"It's almost like I have a job, but I don't get paid": fathers at home reconfiguring work, care, and masculinity

Fathering, Fall, 2004 by Andrea Doucet

A fifth critical point about masculinity relates to the much discussed concept of "hegemonic masculinity" (Coltrane, 1994; Connell, 1987, 1995, 2000; Kimmel, 1994; Messner, 1997). Traditionally it has been defined as "the most honored or desired" form of masculinity (Connell 2000, p. 10), one that usually aligns itself with traditional masculine qualities of "being strong, successful, capable, reliable, in control. That is (t)he hegemonic definition of manhood is a man in power, a man with power, and a man of power" (Kimmel, 1994, p. 125). Further, as Connell points out, hegemonic masculinity is perhaps most strongly identified "as the opposite of femininity" (Connell, 2000, p. 31). Other forms of masculinity, then, have come to be viewed as subordinated (especially gay masculinities), marginalized (exploited or oppressed groups such as ethnic minorities), and complicit masculinities (those organized around the complicit acceptance of what has come to be termed a "patriarchal dividend" (Connell, 1995, 2000).

While initial discussions of hegemonic masculinity were largely embraced within the community of scholars working on masculinity, the gaps between varied masculinities and between theory and practice have recently begun to emerge. Increased empirical and ethnographic studies of men's lives have shed light on the diverse ways that hegemonic, subordinated, and complicit masculinities can play out in the same setting. In particular, the issue of where caring and fathering fits into this spectrum is one that requires greater attention. Some authors have argued that fathers' caring practices are "adopted by the hegemonic form of masculinity" so that, rather than challenge hegemonic masculinity, caring becomes incorporated into it (Brandth & Kvande, 1998; Dryden, 1999). Others have recently argued that fathering and caring can be seen as complicit in that fathers can express support for equal parenting while also maintaining more traditional patterns of gender divisions of labor (see Plantin, Sven-Axel, & Kearney, 2003). Whatever the configuration of diverse masculinities, it is clear that "the interplay between hegemonic and subordinate masculinities suggests the experience of masculinity is far from uniform and that new ways of theorizing these differences need to be developed" (Hearn & Morgan, 1990, p. 11). Moreover, as indicated by Connell, research on these varied combinations of masculinities "is surely an empirical question, not one to be settled in advance by theory" (Connell, 2000, p. 23).

A key question, then, in empirical studies of fathers' lives is how their everyday caring practices confirm or challenge current theoretical understandings of masculinities. Given the continuing salience of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, it is thus worth asking whether or not fathers as carers exhibit subordinated, complicit or hegemonic masculinity. Furthermore, given that hegemonic masculinity is largely associated with the devaluation of the feminine while caring is often equated with feminine practice, what is the relationship between hegemonic masculinity and care? Does fathers' caregiving disrupt the smooth surfaces of hegemonic masculinity? In examining stay-at-home fathers' home-work balances, this question will be explored in this paper.