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

Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador   Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail