|
Halving It All: How Equally Shared Parenting Works
In the United States, a high proportion of women with small children have jobs outside
the home. Housework is no longer the big issue it was in 1963 when Betty Friedan wrote The
Feminine Mystique. It is now taken for granted that domestic partners can share housework,
fight over it, pay someone to do it, or ignore it without compromising their masculinity
or femininity. The question that has become salient in feminist research is the
feasibility of sharing child care equally between mothers and fathers.The goal is to get
beyond the woman taking the main responsibility for their children's welfare with the man
"helping," by doing only his assigned tasks. These studies take it for granted
that men can "mother"-be intimately involved with and concerned for their
children's emotional, intellectual, and physical well-being. They also assume that the
more hands-on care parents provide, the better for the children. Nannies, group
child-care, nursery schools, and kin are considered poor substitutes. There is a white,
middleclass, American bias here-upper-class families traditionally have relied on
professional nannies, governesses, and boarding schools, and working-class families on
grandmothers and aunts to bring up their children. Many European governments invest in
creches, nurseries, and early childhood all-day care, where the daily decisions about the
child are out of the parents' hands. In cultures where extended families are the norm,
husbands and wives do not parent alone, and are often overruled by senior family
members.There is also a heterosexist bias here-lesbian and gay parents have long split
domestic work and child care in a variety of ways, but they are rarely used for
comparison.
For heterosexual couples, the pressure to structure actively and consciously for
equally shared parenting counters the tacit assumption that the mother will do most of it
because she is better at it and gets more gratification from it than the father. Caring
for children, particularly infants and toddlers, goes to the heart of gender inequality
and sex differences. Bracketing the arguments for or against the biological,
psychological, or sociological sources of women's and men's nurturance and relational
capabilities, books that lay out the processes by which parenting can be shared equally
are written to show that family life can be structured so that both parents can be
"primary parents." Whether describing one family or grouping the input from
interviews and observations of a sample of families, these are, in a sense, "how
to" books for heterosexual, gender-egalitarian women and men.
Francine M. Deutsch's Halving ItAll (a superb title, for which Deutsch credits her
husband), is just such a book, as indicated by the subtitle: How Equally Shared Parenting
Works. It is based on lengthy interviews with 88 couples culled from a sample of 150 found
in various ways, and divided on the basis of how much actual child care they did. Couples
were designated "equal sharers" if the father did at least fortyfive percent of
the work on 24 out of 32 specific parenting tasks: "feeding, comforting, bathing,
dressing, changing diapers, toilet-training, supervising personal hygiene, supervising
morning routine, picking up after playing, reading, helping to learn, helping with
problems, setting limits, disciplining, putting to bed, getting up at night, taking to the
doctor or dentist, providing sick care, taking on outings, taking to birthday parties,
taking to lessons, going to teacher conferences, buying clothes, supervising in social
situations, supervising religious instruction, making arrangements with other parents to
organize social life, planning activities, making arrangements for child care, worrying,
making decisions, and responding to requests or need for attention"(pp. 240-41).The
other groups were 18 couples where the child care was divided 60-40 and 21 where it was
divided 75-25, plus 23 working-class couples who did child care in alternating shifts. All
parents worked at least 20 hours out of the home and had an average of 2 children who
ranged in age from 1 month to 14 years.The men were an average of 38.4 years old, the
women 35.9 years old.They were married an average of 11 years. Except for the blue-collar
couples, all were uppermiddle class, well-educated, and fairly affluent, and almost all
were white. On religion, they divided fairly evenly among Catholic, Protestant, Jewish,
and none.
These "facts on the ground" (which unfortunately are relegated, along with
interesting comments and information from other sources, to footnotes and an appendix) set
the stage for Deutsch's main findings: that equal sharing does not emerge from an
ideological commitment to gender equality but from "the overwhelming labor demands of
a two-job household" (p. 11). It doesn't take special peoplerather, "it is a
by-product of the negotiations over all the details of everyday life in a family" (p.
11). Although Deutsch tends to minimize the effects of prior egalitarian or traditional
attitudes and career commitments, as they are not necessarily translated into ef fective
decisions on work inside and outside the home, they are used to justify and legitimize
these decisions. In unequal households, wives live by myths that mask their own
ambitiousness and their husband's power to resist their pleas for help; on the surface, at
least, they claim their family pattern is their own choice.They are "ambivalent about
what they are entitled to at home, ask for less, and ask less directly" (p. 61).
Conversely, "equally sharing women feel entitled to equality" (p. 61)-and they
negotiate their family patterns openly and directly They are "also not afraid to use
power, and the language of power" (p. 65). Some insist they won't get married, stay
married, or have children if their husbands won't take on half the child-care load; others
have refused to cook or clean until the husband pitches in.
Family patterns of equality and inequality varied. Some equal-sharers alternated the
same tasks and some divided the tasks; the working-class families did all the care at
alternate times ("mother and Mr. Mom"). Some shared equally from the birth of
their first child; others when the mother went back to work, sometimes after several years
of being the prime parent. Some used child care facilities outside the home; others did
not. Inequality in the division of child care resulted from wives' cutting back on their
paid work time, but also from wives' working full-time and being burdened with most of the
child-care chores as well. Husbands who were not equal sharers ranged from those who
shared as much as they could given their time spent on the job, those who helped when it
was convenient for them, and slackers who sat around while their wives did all the
domestic work. The mundane details, negotiations, and justifications of constructing
gender-equal and gender-unequal divisions of child-care work are described by Deutsch
through stories about typical couples.
Biology-pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding-are often invoked as insurmountable barriers to
equal parenting, seeming to give women bonding advantages. Yet many husbands accompany
their wives to their obstetric check-ups, listen to the baby's heartbeat and look at the
sonograms together, take prenatal classes, coach their wives through the birth, and even
without paid parental leave, stay home from work for a week or two after the birth. All
these are ways of bonding with their children, modern versions of couvade, where the
father imitates the mother's procreative behavior. Many reports of equal parenting, like
Deutsch's, describe husbands waking up with their wives during night feedings, and
diapering and burping the baby, thus sharing the breastfeeding work and the bonding. In
her study, breastfeeding had little relationship to the extent of shared parenting. As
adoptive parents show, competence, nurturance, and love come from hands-on care, not from
hormones, birthing, or suckling. Equal parenting doesn't go against principles of nature;
biology, says Deutsch, is a justification for men's lesser involvement and the resultant
lesser closeness with their children.
The ability to earn more money was similarly used as a justification for inequality in
child care. The correlation of income with extent of sharing child care was telling: Among
the couples where the mother did a little or lot more child care, the husband earned an
average of about $19,000 a year more than the wife. Among the equal sharers, the
discrepancy was only $6,000, and thirty percent of the wives earned more than their
husbands. Among the alternating shifters, the dif ference was $11,000. These
discrepancies, Deutsch claims, were as much the result as the cause of how much child care
was shared. Decisions about what jobs husbands as well as wives took, how much time they
spent working, and their interpretations of the demands of those jobs were part of the
negotiations around child care. Most of the wives could earn what their husbands earned;
it was commitment to equal sharing of child care versus gender-based norms that influenced
time spent in paid work and in domestic work. Among working-class alternating-shift
couples, when the wife was the better earner, the husband worked more hours and she did
more child care; thus they maintained the gender-appropriate roles of primary breadwinner
and primary parent.
So much for the process. What of the "product"? Deutsch says that the
advantages of equal parenting for the children are higher self esteem and two
knowledgeable, responsible adults who can substitute and fill in for each other. For the
adults, the marriage bond is strengthened by their shared involvement with their children.
Women gain the freedom of more time and less stress. Men are not as able to devote every
waking minute to their careers, but they gain other rewards: "the bond they forged
with their wives, the special relationships with their children, and the development they
saw in themselves were priceless (p. 230). Neither partner gets to have a conventional
"male career," because neither has a "wife" to do the work at home.
Both are workers in both spheres; both get the rewards of their jobs or careers and
hands-on parenting.
How widespread is equal parenting likely to be? A study by Laura Sanchez and Elizabeth
Thomson based on two waves of the National Survey of Families and Households (1987-88,
199294) found that new parents are much more likely to be gender-traditional than
egalitarian in their domestic division of labor. Deutsch herself says at the end of her
book that in addition to routinization of equally shared parenting, we need genderequal
pay scales,"family-friendly policies" in workplaces and encouragement of their
use, plus wide-spread access to a system of high-quality child care outside the home.And
also necessary are mothers who are willing to share parent-child intimacy and fathers who
value it enough to "do more."
Deutsch's equal sharers were more pragmatic than ideological; personal equality rather
than gender equality was their goal. But whether or not gender rebellion is intended, the
accomplishment of equally-shared parenting has important implications for the gendered
structures of our social worlds. By suggesting the interchangeability of women and men in
a domain as central to people's lives as caring for infants and raising children, shared
parenting challenges one of the major gender divisions on which so much of modern society
is still based. Sandra Bem, who called for eradicating such divisions in The Lenses of
Gender (1993), said that her own family as described in An Unconventional Family (1998),
was the feminist practice to her feminist theory of degendering. These books certainly
make us conscious of how unequal most parenting is, and they also make us aware of
alternatives. But they also tell us how difficult it is to go against norms-dif ficult
psychologically interactively and structurally.The women and men who share parenting
equally are de facto gender rebels. For their impact to be long-lasting, the gendered
structure of paid work and domestic labor has to be radically transformed. And that is a
much harder accomplishment than transforming the structure of individual lives. But for
stories illustrating how equally-shared parenting can actually be done, read Halving
ItAll. For comparable research and discussions of controversial issues, read the
footnotes.
Judith Lorber is professor emerita of sociology at Brooklyn College and The Graduate
School, City University of New York. She is the author of Paradoxes of Gender, Gender
Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics, Gender and the Social Construction of Illness,
and Women Physicians: Careers, Status and Power, and co-editor of Revisioning Gender and
The Social Construction of Gender. She was founding editor of Gender & Society. |