Anna Gavanas - Fatherhood Politics in the United States

MASCULINITY, SEXUALITY, RACE,
AND MARRIAGE

Anna Gavanas

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS
URBANA AND CHICAGO

2004 by the Board of Trustees

of the University of Illinois

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

c 5 4 3 2 1

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gavanas, Anna, 1971

Fatherhood politics in the United States : masculinity, sexuality, race, and marriage / Anna Gavanas.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-252-02884-8 (cloth : alk. paper)

1. FatherhoodSocial aspectsUnited States. 2. MasculinityUnited States. 3. Sex roleUnited States. 4. MarriageUnited States. 5. Fatherhood Responsibility Movement. I. Title.

HQ756.G355 2004

306.87420973dc21 2003009667

Marriage and fatherhood are crucial in the current debates over welfare reform and family policy. Parenthood and child well-being are the ultimate holy grounds within these contestations, which revolve mainly around issues of masculinity and fatherhood. But why is the gendering of parenting activities, particularly the maleness of fatherhood, considered so important at this juncture of U.S. family politics?

In this book I explore the ways gender, race, and sexuality, as social and historical constructions, are strategically challenged and reproduced by those who have a stake in American family politics. During two years of fieldwork behind the scenes of the powerful fatherhood responsibility movement, I talked to national and local representatives and participated in fatherhood conferences, mens workshops, and the Promise Keepers mass meetings (see the appendix for details on the interviewees and the methodology of the study). During this time, I spent a lot of time observing all-male group discussions. As I listened to the program participants talking about their everyday problems with such issues as unemployment, drug abuse, and relationships as men, I kept thinking of my own brother and father in Sweden, who struggled with similar issues. I am certainly aware that deconstructing notions of masculinity and fatherhood as defined by, for instance, work, marriage, and heterosexuality may not alleviate the very real structural and global problems of unemployment or racial, gendered, and sexual inequalities. However, by tracing and analyzing some of the processes, internal contestations, myths, and dilemmas of U.S. fatherhood politics, I hope to contribute to a more informed and productive approach to the current debate on marriage and the issues that family members face in contemporary societies.

By widening the discussion and analyzing the competing voices in fatherhood politics, I hope to benefit the often polarized and antagonistic discussions of gendered, sexual, and racial politics. I also seek to communicate with groups concerned with family policy, including representatives of the fatherhood responsibility movement. My aim is not only to understand and fairly portray participants points of view but also to challenge the ideas expressed in fatherhood politics by putting them in historical and theoretical perspective. Whereas some readers might think that I am not sufficiently critical of various aspects of the fatherhood responsibility movement, some of its representatives may think that I am being too critical merely by situating their politics in certain contexts. For instance, by connecting marriage-oriented organizations to discussions on whiteness, I might situate pro-marriage representatives in discussions with which they do not wish to associate. Similarly, representatives of poor, low-income, and minority men may wish to disassociate themselves from debates over masculinist aspects within the civil rights movement, because they consider themselves gender egalitarian. Finally, representatives throughout the fatherhood responsibility movement may find sexual dimensions of fatherhood politics to be irrelevant and may object to any attempt to pin them down in terms of sexual perspectives. Even analyzing the fatherhood responsibility movement in terms of gender politics might cause some of its representatives to protest. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that my discussions open up challenging and mutually fruitful dialogues and that my representations reflect the respect, complexity, and friendliness of the people I met in the field.

In this book I demonstrate some of the numerous ways in which fatherhood programs address issues of uttermost importance to biological men and families and help heterosexual fathers deal with daily struggles as breadwinners and nurturers. I also discuss the ways some of the notions of gendered, sexual, social, and moral order in U.S. fatherhood politics may reinforce oppressive relations among men, as well as between men and women. I do so by illuminating problems involved when participants in local fatherhood programs construct masculinity, fatherhood, and brotherhood as biologically male institutions, primarily to differentiate themselves from women and gay men. I thereby seek to demonstrate the widespread need for alternative masculinities and fatherhoods, highlighting the ways the masculinization of fatherhood builds on potentially oppressive patterns and contradictions in century-long political traditions. For example, in fatherhood programs, certain sports provide particularly popular metaphors and practices for constituting male versions of parenthood in terms of coaching or playing ball in exclusively male settings. One of the things I am trying to come to grips with in this book is how male bonding over guy things works in U.S. masculinity politics. For instance, sport, religion, womanizing, and work are longstanding and overlapping male arenas for the contestation and mobilization , men reshape and reconfirm manhood by competing and bonding with other men. In tracing the histories of such masculinizing arenas and the stakes involved, I discuss the contemporary gendering, racialization, and heterosexualization of parenthood and family.

My ethnographic study of contemporary fatherhood and marriage politics might be a particularly useful contribution to political, public, and academic debates. For instance, as I demonstrate in the concluding chapter, being a young female in the heterosexually oriented field of fatherhood politics provoked some revealing disclosures. Moreover, having grown up in Sweden has allowed me to discern aspects that might be hidden from view for many people who are more caught up in U.S. family politics. For instance, the prevalence of religion and sport in political rhetoric may be taken for granted by many people who grew up in the United States. To me, the legacy of religious and sport rhetoric combined with the symbolism of family, marriage, and child well-being to make the fatherhood politics under study particularly American. Since the founding of the nation, notions of the family and contestations over its definition have been at the heart of U.S. politics.

First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Don Kulick, whose brilliant advice and enduring support were crucial throughout the years of writing this book. My research is also greatly indebted to Professor Barbara Hobson, whose wonderful mentorship and friendship have enabled me develop ideas in a vibrant scholarly community.