WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE CULTURE WAR, DADDY? (via Richard Winterstein):

The Ambiguous Effects of "The Retreat from Marriage" on Father's Lives (W. Bradford Wilcox, November 21, 2002)

The second half of the twentieth century ushered in a gender revolution marked by dramatic increases in the amount of practical and emotional labor that men devote to childrearing and housework in the United states. Research by Sayer (2002), for instance, indicates that the time men devote to childrearing and household labor increased 150 percent from 49 minutes per day in 1965 to 123 minutes per day in 1998. Consequently, in 1998, men in two-parent households did approximately 39 percent of the unpaid labor associated with childrearing and housework, up from approximately 14 percent in 1965. Although we do not have comparable data on men's emotional work in the family—e.g., affection, empathy, and attentiveness—research on different generations of married men by McQuillan and Ferree (1998) suggests that men have made similar gains in the emotional arena. This is good news for the women and children who benefit from higher levels of male familial involvement.

But these overall trends obscure an important point: the structural and normative retreat from marriage that also marked the second half of the twentieth century has had a deeply ambiguous effect on male familial involvement. At the structural level, the retreat from marriage means that a growing minority of mothers and children live in households without residential fathers and a growing minority of fathers live apart from households with children and therefore spend little if any time on childrearing and family-related housework. The percentage of family households without fathers more than tripled from 6 percent in 1950 to 22 percent in 1998 (U.S. Census 1997). As you are well aware, these family trends have hit African American families particularly hard. In 1996, almost 69 percent of white families (U.S. Census 1997). Obviously, these men are not contributing to the household labor associated with these homes. They also are not spending much time with their children. One study found that approximately 60 percent of children in these families saw their fathers once a month or less (Seltzer and Bianchi 1988). Clearly, the women and children in these families are not enjoying the fruits of the gender revolution.

Another consequence of rising rates of fatherless households is that more men are spending larger periods of time apart from family life (King 1999). These men typically earn less, work less, are less civicly engaged, and are more likely to engage in criminal and antisocial behavior. While some of these associations are due to selectivity, a growing body of evidence indicates that men suffer, as Durkheim (1951) might predict, when they are removed from the domesticating influence of marriage and residential fatherhood (Eggebeen and Knoester 2001; Nock 1998a; Nock 1998b). [...]

Research also indicates that men who report a strong normative commitment to marriage are more engaged with their children but less devoted to household labor, compared to men who do hold such a commitment. My analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households (1987-1988) indicates that married fathers who believe strongly that marriage is for life are significantly more involved in one-on-one activities with their children; they are also more likely to praise and hug their children. But these fathers also take on a smaller share of the household labor, compared to their peers who do not hold a high view of marriage. Thus, normative support for marriage among married fathers appears to be associated with higher investments in parenting and lower investments in household labor, perhaps in part because the type of men who have a high view of marriage tend to be religious men who focus on paternal involvement rather that household labor (Wilcox 2002; Wilcox 2004).

This brief tour de force of the fatherhood literature suggests that the structural and nomative retreat from marriage has had negative consequences for paternal involvement. On the other hand, this retreat is also associated with increases in household labor in those homes where a man is still to be found. All this should not surprise us. Marriage as an institution has traditionally arrayed a range of norms and practices in the service of three purposes: (1) The domestication of men, (2) The establishment of a socially-sanctioned commitment that binds a man and a women together for the sake of their children, and (3) a stage for the display of gender differences (Durkheim 1951; Gilmore 1990; Nock 1998). Apparently, marriage continues to be characterized by norms and practices that foster commitment and a gendered division of labor in ways that have ambiguous effects on paternal involvement.

The retreat from marriage in the U.S. is presently stalled, and crosscutting economic, cultural, and political trends make it difficult to predict how marriage will fare in the immediate future. But if the U.S. heads in the marital direction pioneered by Western Europe, as it probably will, we can foresee the following paradoxical state of affairs....

MEMO TO THE FATHERS IN THE CROWD: if your instinctive reaction on reading this is to turn to the wife and tell her you can either provide love and support for her and the kids or clean the bathroom when she tells you too, but not both, don't do it...unless that is you can run much faster than she and have hidden the rolling pin.

MORE:
-W. Bradford Wilcox (University of VA)
-ESSAY: Conservative Protestant Child Discipline: Authority and Affection in Evangelical Families (John P. Bartowski, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Christopher G. Ellison, Hartford Institute for Religion Research)

An emphasis on parental authority—and children’s compliance with household rules—is one of the most distinctive features of evangelical family life. Conservative Protestant parents tend to value children’s obedience while generally downplaying the importance of youngsters’ autonomy. Apart from the parental valuation of obedience, the lines of authority in conservative Protestant families are demarcated and affirmed by the more frequent use of corporal punishment in such homes. Many conservative Protestant leaders—from James Dobson of Focus on the Family to pastors in grassroots evangelical congregations—strongly encourage the use of corporal punishment when parents are confronted by children’s willful defiance against house rules. Recommendations in favor of corporal punishment are coupled with the mandate that parents clearly articulate their behavioral expectations to children, and are accompanied by caveats that urge leniency in the face of mitigating circumstances (e.g., a sick child, age-appropriate parental expectations).

Yet, there can be no mistaking the fact that under normal circumstances, evangelical parents are urged to respond to a child’s willful defiance through the use of physical discipline. In fact, many best-selling evangelical advice authors explicitly instruct parents to spank defiant children early in the face of willful disobedience—before tempers flare—to offset the chance that physical punishment might escalate into abuse. Moreover, many of these commentators recommend that parents use a neutral instrument (e.g., a wooden spoon, switch, or small paddle) rather than their hand to spank their children so that youngsters will not confuse the parent’s touch with physical pain. At the same time, evangelical child-rearing experts discourage the use of parental yelling as a means of discipline. In their view, yelling signals a loss of control by the parent, breeds disrespect in children, and is seen as both ineffective and abusive.

Our survey research reveals that, on average, evangelical parents spank their children considerably more often than their non-evangelical counterparts. Interestingly, these same parents also yell at their youngsters significantly less than their peers. So, evangelical parents seem to be heeding the advice they receive from leading religious conservatives. Taken together, these findings suggest that spankings in evangelical homes are more narrowly circumscribed around specific infractions and are considerably more controlled than those meted out in other households where spankings occur. Within this religious subculture, specific passages in the Bible (e.g., Proverbs 13:24, 22:14; 2 Samuel 7:14) are interpreted to support corporal punishment. Other scriptural passages (e.g., Hebrews 12:5-11) are understood as connecting such discipline with parental love and concern. These readings of scripture, then, support the frequent—yet bounded and restrained—use of corporal punishment by evangelical parents.

Evangelicals’ enthusiastic support for obedience and corporal punishment has caused many social commentators (e.g., mainline theologians, secular parenting experts) to dismiss conservative Protestant child-rearing methods as backward and harmful to children. However, our analyses of conservative Protestant parenting advice manuals and survey data with evangelical parents suggest that corporal punishment in evangelical homes may insulate children from the negative effects typically associated with physical discipline. As noted, evangelical parenting experts have written volumes of advice manuals describing what they define as the proper administration of corporal punishment. Moreover, we surmise that physical discipline takes on a unique meaning within this religious subculture because conservative Protestant leaders define corporal punishment as a demonstration of love and concern for the psychological, social, and spiritual well-being of youngsters.

There is a complementary element of evangelical child-rearing—namely, a focus on affection—that counterbalances this religious subculture’s emphasis on parental authority. Conservative Protestant parents are not only more likely to spank their children. As it turns out, these caregivers are considerably more inclined to affirm their youngsters with frequent hugs and words of praise. For those situated within this religious subculture, the evangelical emphasis on affectionate child-rearing comes as no surprise. The very same conservative Protestant advice manuals that highly recommend the spanking of children have whole chapters dedicated to the more tender side of effective child-rearing. Because evangelicals see the nature of children as a product of willfulness and tenderness, physical discipline is encouraged to "shape the will" while regular displays of affection and support are urged to "build the spirit." Thus, the careful use of physical discipline, admonitions against yelling, and open emotional expression directed at children are seen as complementary—not contradictory—parenting tools among evangelical caregivers.

-LECTURE: Hardwired to Connect: Making the connection between adolescent well-being and authoritative communities (W. Bradford Wilcox, September 9, 2003, American Values)

The report argues, and I agree, that authoritative communities have a long-term focus and a conception of the good life that allows them to treat children as ends, not means. Thus, for instance, authoritative communities can be contrasted from corporations in their effect on children. Think of the YMCA versus the Fox Entertainment Group (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation). The Y is committed to fostering the moral and physical well-being of children and they are in their communities for the long haul. Rupert Murdoch and his executives are committed to the bottom line and have no connection to the adolescents affected by their shows. Thus, Fox is willing to sponsor shows like Boston Public and Skin that serve the bottom line at the expense of the welfare of adolescents.

The report also argues, correctly, that adolescents are moral and spiritual beings. In working with adolescents, youth groups often sell them short by appealing only to their self-interest or self-esteem. The anti-drug program DARE, for instance, tries to motivate teens by telling them about the dangers of drug use but eschews talking about the moral implications of drug use. By contrast, authoritative communities recognize that youth crave meaning and purpose in their lives. Adolescents will respond to communities that set high ideals, demand sacrifice for the sake of a higher good, and provide their lives with structure and direction. One thinks, for instance, of Metro Achievement Center for Girls in Chicago, which is extremely effective in tutoring inner-city girls precisely because it integrates moral education into the fabric of its educational program. In other words, calculus goes with character.

Finally, this report points out that authoritative communities are not dominated by social workers, psychologists, or sociologists. Authoritative communities are not governmental or nonprofit agencies staffed by professionals who see their members as ``clients." They are not single-issue advocacy groups. Instead, these communities are dominated by volunteers—especially people with ties to the local community. They see their fellow community members as friends, brothers, sisters, and neighbors. Take Azusa Christian Community in inner-city Dorchester, Massachusetts, which draws gang-bangers off the streets with a heady mix of faith, friendship, and political activism. Azusa's Rev. Eugene Rivers doesn't drive from Brookline to Dorchester to provide these youth with programs. Rivers fathers these young men by living deliberately in their community, by keeping his home open to them at virtually every hour of the night, and by embodying a message of hope and renewal to them.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 8, 2004 9:54 AM