Egalitarian Men and Working Fathers

April 9, 2013 By 15 Comments

In my last post, I suggested that as a society, we should be more encouraging of men who are trying to combine work and family. The problem that women confront in the workplace is about both about gender and a principle of devotion to work.  Many of the challenges that women face in balancing family and work are those also faced by men.

I am especially concerned with the working fathers who are serving as equal co-parents in their children’s lives, and fathers who are involved in relatively equivalent amounts (or more) of domestic work as their partners.   I’m not talking about fathers who make sure to make it home for dinner—I’m talking about fathers who are often making dinner. I recognize that there are a number of men without children who still struggle to balance work/family demands, but will focus this post more on working fathers. I also refer to these men as egalitarian men; this is not meant to be a theological statement regarding their beliefs about women in the church, but rather, a statement about their family practices and beliefs that reveal relatively equal roles in their families with their partners.  A blog by Dr. Scott Behson on Fathers, Work, and Family, provides an example of this population I’m considering (and also raises many of the same concerns addressed here – I suggest checking it out).

This population of working fathers is significant. Just last month, Pew Research Center released a report on the roles of moms and dads, with attention to how they spend their time and think about issues of work and family. While 56% of working mothers note it is very or somewhat difficult to balance work/family, 50% of men report the same thing.  Fathers are also more likely than mothers to feel that they spend too little time with their children (46% to 23%).  But perhaps most important for the topic of this post, I was interested in this chart reflecting who does more at home.

About 5% of women and men argue that men do more childcare; while close to half report that men and women are equally involved in childcare.  Further, when it comes to household chores, a majority of men (and almost half of women) say that fathers do as much or more than mothers.  While fathers and mothers both tend to see themselves as working more than their partners might, a large percentage of men are doing a lot at home.  Yes, there is a gender gap.  But when we concentrate on the median and mean, we can fail to recognize than in many families, this gender gap may not exist, while in others, it’s actually larger than the macro-level data reveals.

Challenges for Men

(1) In the last blog, I highlighted that these men are often paid less than men with traditional attitudes.  Compared to more traditional men, egalitarian men with significant commitments to family can both face significant obstacles in being hired and promoted.  Gillian Ranson, a sociologist at the University of Calgary, profiles a number of these working fathers in his article, “Men, Paid Employment, and Family Responsibilities: Conceptualizing the ‘Working Father.’”  These men often need to leave the office early, or desire not to work every day. They are not always on call, and rarely have a partner at home who manages domestic responsibilities.  The study from Cornell University (by Judge and Livingston) also suggested than egalitarian men may also be less aggressive in wage negotiations than more traditional men, and so suffer further economic penalties.

Such men may also be restricted (compared with traditional men) in the jobs that they are able to take. Families cannot easily move to support men in their careers.  Egalitarian men are more likely than other men to prioritize their spouse’s career; this may sometimes entail moving for their partner, which could accompany a downward career move.  They are often being compared with men who have a spouse who is dedicated primarily to the family; this is rarely something noted on their CV. While I have not seen longitudinal data, I would hypothesize that these men have less successful career trajectories than men with similar demographics and more traditional gender role attitudes.

(2) For fathers who are trying to be invested in their families, we often find that there are fewer supports for them than women. This is both an institutional and a cultural problem.  In some places, women are offered more flexibility than men when it comes to balancing work and family.   Second, even when paternity leave may technically be available for men, it may be discouraged. Ranson finds, for example, that mothers are still much more likely to take advantage of family-friendly initiatives.

(3) These men are also often lumped together as being ‘men’ who do not deal with the same challenges as women.  Increasingly in sociology we talk about intersectionality: the idea that gender cannot be understood outside its dynamics with class and race.  A recent article in the Journal of Marriage and Family by sociologists Rebecca Glauber and Kristi Gozjolko looks precisely at how issues of intersectionality can shed light on how men deal with work-family tensions.

 We found that fatherhood was associated with an increase in married White men’s time spent in paid work. The increase was more than twice as strong for traditional White men than for egalitarian White men. In contrast, both egalitarian and traditional African American men did not work more when they became fathers.  These findings suggest that African American men may express gender traditionalism but adopt more egalitarian work-family arrangements (“Do Traditional Fathers Always Work More? Gender, Ideology, Race, and Parenthood,” p.1133)

What I find interesting about their study is two-fold.  One, the story of working fathers cannot be separated from race, as the ‘traditional’ model often heralded is one predominantly adopted by whites.  Although not tested, this would lead me to suspect that some part of the wage gap between white and black men is in part due to their different family dynamics and work-family balance.  Second, it suggests that just as race is important in understanding the wages men receive, so are the attitudes that men have towards gender roles and family.

At the end of the day, I found more scholars investigating these issues than I had previously known about; however, I also found a real lack of empirical data regarding the challenges and costs that these fathers face.   And in our pursuits to decrease gender inequality and break down gendered stereotypes, it’s vital that such working fathers are supported.

Filed Under: Amy Reynolds, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , 15 Comments

CS Lewis, Lent and Bodies

February 12, 2013 By 2 Comments

Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent.  Although many Protestants do not celebrate this 40-day season, many churches do celebrate this period as a way to prepare for Easter.

We’ve been rereading The Screwtape Letters with our Bible Study group this year. These letters by C.S. Lewis document an exchange between an older demon, Screwtape, and his younger nephew, Wormwood.   While C.S. Lewis would hardly qualify as a social scientist, I appreciate the ways that he recognizes the importance of context when it comes to theology and belief.

 

 

 

 

There are two lessons that have been especially helpful for me to think about as I prepare for the season of Lent.

For they [people] constantly forget, what you must always remember, that they are animals and that whatever their bodies do affects their souls. (Letter IV, Screwtape Letters)

Over the years, I’ve frequently remembered C.S. Lewis’ admonition that our physical posture matters when we talk to God. Although many Christians–including myself–sometimes see religion as largely about belief, our practices matter.  Sociologists of religion rarely just use doctrine to characterize people; our spiritual practices, the communities that we belong to, and our background all shape religious identity.

Keep his mind off the most elementary duties by directing it to the most advanced and spiritual ones (Letter III)

As a sociologist, I tend to think about the big picture. Poverty is largely a product of unjust social structures, which create broken relationships among people.  Sexism and racism, even as they manifest themselves in individual lives, are fed by larger societal beliefs and norms about gendered and racial and ethnic differences, and an unequal allocation of power and resources.

Yet in thinking at the macro-level, I am guilty of not seeing my role and place in society, and unfortunately can start to frame problems at a more distant level.  I am reminded that just thinking more justly (or researching and teaching to that end) is not enough.  For me, the practice of spiritual discipline is a way to remember that the day-to-day, the most “elementary duties,” are core to who we are, and they affect our relationships with one another.

As I celebrate Mardi Gras with friends tonight, I look forward to taking the words of Lewis–and my physical nature–more seriously.

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized 2 Comments

My Happiness Project

February 6, 2013 By 10 Comments

When I first started read Gretchen Rubin’s best-selling book, The Happiness Project, I thought, “Wow, she does a great job of summarizing tons on research on positive psychology in a way that is accessible and engaging. But, I mean, her life is so bourgeois! She has a happy marriage already, two lovely kids, and she lives comfortably in NYC. How applicable is her happiness project to my life or my students’ lives?”

Since I’m teaching some texts from positive psychology this semester, I asked my students to read Rubin’s book and to follow her lead and do their own happiness project. To set a good example, I started my own happiness project.  My dubiousness about Rubin faded as I realized two things. First, my own life often sounds (or is) just as bourgeois as Rubin’s. Second, her explanation of research in positive psychology and her practical tips for being happier helped me personally more than I if I had just read her book but not practiced anything new.

For starters, since I’ve had a lot of ups and downs in the last few months, I kept a gratitude journal that focused on relationships—such as meaningful conversations, kind gestures, and warm feelings towards family. I enthusiastically wrote in my journal every night for a week about my friend Laura’s hospitality, my student Samantha’s cheerfulness, and all the people who make my work engaging.

Keeping a gratitude journal about the special people in my life definitely lifted my mood—the downs were still there, but the ups were more frequent. To borrow Barbara Frederickson’s terminology, my gratitude journal increased my attention and appreciation for the positive in my life and hence increased my positivity ratio—the ratio of positive emotions to negative emotions I felt. I didn’t find, however, that my negative emotions went away, but I was more equipped to deal with negative emotions because I had more positive emotions.

Further into Rubin’s book, I was inspired by her heartfelt rendition of the lessons she learned from Saint Therese of Lisieux’s autobiography Story of a Soul. Although Saint Therese is one of the most celebrated Catholic saints of recent times, and tons of Catholic writers have extolled her virtuous little way, the big-minded, bourgeois over-achiever in me just didn’t think I was called to holiness through little things. Clearly, as a college professor, I’m called to great things, right? (Oh my God, how bourgeois and self-important I sound when I’m honest about my thoughts!)

Rubin, who is not Catholic and not even particularly spiritual, not only read Saint Therese’s Story of a Soul and loved it, she read 17 biographies of Saint Therese. (If you think I’m exaggerating, she says it on p. 210 of The Happiness Project). Why was Rubin so obsessed with St. Therese? Rubin writes:

“I’d started my happiness project to test my hypothesis that I could become happier by making small changes in my ordinary day. I didn’t want to reject the natural order of my life—by moving to Walden Pond or Antartica, say, or taking a sabbatical from my husband. I wasn’t going give up toilet paper or shopping or experiment with hallucinogens. I’d already switched careers. Surely, I’d hoped, I could change my life without changing my life, by finding more happiness in my own kitchen [emphasis mine]. Everyone’s happiness project is different. Some people might feel the urge to make a radical transformation. I was vicariously exhilarated by these dramatic adventures, but I knew they weren’t the path to happiness for me. I wanted to take little steps to be happier as I lived my ordinary life, and that was very much in the spirit of St. Therese.” (pp. 210-211, The Happiness Project).

Reading Rubin’s words inspired me to the next phase of my gratitude journal: to give thanks for the little things in my life, such as the happiness I find in my kitchen, my living room, or my seemingly unimportant daily activities. The next day, I followed my regular routine: morning prayer, work, lunchtime gym break, shower & change, and back to work, all the while trying to be thankful for little things.

As I settled in for my twice-weekly routine of hairdrying and hairstyling my long, dark, thick and often unruly hair, I realized how anxious and unhappy I normally feel as I assemble all the tools I need to beat my hair into submission and look nice. I lined up my super-duper powerful Italian hairdryer, my boar’s head brush, my Bumble & Bumble heat protection spray, and then pointed a giant fan at me to deflect the heat from the hair dryer from overheating my whole body. “Uggh, this is so time consuming and hard!” I thought (as usual).

“God gave me beautiful hair”

About halfway through the hair-drying ritual, as my hair turned straight and fluffy and started to take shape, I thought, “God gave me beautiful hair. Be thankful for that Margarita!” So for the rest of those 30 minutes under the heat, I just repeated, “God gave me beautiful hair. God gave me beautiful hair.” Funny enough, when I went to my favorite coffee shop a few hours later, someone told me what great hair I have. When I went to Best Buy that night, someone else told me, “You have awesome hair.” My whole life, other people, and especially hairdressers, have told me I have awesome hair because it is thick, voluminous, and will do almost anything you want it to if you have the right tools and enough time. But I had never told myself, “I have great hair,” and given thanks for it.

Here are some other “little” things I gave thanks for this week: the sound of wind and birds in the morning; the smell of coffee; my pink shiny nail polish; my awesome gym and energetic workouts; sitting around a campfire and roasting smores; singing joyfully at Mass; singing the National Anthem at a UNC basketball game (and being especially thankful when I sang “the land of the free”); dancing wildly in the stands at the UNC basketball game to songs like “Welcome to the Jungle,” “Jump, Jump” and “Sweat.”

Okay, so my happiness project does sound rather bourgeois. But my gratitude journal for the “little things” did what Rubin said it would do (according to positive psychology studies): by increasing my awareness of and attention to little things, I enhanced my enjoyment of little things. Rubin and Saint Therese are right: we don’t have to leave our kitchens to find greater happiness. In fact, for most of us, happiness lies precisely in this little trick: really, deeply appreciating the little moments of every day.

Thanks to St. Therese, Rubin, and positive psychology for showing me this insight. Rubin and I do not have the virtuous life of St. Therese, but we can all be happier in the lives we are called to. And if we are happy, then we can spread happiness, and perhaps even become virtuous. Although happiness and virtuousness are not synonymous, virtuousness that is unhappy won’t attract any followers. Just look at Saint Therese, whose virtuous life was undoubtedly a joyful life.

Filed Under: Margarita Mooney, Uncategorized Tagged With: 10 Comments

MLK and Creative Maladjustment

January 19, 2013 By 4 Comments

 While still recovering from the flu (yes I still got it despite getting a shot last  November) I have tried to keep my intellectual capacities running if only through reading and not much writing. In a few days we as a nation will remember the Reverend Martin Luther King and his major contributions to American society. I confess that my awareness of King is not very systematic, and I am reminded every semester how much less each generation seems to know of him and his legacy. Dr. King gave many speeches over his brief public career, and recently the American Psychological Association posted his address to this organization and to all American social scientists. As the webpage summary puts into context, this speech was delivered on September 1, 1967. Seven months later, his talk was about to be published in the Journal of Social Issues (Vol. 24- still running today) when the news rang out of his assassination in Memphis, TN.

It’s worth a read for those interested in the way one of the great leaders of the 20th century brought together global conflict, social scientific research, and contemporary national issues together for an audience of social scientists. The Rev. Dr. King did not hold back his criticism of the efforts of social scientists, particularly sociologists, who likely supported the cause but had radically different solutions. I mention both of titles of “Rev.” and “Dr.” because as you will see these credentials were not without warrant. He is one of the few I have seen to deftly combine theological concepts with social science and politics. In the following I share some of the quotes from his speech. King first opens up with the importance of social science research for the African American and white communities:

If the Negro needs social sciences for direction and for self-understanding, the white society is in even more urgent need. White America needs to understand that it is poisoned to its soul by racism and the understanding needs to be carefully documented and consequently more difficult to reject. The present crisis arises because although it is historically imperative that our society take the next step to equality, we find ourselves psychologically and socially imprisoned. All too many white Americans are horrified not with conditions of Negro life but with the product of these conditions-the Negro himself.

He then retells the events of the past 15 years (1950s-1967) and one of the major consequences of addressing racism head on:

The decade of 1955 to 1965, with its constructive elements, misled us. Everyone, activists and social scientists, underestimated the amount of violence and rage Negroes were suppressing and the amount of bigotry the white majority was disguising.

Science should have been employed more fully to warn us that the Negro, after 350 years of handicaps, mired in an intricate network of contemporary barriers, could not be ushered into equality by tentative and superficial changes.

King was keenly aware of the way social scientists think and introduced institutional racism into the conversation. While many social scientists advocated change, few of the applications of that advocacy anticipated what would happen next. Urban riots were rampant especially in northern cities and King notes that systemic racism as the cultural context in which these events occur. Quoting from Victor Hugo (yes the one who wrote Les Miserables)

A profound judgment of today’s riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, ‘If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.’

In an unexpected (to me) turn, he then addresses the problematic American presence in Vietnam. It is at this point that he utters the phrase seen on many bumper stickers and Facebook memes:

It is my deep conviction that justice is indivisible, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

King mentions Vietnam through a play on the word segregation. As he states:  ”I can only respond that I have fought too hard and long to end segregated public accommodations to segregate my own moral concerns.” King was clearly seeing a much bigger picture in his last years connecting the struggle for equality in America with the struggles for equality throughout the world, and perhaps more specifically for a more just world when the powerful manipulate, exploit and kill the less powerful. Several paragraphs later, King turns his attention to the social scientific community:

Now there are many roles for social scientists in meeting these problems. Kenneth Clark has said that Negroes are moved by a suicide instinct in riots and Negroes know there is a tragic truth in this observation. Social scientists should also disclose the suicide instinct that governs the administration and Congress in their total failure to respond constructively.

Social science may be able to search out some answers to the problem of Negro leadership. E. Franklin Frazier, in his profound work, Black Bourgeoisie, laid painfully bare the tendency of the upwardly mobile Negro to separate from his community, divorce himself from responsibility to it, while failing to gain acceptance in the white community. There has been significant improvements from the days Frazier researched, but anyone knowledgeable about Negro life knows its middle class is not yet bearing its weight. Every riot has carried strong overtone of hostility of lower class Negroes toward the affluent Negro and vice versa. No contemporary study of scientific depth has totally studied this problem. Social science should be able to suggest mechanisms to create a wholesome black unity and a sense of peoplehood while the process of integration proceeds.

As one example of this gap in research, there are no studies, to my knowledge, to explain adequately the absence of Negro trade union leadership. Eight-five percent of Negroes are working people. Some two million are in trade unions but in 50 years we have produced only one national leader-A. Philip Randolph.

Discrimination explains a great deal, but not everything. The picture is so dark even a few rays of light may signal a useful direction.

I wonder if King would have been pleased with the social science research that emerged 20 years after his passing showing the effects of racial and class segregation. King’s second area that social scientists could support the civil rights cause was in political action. He cited several studies that have examined political activism (i.e. galvanizing more African Americans to vote and create a bloc):

The need for a penetrating massive scientific study of this subject cannot be overstated. Lipset in 1957 asserted that a limitation in focus in political sociology has resulted in a failure of much contemporary research to consider a number of significant theoretical questions. The time is short for social science to illuminate this critically important area. If the main thrust of Negro effort has been, and remains, substantially irrelevant, we may be facing an agonizing crisis of tactical theory.

His third area of research he suggested was psychological and ideological change among African Americans.

Social science is needed to explain where this development is going to take us. Are we moving away, not from integration, but from the society which made it a problem in the first place? How deep and at what rate of speed is this process occurring? These are some vital questions to be answered if we are to have a clear sense of our direction.

He then turns his argument toward a particular solution offered by a sociologist. He prefaces this section of his talk by first mentioning African American patriotism:

As I have said time and time again, Negroes still have faith in America. Black people still have faith in a dream that we will all live together as brothers in this country of plenty one day.

But I was distressed when I read in the New York Times of Aug. 31, 1967; that a sociologist from Michigan State University, the outgoing president of the American Sociological Society, stated in San Francisco that Negroes should be given a chance to find an all Negro community in South America: ‘that the valleys of the Andes Mountains would be an ideal place for American Negroes to build a second Israel.’ He further declared that ‘The United States Government should negotiate for a remote but fertile land in Equador, Peru or Bolivia for this relocation.’

I feel that it is rather absurd and appalling that a leading social scientist today would suggest to black people, that after all these years of suffering an exploitation as well as investment in the American dream, that we should turn around and run at this point in history. I say that we will not run! Professor Loomis even compared the relocation task of the Negro to the relocation task of the Jews in Israel. The Jews were made exiles. They did not choose to abandon Europe, they were driven out. Furthermore, Israel has a deep tradition, and Biblical roots for Jews. The Wailing Wall is a good example of these roots. They also had significant financial aid from the United States for the relocation and rebuilding effort. What tradition does the Andes, especially the valley of the Andes Mountains, have for Negroes?

King’s geopolitical and historical synthesis is remarkable, and undoubtedly his theological training helped him to some extent. Here’s the paper that King was referring to. His point is well taken and speaks to the problem of suggesting solutions to social inequality without much connection to the vulnerable communities most affected by those solutions. King concludes with his own take on social science research with a clever use of a widely used psychological concept, “maladjustment.” He first points out what’s so helpful about this term for American society, the need to root out destructive maladjustment. But then he turns this into a sociological issue:

But on the other hand, I am sure that we will recognize that there are some things in our society, some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted. There are some things concerning which we must always be maladjusted if we are to be people of good will. We must never adjust ourselves to racial discrimination and racial segregation. We must never adjust ourselves to religious bigotry. We must never adjust ourselves to economic conditions that take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few. We must never adjust ourselves to the madness of militarism, and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.

And he ends with the call for a new organization, the Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment, again invoking the Bible (specifically the Old Testament prophet Amos).

Thus, it may well be that our world is in dire need of a new organization, The International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment. Men and women should be as maladjusted as the prophet Amos, who in the midst of the injustices of his day, could cry out in words that echo across the centuries, ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream’; or as maladjusted as Abraham Lincoln, who in the midst of his vacillations finally came to see that this nation could not survive half slave and half free; or as maladjusted as Thomas Jefferson, who in the midst of an age amazingly adjusted to slavery, could scratch across the pages of history, words lifted to cosmic proportions, ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ And through such creative maladjustment, we may be able to emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man’s inhumanity to man, into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice.

Drawing together sacred scripture with major historical figures of America’s political arena, King masterfully conveyed a picture that is unapologetically American in its creativity, innovation and pragmatism. Knowing his audience, his suggestion of a new association fits well with the assumptions of the social science community: progress is collaborative and relies on cooperation among many minds. But he did so without getting bogged down with jargon, but rather appealed to their civic and religious sensibilities. In doing so I imagine he alienated some, caused others to reflect, and draw praise from others.

It would be interesting to have a conversation over the structure and aims of an AACM today, and a quick search on Google reveals that indeed such an organization exists. What do you think of King’s idea, could we use an Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment? Would we benefit with a collaborative network of scholars who help promote the cause for social justice by revealing the complexities of our ever-increasing societies? If so, what would it look like today?

Filed Under: Jerry Park, Uncategorized Tagged With: , 4 Comments