Very interesting question. What surprises me about this particular issues is that although society and to an extent our government (RSA) promotes gender equality and equity in the public domain, the private spaces seem to be an area where we continually negotiate gendered activities around traditional gender roles. It's almost as though gendered expectations exist within and are replicated daily in the homespace but the same is not so for public spaces. Perhaps there's a need to keep traditional gender roles within private spaces? Or the idea of changing gendered roles within private spaces is too overbearing? Perhaps we feel that private spaces should remain constant and stable? Grand illusion?

In our country (India) gender roles are very conservative .... even today. Inspite of being explained, taught and promoted by government and other social activists gender equality is still a myriad. Especially with reference to parenting role .... the mothers are all responsible. Failures of children are immediately attributable to the mothers and Fathers easily pass the ball to the mothers. Probably the gender shift in parenting must come within from everybody and in our country I feel that it is just going to be a theoretical concept and as Lucille rightly used ... it a Grand illusion.

Hi there,

I first wondering about you question because I thought that there is no doubt that we need this gender shift in parenting if we still targeting on gender equity.

Here in Germany there are a few father activists who loudly claim more rights for fathers. And in the last years the German high court takes some decisions in this way. Especially the rights of unmarried fathers. For examples: To see their kids. But claiming more rights as a man sounds of course uncommon in a gender debate which still based on a patriarchal paradigm in a way which spilt clearly between victims and perpetrators.

From my point of view we have to think the support of bringing more women in gainful employment very closed together with bringing more men in care work. And to point it out: the mechanisms which have to be to overcome to reach these double targets are quite similar. I mean: Both path of transitions are not one way roads. I like to call it the game of want and can. In the world of gainful employment the term “glass ceiling” is very common to illustrate what prevent that more women “can” take a good job. The willingness of women is not further a question. In the world of care work it seems to be clear that men are not “want” to be more involved and the question what prevent them is not further a question. It seem to me obvious that we have to take both into account.

And by the way: To “can” has a double meaning of constraint: First the ability of men to be a father (and that’s again a double: The trust in the own ability and the trust of the social environment in their ability) and secondly the constraints to prevent men to practice fatherhood. At least I think it would be foolish not to recognizes that bringing more men in real fatherhood (whatever that means) meaning also that women have to giving up power. (I know that sounds uncommon too). But it seems to me comparable with the loss of male power in the world of gainful employment, when more women take qualified jobs. To illustrate it with a popular German aphorism: The hand on the cradle rules the world. And here we are on a very core point of gender ratio. Think about the common phrase: children and women first. Think about the often citied special vulnerability of women. Leaving this role of victimizing (and I would like to add; of infantilizing women), would be a big step further into gender equity.

I can imagine that this word may sounds very disturbing for people who live in parts of the world where male violent is an everyday tangible reality.

At the very last: Concerning the airline experience of Lucille: Do you know that there are some airlines which not allowed that single men take a seat next to a single child?

Best wishes

Volker

PS: I beg your pardon for too many words and for me poor english too

Hello,

Been reading all of your comments and seems to me like they all make sense for when it comes to gender roles – and parenting more particularly – there seems to be an invisible barrier preventing any significant shift. Old practices and beliefs will stick. In Madagascar, for example, there has been a lot of policy passed in the last few years in favor of the promotion of gender equity and targeting women’s empowerment. But no matter how hard the government and NGOs are advancing in terms of legal balancing of rights, the society itself seems to be moving at another speed. Parenting assimilated with caring is definitely and exclusively a world for mothers whereas fathers will stand aside and are - consciously or not - adhering to this state of things pretexting their work not to get involved. And this will happen even if both parents are professionally active. However, in a recent talk with a few male friends from the university, I’ve noticed that a younger generation of fathers is willing to be more present and to participate actively in the education and care of their children. They read specialized books, talk about diapers’ brand and feed their babies without feeling less masculine. They also complained about other women’s look and judgment on their wives as non-competent or careless mothers who leave their husbands with the baby tasks. So, to get back to the question of whether we really want a gender shift in parenting, to echo Lucille and Sasirekha, even if we’d like to show optimism, reality tells us differently. Maybe we do WANT it but aren’t yet ready to assume it in practice.

Living and researching in the United States, I can safely say that gender equality in terms of parenting roles is the rule and not the exception. This is a development since the 1950s and 1960s. For instance, I remember that still in the late 1960s, it shocked and shamed my traditional father that I, a new father, was willingly changing my baby daughter´s diapers. I helped to serve the meal and wash the dishes, also to my father´s chagrin, and have been doing the same ever since.

Hi, Cecilia. Like all your entries your last one is substantive and thought-provoking. You mention your own situation. I held a full-time job and my wife part-time ones. We shared the care of the kids because I did much work at home. Being with those 3 kids was never a chore for me: it was fun most of the time. Now I see my grandkids in different situations: one set of them has both parents in full-time jobs much like your situation; the other set live in a divorce situation, with each parent taking the children for half a week. Strangely enough, kids are adaptable creatures and they seem happily adjusted to moving from one parent to the other.

Dear Cecilia,

Saying what you did makes me feel sorry for my grandsons in the midst of divorce. Whenever I see them-- which is every three months--, I give them huge hugs and tickle them... not because of their unfortunate situation, but just because.

I just stumpling about the term

"biological component in the mother-child closeness" and the describted consequence of

"the absence of a mother in a child's life would not be optimal for that human being".

What exactly is meaning with this biological component?

It sounds very naturalistic.

Volker, I think your question is a good one. At the present time I am researching the music of French composer Maurice Ravel. It turns out that his relationship to his mother was the warmest human relationship he ever had (although he also had a healthy relationship with his father, who always encouraged his musical career). Through his mother he was first exposed to music in general, to folk-music and to Spanish music, both mainstays in his musical production. He always composed with a famous portrait of his mother next to his piano. It would seem to follow that there is more a biographical, vocational component in the mother-child relationship here, and less evidence for a biological one. I would hypothesize that Ravel´s case is fairly common among great creators.

Thank you,

I am very careful with such terms like instinct or natural behavior. I have seen so much misuse. And in particular in the gender discourse we have heart in the past many supposed naturals about what humans differed and what they can or not can and derive from that what they have to do and what they shall not do.

From my point of view most of them are vanish over time and turned out to be just prejudices.

Yes, "instinct" is a catch-all word, like "virus." Every time I see the word "instinct" used, it has a different referent, particularly when referred to human behavior. I suppose one can refer to a mother´s biological instinct toward her babies, but how to explain the drive of the father in some animal species to kill his own cubs? Is this instinct? Is every act instinctive?

Thanks, Cecilia!

Not really, the females are having the naturally built in capacity to handle a child and they have the motherly love for a child which a father may not be in the position to impart

Muhammed, my wife always said that I "intellectualize" my relationship to our kids whereas hers is more natural. I may not have "motherly love," but I do have "fatherly love." I would give them everything I own (and sometimes do!) and I take pride in their accomplishments.

Threre is a shift in parenting. Fathers role has changed during the last ten years to the better, and they are generally more present in their infants daily life. I have been working in a NICU for a long time, and today it is not unusual to see fathers in skin-to skin "kangaroo care" with their preterm infants. But there is still a way to go.

Ingrid Ravn: What would be in the category "still a way to go" for you?

Michael Wells: I would like see fathers participating in caring of preterm/newborn infants at the same "level" as mothers. Meaning taking daily care of their infants at NICU, and spending more time with their infants. Mothers and nurses must withdraw and give more room and responsibility to the fathers, I think fathers want more responsibility. Nurses must be aware of emotional distress in fathers, not only in mothers, and the context in the NICU must be designed in a way that also includes fathers. "Maternity" leave for fathers must be extended, especially for fathers of fragile preterm infants.

Ingrid Ravn--I love hearing from something in the NICU that they're going through this as well!

I spoke with nurses at child health centers, and it sounds like you're repeating the same sentiments that they had. That's so interesting that what preventative nurses say about father involvement, so do NICU nurses :)

My paper Swedish child health nurses’ views of early father involvement: a qualitative

study in Acta Paediatrica talks about those issues--of nurses/mothers letting go and letting the fathers take the lead a bit more.

I will read your article:)

Yes, Michael we do want a gender shift in parenting. Fathers and mothers together make great kids. In a day and age when both men and women want to do and be more than parents, it is important that when they decide to become parents that both are nurturing, caring and willing to share the responsibility raising a child entail. As Ravn points out a State that shares these ideas will work towards making it possible for both parents to be carers and have a career.

The Scandinavian countries have been more forward looking in this respect with the idea of gender equality built into their family policy. Other countries have followed, unfortunately, in many cases possibility of sharing parenting continues to be dependent on social class or at least economics.

Hi Michael,

I'm interested in what you are looking at- I'm just starting to research a correlation I found between gender based income gaps and the level of equality in unpaid hours of work.  In Finland, there are payments available following the birth of a child which either the mother or the father can take.  But they have about the same level of inequality in income and in unpaid hours of work as exists in Australia, where I come from. 

In Norway, however, the gender based income gap is far less (one of the most equal in the higher income countries in the OECD) and women and men have an almost equal share of unpaid hours of work, meaning men and women do around the same number of hours of child care and the same amount of housework.

Why is this so?

My thought so far is that the fact that men have their own paid parental leave that can't be transferred to the mother must be making a huge difference- increasing care and home responsibilities may be leading also to a greater value of 'women's work' and by default, of women as well.  This may in turn be improving equality at work.

I could well be wrong, but I think it might count.

So, to your question- do we want a gender shift in parenting?  Yes!

Men lose out as much as women do when they aren't as involved with their children.  Children miss out too.  As parents, we all bring different things to parenting, whether we are women or men.  In the absence of an extended family, stronger involvement from both parents should surely provide a better result for all.  Both parents get time away from the children, time to work and improve their career outcomes (and therefore the financial outcomes for the whole family), time to be an autonomous adult.  Both parents get the incredible bond that only comes from extended periods spent as a primary carer.

There are so many ways to look at this: from the point of view of the child, the mother, the father.  What are the negatives of a more equal partnership in parenting?  I can't think of any!  I could talk about this for hours but will stop there for now. Happy to discuss further! 

If you're interested in the equality at work side of things, I can point you towards some good studies.

regards,

Brigette