Yet another factor in relationship sabotage is that "men emphasize that it's critical not to settle." Their ideal conception of marriage is a little different from the middle-class version, though, and similarly different from that expressed by the women in Promises I Can Keep.
These men define their ideal wife as someone who has a job, "since most men insist they shouldn't be expected to support a family on their own; in fact, men often avoid attachments to women who hold the expectation that the man will be the sole provider." In addition to financial support, they want "undying devotion" and "unconditional love to where there is nothing, nothing that you wouldn't do for this person." (The double standard inherent in this arrangement is underscored by the fact that "even in the earliest days of the relationship," many of these men "can't seem to tolerate all the 'togetherness' and are irritated by the idea that they are accountable to their partner for their time." But asking the woman to be selflessly devoted to them is apparently just fine and dandy.)
The upshot is that "[h]olding out hope for eventual marriage [to an idealized and gainfully employed "soul mate"] seems to keep many of our men 'in the market' for a wife even while trying to make a go of it with their children's mothers." Even while suspecting that their girlfriends would be quick to ditch them for "the younger guy in the flashy car," these men are often keeping one eye out for a better catch of their own. "Such a man," the researchers note (in perhaps a bit of understatement!), "will likely fail to invest -- shape up, overlook differences, and be content at home -- to the degree required."
To relieve some of this dissonance, "men embrace the belief that in the end, their relationship with their child is pure and unassailable and should have nothing to do with their relationship to the mother of that child."
At this point, the book examines what these men think their relationship with their children should be. "Providing" is key to their conception of a worthy father, but their definition of "providing" is, uh, pretty flexible:
"[One father] has been more or less living off of [the mom's] family, and [her] steady job, since he graduated from high school, but he helps out with diapers and formula when he can. [He] firmly believes that as long as a father is making an effort, and is at least *part* of the team, he ought to be golden, no matter what portion of the bottom line his contribution constitutes. Note that he does not count the cost of his keep against the value of his sporadic donations."
These men will also often choose to contribute to the upkeep of non-biological children who live in their households (with new girlfriends, after the men have broken up with their own children's mothers), prioritizing them over the men's own biological kids: "If, out of the goodness of his heart, this part-time caterer who lives with the family of his girlfriend [...] spends a hundred dollars on her son Kevin Jr., this contribution is judged as a hundred dollars more than he is obligated to pay. For [the girlfriend], who badly needs the help because Kevin Sr., the boy's father, does nothing, this represents an act of valor."
"In sharp contrast, if [another father] chooses to put a hundred dollars into the hands of his seventeen-year-old son's mother, the woman he says he likes best out of the three he's had a child with, she might rightly point out that this is but a drop in the ocean. The value of his contribution, coming on the heels of seventeen years of neglect, is calibrated to the amount she thinks he was obligated to provide all those years. Thus, if it's gratitude or admiration he's seeking, better to spend the money [on] his fiancee's child."
This creates a dynamic where, once they've become estranged from their children's mothers, men feel more rewarded and appreciated for buying "pricey sneaks, or 'Jordans'" for non-biological children than they do for buying essentials for their own kids. "Most mentally label the mother as the 'primary' financial provider [...] and deem themselves as her 'helper,' responsible only for 'doing the best I can.'" When "the 'good provider' is redefined as the man who is 'doing the best I can,' a father's self-esteem is bolstered at the same time that his perceived financial obligation to his offspring is decreased. The theme of self-sacrifice for the child, so evident in the accounts of the mothers of these chidren, is [sometimes] absent in the narratives of their male partners, except in the abstract."
To assuage their guilt and shame over their inability to provide financial support, many fathers choose to focus on a version of the middle-class ideal of "new fatherhood," which emphasizes warmth, affection, and a loving emotional relationship over financial concerns. However, their version of this relationship "often means relegating all the difficult jobs -- paying the bills, setting the limits, providing the good example -- to [the mother]."
Often this sentiment is rooted in the fathers' own sense of childhood deprivation: "love and not money is what they say they missed most from their own fathers [...] The story men tell of their own histories often reveals that their father's absence, coldness, abuse, or rejection was the source of their own rebellion." But, at the same time, they recognize that defining their obligations in this way "offers a more flexible and forgiving way to proceed," in which "a phone call, a letter or gift in the mail" may suffice to win their children's affection and create a meaningful role. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. Quite often, the fathers stop trying after a few years and move on to focusing on their new partners' children.
The researchers asked the fathers to identify "the barriers that kept them from being as involved as they would like with each of their children." The answer was that while sometimes the children's mothers acted as gatekeepers to prevent contact, "[m]ost often, fathers' own limitations and behaviors are the obstacle [...] Substance abuse, criminal behavior, and a lack of financial wherewithal [...] are all common barriers."
"Ultimately," the researchers conclude, "many find that it's easier to start fresh than to persevere." Mothers stay behind with their children, while fathers move "from one household to another as relationships fail and then form," because it "is the physical distance from children from past failed relationships that allows the glittering prospect of a clean slate with a new partner and child. [F]athers enjoying their slice of the whole fatherhood experience in do-over fashion can mentally discount, or simply ignore, their earlier failures as fathers."
And when they fail again, generally, they leave again.
Edin and Nelson conclude their book by suggesting that perhaps one solution (in addition to pursuing policies that increase income and stability for low-skilled workers across the board) might be encouraging low-skilled men to forgo the traditional breadwinner role (which they're mostly unable and unwilling to do anyway) and adopt more of the caretaker role instead.
It's a nice idea and certainly worth encouraging as far as it goes, but I don't really see how you're going to get a guy who chafes against "togetherness" or his girlfriend's "I'm the boss attitude" to suddenly buy into changing diapers or rocking cranky toddlers to sleep. That's going to require a heavy lift in cultural change -- which is not to say that it's impossible, but I'm not optimistic about the short-term prospects of getting immature and irresponsible men to buy into some of the hardest and most stereotypically "women's work" parts of parenting.
This is one situation where I don't really see any good answers. Personally I feel like you kind of have to take down male ego fragility and toxic masculinity (which appear, in my readings, to be much more potent ideas in lower-income neighborhoods) altogether to get very far, and welp good luck with that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment