because it’s going to be more of a burden on my wife as to taking care of kids. Yeah, because she’s not going to be able to have her eyes on them as much just because she’ll be spread thinner.

A 32-year-old father of two children described the potential safety impacts of being financially constrained in his “ability to customize your living environment.” He felt that with more money “you could go out and buy whatever house and fit it up exactly the way you want.” He described how the last house that he and his partner had rented had a yard that ‘was not kid safe at all.” He explained how this then affected his safety efforts with his children:

So, we had to extensively have discussions about areas that “you can’t play in, that’s not safe” . . . whereas if we had the money just, you know, pick a house and build a fence.

While reflecting a more marginalized masculinity in their admissions of the influence of the constraints on child safety, linkages to masculine ideals were also made in the participants’ steadfast commitment to overcome these barriers. For example, both fathers emphasized the central importance of teaching children and discussing safety issues with them, tactics that can be understood as adhering to the protector role but in a manner reflecting a more interpersonal and involved fathering approach.