Abstract
Fathers today spend more time with their kids than ever before. Women and men alike believe parents should share equally in childrearing—a radical departure from decades past. As a result, scholars debate the continued importance of breadwinning to cultural ideals of fathering and hegemonic masculinity. One group uniquely situated to shed light on this topic is stay-at-home fathers. These men leave paid work to care for their children full-time. In the United States, men are only 3.8 percent of all stay-at-home parents, but this group is growing: roughly 200,000 men reported being stay-at-home dads in 2015, nearly double the number reported in 2002 (US Census, 2016). What do these trends tell us about the persistence or evolution of 20th century gender norms about work and family? In The Lives of Stay-at-Home Fathers, Solomon aims to understand the attitudes and experiences of fathers who prioritize carework over employment.
Solomon’s main argument is that fathers who choose to be stay-at-home parents perceive and enact fathering and masculinity in new ways that do not rely on breadwinning. Solomon says a groundswell is afoot, at least among the privileged men in her study. She interviewed 26 white, heterosexual, married stay-at-home dads from across the United States. They are middle and upper class and mostly college educated. The book’s five empirical chapters explore: why men became stay-at-home dads, how they conceptualize their identities as fathers, how they respond to challenges to their masculinity, and how they contribute to housework and their communities.
The men Solomon interviewed practiced what she calls engaged fathering and evolved masculinity. Engaged fathers have egalitarian parenting beliefs. They are voluntarily the main caregivers and describe themselves as emotionally close with their kids. They think family is paramount and see their role as supporting wives’ careers. Most described parenting as gender neutral. These men considered themselves and their wives to be interchangeable caregivers. Engaged fathering seemed to mimic the intensive mothering epitomized by middle-class, stay-at-home moms. Both professionalize parenting by viewing housework and childcare as jobs, both believe parenting requires single-minded dedication, and both feel undervalued and overworked.
“Good” fathering also meant being affectionate and emotionally close to kids. Timothy explained, “My sixth grader will still reach up and hold my hand when we’re out in public […This] makes me feel like I’m doing something right as a man and as a father” (52). Timothy challenges conventional ideals of dads as reliable breadwinners but stoic, emotionally distant parents. Solomon found that affection and closeness were not experienced as emasculating for the dads in her study. In fact, these practices made participants feel fulfilled and affirmed as men and fathers.
Dads in this book creatively reimagined the belief that for men, providing for one’s family means income earning. Stay-at-home fathers saw themselves as providers. Their job was to buoy wives’ careers by completing the routine intimate labor of childcare and housework. Solomon calls this model “evolved masculinity,” wherein men combine both conventional and progressive understandings of masculinity. She contrasts these practices with those reported in previous studies of stay-at-home dads. For instance, Solomon’s participants did not describe engaging in mostly rough and tumble play with kids. They were not free of stigma and isolation, but they expressed more support from their communities and social networks than fathers in previous research.
Solomon argues that cultural understandings of fatherhood are evolving, “at least for men with certain social and economic privileges” (44). Yet, I wondered why is this evolution occurring? Is feminism to thank? Although most men did not use feminist rhetoric to explain their decisions, some identified as feminists. Is this indicative of a gender revolution? Some dads expressed ambivalence: “I can’t stand it some days” (70) said one father. Several cried during interviews. These conflicted emotional responses also speak to the enduring pressures of hegemonic masculinity.
Solomon is the first to say more research is needed on stay-at-home dads disadvantaged by their race, social class, and sexual orientation. But a homogenous sample can no doubt yield deep intersectional insights. For example, heterosexual privilege shored up hegemonic masculinity for the dads in this study. And white privilege enabled middle- and upper-class, stay-at-home fathers to sidestep much of the stigma of nonemployment. This is not always an option for racial/ethnic minority men, many of whom are subject to labor market discrimination and involuntary unemployment. However, Solomon says little about heterosexual and race privilege.
Nevertheless, The Lives of Stay-at-Home Fathers lends insight into the reality that gender is fluid, performed, and an evolving social construct. Solomon extends and complicates previous accounts of stay-at-home fathers. In the face of new social and economic realities and the explosion of family diversity in the past half-century, this study of fathers who choose to caregive rather than breadwin is a helpful contribution to the literature on men, masculinities, and fatherhood.