Work, Caregiving, and Masculinities

• Publication year: 2011

UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND LAW REVIEWVolume 34, No. 3SPRING 2011

Work, Caregiving, and Masculinities

Ann C. McGinley (fn*)

I. Introduction: Working Toward Equality at Work and Home

In Reshaping the Work-Family Debate,(fn1) Joan Williams argues for progressive family-friendly laws and policies that enable men and women to succeed in their jobs and to care for their families responsibly. She explains that, contrary to media narratives, there is no onslaught of women "opting out" of working because they believe that staying at home with their children is natural.(fn2) Further, she challenges the sameness/difference dichotomy that has driven the debate about workplace reforms.(fn3) Those who advocate sameness posit that women and men are the same and should be treated the same at work, no matter their cir-cumstances.(fn4) In other words, women and men should have equal opportunities in the workplace, but those equal opportunities do not permit any accommodation for the worker's caregiving responsibilities.(fn5) Because women still bear the burden of the majority of the child care and housework, this formal equality often ignores the reality of women's lives and has a disparate negative effect on women at work.(fn6)

Feminists advocating the difference approach, on the other hand, see women as different from men. While difference may arise naturally or as a result of society, and feminists advocating difference do not intend to harm women, the difference approach has nonetheless been used to justify inferior treatment of women, or at least refusals to examine how the workplace creates difficulties for parents balancing work and family.(fn7)

Williams explains that instead of focusing on whether women are different from men, the new debate should interrogate masculine norms in the workplace.(fn8) Her proposal moves the debate from an examination of men and women to an interrogation of workplace norms developed during a time when middle class, nonworking mothers could afford to stay home to care for their children. Williams demonstrates that today, men, especially those in the working class, play key roles in family care.(fn9) Proposals for reform must take into account the lived circumstances of women and men of all classes, not merely of the professional-managerial class featured in news stories and magazines.(fn10) The debate must acknowledge a number of truths: (1) that families come in different shapes and colors; (2) that they all require caregiving; and (3) that most parents are engaged in caregiving as well as work. A new policy must recognize all types of households: dual parent, single parent, same-sex parent, and those with elderly grandparents or disabled children. In other words, the law must require sufficient flexibility in workplaces and quality care for dependent children and adults to meet the needs of today's workers.

Williams argues that meaningful reform cannot occur without an alignment of progressives from the professional-managerial class (what I call "progressive professionals") and working class men and women.(fn11) She blames the political rift between these groups on the condescending attitudes of the progressive professionals toward the working class.(fn12) These attitudes must change, she argues, to create an alliance that will further the interests of the working class and the politics of the progressive professionals.(fn13) Without this alliance, Williams observes that there will be no progressive agenda for the workplace.(fn14)

Besides attitudinal changes, Williams recommends substantive change through a rethinking of feminist theory toward work-family con-flicts-a "reconstructive feminism" that shifts the discussion.(fn15) Reconstructive feminism focuses on masculine norms in the workplace that place a burden on workers with caregiving responsibilities.(fn16) Williams examines the characteristics of the workplace that make it difficult for caregivers, men or women, to shoulder both family care and work re-sponsibilities.(fn17)

Williams demonstrates the vulnerability of parent workers in working class America. In Chapter 2, "One Sick Child Away from Being Fired," she examines the records of ninety-nine union arbitrations to analyze the problems of working class parents who struggle to juggle their working and parenting responsibilities.(fn18) Because this chapter is a tour de force in an overall excellent book, and because it suggests an area that my research has focused on over the past number of years, in this Essay, I limit my discussion almost exclusively to this chapter. My approach is to use masculinities theory, a body of social science scholarship, to analyze Williams's study. Masculinities theory supports and reinforces Wil-liams's conclusions and points toward a number of recommendations for addressing the problems of gender norms in the workplace. Part II describes masculinities scholarship. Part III analyzes the ninety-nine arbitrations studied by Williams using the lens of masculinities theory. Part IV considers cultural gender norms and makes a number of recommendations. The recommendations include the following: (1) further research; (2) union organizing around and bargaining about flexible scheduling for workers; (3) amendment of existing legislation and passage of new legislation that grants more comprehensive family leave, prohibits discrimination based on family care responsibilities, and grants employees reasonable accommodations; and (4) education about gender roles, caregiving, and social change. The Essay concludes that a combination of improved research, legal actions, and societal change should improve the working and living conditions of all types of families. While not all of these measures will happen instantaneously, working toward these changes is vital to ensuring a healthy economy, healthy citizens, and healthy families.

II. Masculinities Theory, Work, and Families

Williams analyzes a number of empirical studies that lead her to conclude that masculine norms in the workplace make it difficult for both men and women with family care responsibilities to function simultaneously as workers and as caregivers.(fn19) Many of Williams's conclusions are consistent with masculinities studies, an area of research that focuses on men's roles in society. Masculinities research has recently received attention from feminists and critical race scholars because it explains why men engage in behaviors that are harmful to women and how competitive behaviors among men of different races, classes, and sexual orientations may also be gendered.(fn20) This Part provides a brief orientation to masculinities theory that places into context the stories of the working class men and women that Professor Williams describes in Chapter 2.

Masculinities theory evolved primarily from sociology and social psychology, but it also engages with other disciplines such as geogra-phy.(fn21) The term "masculinities" is used in the plural to denote that masculinity is not a fixed, natural reaction to a person's biological sex. In contrast, masculinities scholars posit that men achieve their masculinity through performances, or interaction with others (especially other men), and that there are varying ways to perform masculinity.

Early masculinities theorists developed the concept of the "hegemonic masculinity." R.W. Connell defines the hegemonic masculinity as "the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women."(fn22) Thus, hegemonic masculinity, rather than a particular type of masculinity performance, is a set of gender practices that confers power in a given context. While in some contexts, such as Congress and the boardroom, the hegemonic masculinity is frequently described as an upper middle class white form of masculinity, in other contexts, such as blue collar workplaces or prisons, alternative forms of performing masculinity may be dominant and more powerful. These alternative or subversive forms of performing masculinity may result from men's reactions to their inability to achieve the most powerful hegemonic masculinity in society.

More recently, masculinities theorists have urged the expansion of the concept of hegemonic masculinity.(fn23) Because masculinity is fluid, relational, and context dependent, notions of masculinity change constantly through interaction.(fn24) Some theorists prefer to talk about the "hegemony of men" as a more accurate description of men's power.(fn25) They note that the "hegemony of men" includes hegemonic forms of performing masculinity, but they emphasize the power of men as a group.(fn26) Jeff Hearn, for example, argues that looking merely at masculinities is too constricting and that we should consider seven different concepts under the hegemony of men.(fn27)

While the hegemony of men concept expands masculinities theory, it supports the key ideas of masculinities theory. These ideas challenge the view that masculinity is biologically predetermined or natural for men and unnatural for women,(fn28) and posit that masculinity is socially constructed through performances.(fn29) The concept acknowledges that men construct their masculine identities through relationships with others(fn30) and that there are various forms of masculinity.

Masculinities theory...