FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

It’s Not “Cute” When Men Take Care of Children

Recently a woman posted this photo of Stuart Hall and Henry Wortis taking care of children in a crèche at the first Women’s Conference at Ruskin College, Oxford, in 1970, with the caption: “Brief intermission: here is Stuart Hall on creche duty at a feminist conference in Oxford. Isn’t he cute?”  I responded to the tweet stating that it was not cute in the least, noting that when we exceptionalise men who take care of children one day in a year, we are creating a situation where women are still pegged to be the “primary care givers” and men the drop-in, once-in-a-while, father for whom taking his children out is not seen as an obligation, but as a token to the daily labour of women.

Much in the same way that men carving roast or turkey on Christmas—oddly construed as their having “cooked a meal”— becomes the symbolic gesture of men’s contributing to household labour, the reality is that men are still contributing less inside the home: from buying groceries, cooking and preparing meals, cleaning, to planning social activities.   While women are on par with men in terms of bill payments, men have much work to do to catch up with women.

So when I come across a statement by anyone who interprets a one-off event of men caring for children as “cute,” I recoil and react.  For there is nothing “cute” about men standing in a photo op (conscious or not) for a task which is still today, forty years later, overwhelmingly the domain of women.

If anything, women’s rights are in recession, not progression and what should be a field of equal participation ends up, still today, being quite unequal in terms of who is cleans up household messes, who prepares and executes the endless “to do” lists, who effectively raises children and then those who get to tokenise these activities for photo ops. While certain statistical patterns for men and women are shifting lending to a superficial reading that equality between the sexes is on the horizon or already here, a quick glimpse over these figures reveals that nothing of the sort is taking place.

Take, for instance, the rate of cosmetic surgery for men which has been soaring in recent years.  While women are still undergoing cosmetic procedures, the reasons are increasingly related to “body dissatisfaction” while for men the reasons for their somatic modifications are often professional in nature.   Or the rate of carers of elderly and disabled which is still largely dominated by women to such a degree that Care England is having difficulty recruiting professional male carers for elderly men, and has had to ask the government to help out in recruiting male care workers for nursing homes because of what it deemed as “entrenched societal perceptions” of who should do the caring.  And on the receiving end of healthcare, women are still coming up with the short end of the stick with disparity in services, medical research not reflecting women’s bodies in clinical trials, and women are under-presented in the decision-making of healthcare.

When I decided to have a child on my own, I was often asked wherever I was living—Haiti, Canada, India, Italy, and the UK—why I wanted to have children on my own.  My answer provoked laughter across all cultures, for what my words evoked rang true for all the women with whom I spoke: “I want to have one child, not two.”  This laughter confirmed that sexism is not just an international menu item well into the twenty-first century, it is a far-gone conclusion that women’s roles in the house have not changed very much and that in having children women will unlikely be granted more than this rare occurrence of a man in their lives coming in to give them a “day off.”

The reality of raising children, to include picking up minute food particles from their hair, floor, and wall, the physical labour of carrying them from the womb to the pushchair, and the constant maintenance of logistics and supplies, is that this is the unpaid labour that women have been performing for centuries.  And women attempting to return to the workforce are generally saddled with two choices: either to work to pay a nanny or daycare or, in many cases, to surrender the idea of returning to one’s professional life having to stay home to wait until the child starts school. These are not excellent options to most women, but they are the only options.

So while it’s not “cute” when men take care of children, it should be regarded as an imperative act of social inclusion.

More articles by:

Julian Vigo is a scholar, film-maker and human rights consultant. Her latest book is Earthquake in Haiti: The Pornography of Poverty and the Politics of Development (2015). She can be reached at: julian.vigo@gmail.com

September 25, 2018
Kenneth Surin
Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis
Charles Pierson
Destroying Yemen as Humanely as Possible
James Rothenberg
Why Not Socialism?
Patrick Cockburn
How Putin Came Out on Top in Syria
John Grant
“Awesome Uncontrollable Male Passion” Meets Its Match
Guy Horton
Burma: Complicity With Evil?
Steve Stallone
Jujitsu Comms
William Blum
Bombing Libya: the Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis
John Feffer
There’s a New Crash Coming
Martha Pskowski
“The Emergency Isn’t Over”: the Homeless Commemorate a Year Since the Mexico City Earthquake
Fred Baumgarten
Ten Ways of Looking at Civility
Dean Baker
The Great Financial Crisis: Bernanke and the Bubble
Binoy Kampmark
Parasitic and Irrelevant: The University Vice Chancellor
September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will There Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail