Better Fathers: Courtesy of the Sexual Revolution

Most Americans believe that the right to plan when to become pregnant was the most important step toward women's liberation. A Gallup poll revealed that more people cite birth control as having the "highest impact" on women than "opportunity for higher education," "access to jobs," political representation," or even the much-publicized "women's movement." Certainly, once birth control became legal, and especially after the introduction of the instantly popular birth control pill, women's lives were transformed. June Cleaver became Hillary Clinton. The change was almost instantaneous. Harvard researchers recently looked into the relationship between family planning and women's liberation and came to the same conclusion. The study, "The Power of the Pill," shows that almost immediately after legalization of contraception there was a surge of women entering college and the professions. From 1970 to 2000, the number of women graduating college more than doubled. Women now represent 61 percent of undergraduates. In just two decades after the legalization of family planning the number of women in the workforce nearly doubled. Today, there are nearly equal numbers of women as men in the workforce. Women's liberation was set in motion by the sexual revolution -- the correlation has been amply documented.

What's left out of all this good news is men. Little attention has been paid to the impact that women's liberation has had on men. The unacknowledged truth is that men have been transformed too. Today, men have more freedom, flexibility and choices -- in the most meaningful ways. A University of Michigan study found that children's time with their fathers increased significantly only in families in which the mother worked out side the home. As researchers of the Families and Work Institute summed up, "There are many other indications that the workforce has become more family-friendly -- especially the fact that American fathers are spending more time with their children than fathers did a generation ago. This trait seems to be passed along in the DNA of the new workforce. Gen X fathers spend significantly more time with their children than baby-boomer fathers -- a difference of more than one hour each day. And most men are aware of this difference: 84 percent report that they spend more time with their kids than their fathers did. As the researchers point out, "Obviously, this trend is affected by the increase in the number of employed mothers." Today, more husbands count on their wives to bring home a significant share of the family wealth; nearly one in four women now earns more than her husband. With this, men have options to leave a negative work environment, change careers, take more career risks, and be more involved with their children.

Today, as a result of not having to shoulder all the economic demands of the family, and by having smaller families, men have been allowed to become more involved fathers -- better fathers -- than ever before. And they seem to like being fathers. Eighty-five percent of dads say they get more joy out of fatherhood than their own fathers did.

Of course, you'd never know this if you listened to the so-called pro-family groups set on convincing us that they way we live is tearing the country apart, family by family.

No doubt, some men are angered -- silently or otherwise -- by women in the workplace. The competition is keener than ever. Yet in the past thirty years, men have been transforming. Today, the majority of men say they desire an equal marriage (77 percent). And they appear to mean it. Mothers spend thirty-six minutes less on chores on workdays and an hour less on non-workdays, than they did 25 years ago. Dads spend thirty minutes more each day helping their wives raise their children than they did twenty-five years ago. Fathers increased involvement starts at the very beginning of their children's lives: 90 percent of dads are present in the delivery room (compared to 10% in 1970). "Men are doing more changing, feeding and burping than they were 30 years ago," states James Levine, who heads the Manhattan-based Fatherhood Project at the Families and Work Institute. "At parent teacher meetings," says Levine, "you're still going to see more women than men, but the number of men is increasing. We're seeing this across all income, racial, ethnic and geographic groups. It's a very broad based social phenomenon." Dads today are more affectionate with their children: 60 percent hug their school age kids every day, and 79% tell their children they love them several times a week. "This is welcome news because it benefits the child," says Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, a professor of child studies at Syracuse University who has researched cross-cultural fathering for more than two decades. "Children whose fathers are involved with them show better education achievement, fewer problems in school, and they're better off socially."

All this seems to have created a revolution in how men see themselves. Seventy percent of dads today feel they would be just as effective staying home and raising children as their wives. The Gallup organization found that one in four men would actually like to stay home and take care of the house and family. Spike TV, the TV network for men, surveyed 1,300 men and found that the number considering staying home is even higher; the poll found that 56 percent of men would consider becoming stay-at-home dads. As the Spike TV pollsters explain, "This is the first generation of men to feel the full effect of women entering the workforce. As women have become partners in the workplace, men are now adjusting to a more equal status at home." And record numbers of men are choosing to stay home too. Today statistics show that roughly 2.5 million dads nationwide stay home to be their children's primary caretaker.

The unheralded result of women entering the workforce, thanks in large part to family planning, has been the rise of the real family man and the making of the more devoted father. It is to the point where the vast majority of men today, 72 percent, say they would sacrifice pay and job opportunities for more time with their families. Spike TV found that most men would choose attending their kids' sporting event over an important work obligation. The Spike TV pollsters explain, "There's been a paradigm shift. Men want involvement with kids. Even with infants, they get up at night. It was NEVER like this before. They're taking parenting seriously. New responsibilities with kids and in homes are enriching men's lives. They're excited by it and proud."

So much for the break up of the family caused by women's emerging roles, the sexual revolution, and the birth control pill--family is more desired, and enjoyed, than ever before. With women sharing a larger stake in providing economically for the family, men have stepped up their investment in nurturing.

In a 1995 interview, feminist icon Gloria Steinem summarized the achievements of women's liberation this way, "We've taken one giant step forward by convincing the majority of the country that women can do what men can do. But the next step is convincing the country that men can do what women can do. So far, we don't believe it ourselves." Maybe it's about time we start believing.

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage

Comments

[bmz]

I feel so sorry for today's parents. Fatherhood was a joy for me, just as motherhood was for my wife; not like today where the majority of today's young parents live a life of desperation and unhappiness. She never worked until our children were off to college, she was not under the constant stress and fear of most of today's mothers. I did not have any "chores" with my children -- all my involvement with them was total joy. She loved me and respected me as a man worthy of love and respect, as I respected and loved her as my wife and mother of my children. Our children grew up loving and respecting their parents and knowing the importance of earning and demanding respect from others. I got a kick out of watching my sons become adults because all their employers learned that regardless how you treat other employees, they had to treat my sons with respect. Their wives love and respect them in a manner that is unfortunately rare today. The mother of my beautiful granddaughter will go back to work if and when she wants to; but she loves and respects my son especially for all he does to give her that option -- and she too does not demand fatherhood chores from him. Please really look deeply around you and see how much modern feminism has cost the majority of today's parents -- and children.

[3Gs]

No disrespect intended, but it is obvious to me you and yours live in a bubble; a unique world that very few others in the US share, or would care to share given the choice. I couldn't imagine my wife (or any women that I would care to be with) staying at home everyday without some aspiration of developing herself in society. Staying at home is like living in your car. Seems safe, but the reality is a more a picture of spiritual stasis. Every parent has the obligation to chase their dreams if they want their chdildren to do the same.

The desperation and unhappiness you mentioned can be attributed to the individuals CHOOSING to allow those emotions into their minds.

What I am really trying to understand is how your kids simply went 'off to college'? The resources required to attend college today prohibit a one income family for most of us 'normal folks'. My daughter is 4 years old, and although her college fund is well under way, she will likely still have to work to help pay for her degree.

[SiberianRat]

I'm not sure it's fair to call his world "a bubble"--it's his fortunate experience. My sister was a high-powered exec. and now chooses to stay home with her children (luckily my brother-in-law's income allows that). I doubt she views staying at home like "living in [her] car." bmz wrote about a situation that has worked well for him and his family, and that's great. I come from a VERY broken home with an absentee father who didn't pay child support and a mother working all the time to try and make ends meet--his and his children's experience sounds wonderful. For parents who are able to and choose to make the stay-at-home commitment to their children doesn't mean they're not chasing their dreams--perhaps their dream is to give their children lots of love and support. Just because their dreams aren't the same as yours doesn't make them less valuable and less laudable.

[dawlishgal]

I stayed home AND worked after my children were born (after taking a few years off after the birth of our second child) . I worked part time, mostly at home as a consultant­/researche­r. It was far harder than working in an office because if anything went wrong with the baby sitter when I had to be in the office, or my husband had a meeting or somebody got sick or the school needed a volunteer, I was always the one expected to be "flexible" and fill in for whatever was necessary because I "didn't work." When I was working half-time, I would find that at the end of the month I was trying to squeeze in all of the hours in the middle of the night because the demands of my "real life" were so intense. It was a very difficult time....I was always tired and frustrated and waiting for that other shoe to drop.

[dawlishgal]

I am probably approximately your age and I have to disagree. My husband and I married in graduate school, where we both had 1/2 time appointments as research assistants. With our combined salaries (not all that high, either) we were able to pay our ways through school with no student loans (at a good state university), buy a modest house and a new Saab and have two children. My mom helped with baby-sitting so I could continue to work. After our second son was born, I was able to stay home with him because my husband had finished his degree and had a faculty position. by then. It was comparatively easy for us.

Young people nowadays NEED two people working full time, and-- even then-- most of them can't afford to buy a house or a new car. Things have changed drastically, especially for women, and not always in a good direction.

I have often wondered what happened to the fruits of women's increased productivity. It is certainly not going to the pressured-families. If one looks at the income distributions, at the increasing discrepancies between the top 1% and everybody else, we can see where the money is going. The richest of the rich can afford to spend $40,000 on alligator handbags (as I saw Mrs. Tom Cruise with in a new magazine) , and the people at the bottom can't even afford a used car that runs.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"I did not have any "chores" with my children -- all my involvement with them was total joy."

"The mother of my beautiful granddaughter will go back to work if and when she wants to; she too does not demand fatherhood chores from him."

All involvement with your children was "total joy" BECAUSE neither you nor your son were/are "demanded" to do "fatherhood chores"? Perhaps the "total joy" of your wife, or your daughter-in-law, was/is slightly diminished BECAUSE neither you nor your son have/are HELPING with "fatherhood chores"?! And what exactly are "fatherhood chores"?

My husband was not willing to make the sacrificies (in our TWO-income family) that come with the "total joy" of raising children. I continued to work full-time OUTSIDE and INSIDE the home. (According to my husband, running the household and raising the children were "MOTHERHOOD chores".) After seven years of working TWO full-time jobs, something had to give. I gave up my paying job. And after years of doing "WOMEN'S work", my husband MADE THE MISTAKE of saying to me "You could at least go get a part-time job and START contributing to the family, so I CAN RETIRE." He has retired...but "WOMEN'S work" is NEVER DONE!

Our sons are NOW learning how to handle a woman. What a difference a generation makes!

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[dawlishgal]

Well said. As for the "total joy" part, that is pure fiction...it is 90% joy and 10% STRESS. My husband, bless him, used his vacations to take care of the kids so I could have a little vacation visiting friends in other places like NYC, and he could spend some good time with them (his job demanded he be available constantly when he wasn't on vacation, so he didn't get as much time with them as he would have liked). And every 6 months or so, he would take the kids away for a weekend, so I could concentrate on getting organized around the house.

I was lucky. Actually, I am still lucky, even though my kids are grown.

[TheBlackCat]

It is great that this situation worked out so well for your family. However, in MY marriage, this simply wouldn't work. I have a college degree and my husband does not. I make more money than him, and his job does not provide health insurance whereas mine supplies me with health, dental, life, AND disability insurance. When we have children, it is our desire that one of us take work off for the first few years. I personally would love to take a few years off and be a stay at home mom, and if our situation has changed by then I will GLADY stop working and stay home with the kids until they enter school. If our situation does not change though, it will HAVE to be him who takes work off and me who continues to work, or it will mean us living in poverty with no health or dental insurance and no safety net for our children were something to happen to us.
Without feminism, my husband and I would have been left in a position of not being able to have children at all; as we are firm believers in "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em." We also would be lacking financial stability, insurance of any kind; and were my husband to die, I would have been left penniless.

[3Gs]

A truly needed article that reflects the changes I am experiencing to a tee. I couldn't imagine being the only bread winner, nor would I consider losing a moment with my 4 year old daughter if it could be helped. Thanks to God for giving us the brave people who faught for family planning and all it encompasses. Thanks to God for helping us remove the dogmatic shackles of the religious right. God is all for good sex, population control, and good parenting.

[biglover]

I don't think God had much to do with it and I don't really mean any disrespect but you said it - thank the brave people who fought for family leave and the democrats who supported it.

[GlimmerofDope]

Interesting facts. I have no doubt men are more involved in raising children. However, not mentioned is that there are less men having children and less than ever getting married. 20 years ago 6% of men 40 years old were never married, now that figure is 17%. Almost tripling in 20 years! the blogger does not address the fact that access to the pill has significantly lowered birth rates in developed nations. Therefore these populations must rely on cheap foreign labor (Mexicans in America, Turks in Germany etc.) to do the "work" that the women and teens previously filled. There is a significant level of demographic transition happening now. It will take several generations to stabilize, or no one will be married and having kids if trends continue. The population pyramid is looking more like a column. Women weren't the only ones liberated, a lot of us men have been freed too! Freed from the family paradigm.

[3Gs]

Somehow I doubt if any country in this world needs to fret about 'under population'.

[GlimmerofDope]

It's not under population, it's the way it is redistributing. Many more oldsters (quality medical care), far fewer young people(birth control). The problem being that it's the young that pay for the old. This is causing the failure of the social type entitlements. Italy for instance has a negative birth rate and are trying desperately to get immigrants to relocate there. The pressure on the young is that they have to pay a higher percentage to taxes for Medicare, Medicaid etc. and have less to invest in their own future.

[TheBlackCat]

Um, of course men are getting married less and having children less.
Until recent history, a woman HAD to get married, unless she was a wealthy heiress. Her ONLY option was to marry and be a mother because making an independent living was almost impossible. There was no other place for her in society. And too bad for you unattractive, less charming women who couldn't get a man, for you were at the mercy of your male relatives, and the best you could hope for was being a governess.
Now a woman gets to decide whether or not she gets married, and some simply opt not to have families. I got my degree in archaeology and dreamed of traveling the world with no ties to a homestead or family. However, right after graduation I fell in love and got married. I don't even use my archaeology degree now, I have a traditional office job and in a few years will start having kids.
And that's fine with me! Because it was my CHOICE. But there are many women out there who won't make the choice I did, and so marriage declined and will continue to do so.
And as you point out, this change in the social paradigm has made it even more socially acceptable for men to remain bachellors, and live without the responsibility of a family.
You are right, freedom of coice for women has also created more freedom of choice for men.

[loril]

I credit my dad (a member of the pre-baby boomer "Silent" generation) for spending a LOT of time with me and my sister before it became common to do so. It is crucial for both parents to be as involved as they can be.

However, what I see now is that BOTH parents are constantly distracted by work and that households are in chaos. Parents are relying on organized sports, after school programs, a constant array of classes and "enrichment" activities for their kids. Sure, some of this stuff is great...fun and rewarding for the kids. But constantly? And at what cost?

Kids have as little down time as their parents. Even infants are channeled into 8 or 9 hours of daycare and only see their parents a few hours a day.

The entire family dynamic IS changing. And I am all for women having their fair share of economic and professional opportunities. In our "market decides all" society it cannot be any other way. However, to label today's workforce (24 hours of work e-mails, beeping cell phones and blackberries) as "family friendly" is a stretch. I think people are more stressed than ever and the kids are picking up on it. Look at rampant ADD, obesity and kids who spend more time online chatting to strangers than talking with their parents.

I hate to sound negative, but we still have a long way to go toward "work-life balance".

[CatfishJohn]

...great essay...yes, indeed "ward cleaver came home from the office, started dinner, helped with homework and ran a laundry"..and was still ward cleaver...any man who doesnt/hasnt taken opportunity to grow closer and more day to day affectionate with his children as a result of a career mom in their midst is a fool...any dad not quickly won over by the obligation turned enduring joy of beign involved in the day to day and hour to hour minutia of childrearing/shared household duties needs himself to grow up...feminist liberation has broken down the rigid , cliched roles and barriers for loving dads as well...and i for one am a better man for it...

[3Gs]

Amen, brother

[mergina]

Sisterhood is powerful for fatherhood indeed.

[Americanium]

What a load of crap!!

[3Gs]

Nice. Bet YOUR kids are well rounded.

[livesimply]

We will have truly (almost) made it when one never again hears a man refer to spending time with his children as "babysitting."

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

The notion of taking care of your own kids and calling it babysitting is evidencs that a lot of men want the title Dad without the work.

[Valkyrie]

Your article focuses on women and the good graces brought on men by the women's movement, but as a woman, so little of your article focuses on the children. Are their lives better since the revolution? Would you say that children today are better educated than we were at their age? Are their living situations better? Do they spend all of their time posting videos of themselves beating the shit out of each other on myspace? Do they spend their time doing "the choking game or having anal sex because it's not really intercourse?

Despite this "revolution" for women, what about the kids? It seems to me that parents, male and female, are spending way less time with their children, plopping them down in front of the TV or playstation or whatever happens to be the best babysitter at the time.

A sexual revolution, or sex in general, has the inevitable outcome of childbirth. Maybe more time should be spent considering their welfare and not just the selfishness evident in this piece.

[3Gs]

Quality trumps quantity any day. The trivial distractions you speak of could only be born from poor parenting and/or normal child curiosity. I suppose you were some sort of angel as a teen? Doubt it.

[MerhabaAbi]

My sister advised me to ignore the quality time is better then quantity time propaganda. She made sense and I followed her advice. Her daughter is considerably older then my sons and I believed she knew what she was talking about. She operated under the fallacy that you could make up the just being there time with special one-on-one time that you schedule. My niece basically had appointments for special involvement time with Mom. Without going into their story, things didn't work out well.

I was home all evening, almost every evening and my sons and I ate dinner together. I knew all of their friends, favorite TV show's characters and even though I detest the things, their favorite video games. We never had special time for talks. When they decided to open up with me, I was right there. Be careful what you sacrifice in the name of brilliant new ideas.

[Lolly]

I'm sure children are much worse off having fathers attending their sporting events and hugging them every day.

Geez, did you even bother to read the article?

[tom ellison]

Curiously, I don't see any stats about African American families. The sexual revolution destroyed those families.

[OnTheCusp]

Uh, the article was about men and fathers.....it didn't "focus on the children" because it wasn't about children. Not every freakin' thing in this world is "about children."

[Athana]

But what about child abuse? Father-on-daughter incest?

Has the incidence of either decreased? Are we just opening the chicken-coop doors wide to the foxes, here? Does this new situation give dads more opportunity than ever to wreck the lives of their kids?

[swooge]

Thanks for labeling all men as potential abusers. Thanks for laying a great big fat dump on what is intended to be a nice article on increased involvenment of fathers in their childrens lives. On fathers day no less.

If I can hazard a guess I'd say you have been abused. If true, I hope you are getting help. Please realize that most fathers are just that, fathers. We love and adore our children and want every happiness for them. We are not abusers or potential abusers. We are one half of their support system and we all aspire to be called "Dad".

[southsideirish]

Here. Here. This isn't only A TOTALLY RIDICULOUS, INVALID CONCERN WRITTEN BY SOMEONE WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS NO PROBLEM TAKING THE SLIGHTEST OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONIZE MEN, it comes out of left field. Is there a chance that if a guy is a real monster he's gonna do monstrous things when no one's around? Yes. Is there a chance that when someone is a SELFISH MONSTER (not someone who's just "depressed" and can't control their actions) they might drown their kids? Of course. While, I don't completely agree with the article's presumption that kids are inherently better off these days (which, in my opinion, has nothing to do with women in the work place--that's actually a good thing--but rather the ever-escalating demands by the corporate power structure) I think the entire point is missed when someone makes this kind of a comment. Kids need parents. That's it. It's truth without debate. Kids love their moms and their dads respectively, regardless of the combination they come in. And if someone is sane and loving and nuturing, they shouldn't be kept from helping to raise a good person by circumstances arising from prejudice or poverty.

[TheBlackCat]

Agreed, I can only imagine this poor soul was abused themselves to have such a fear of men that they believe it is dangerous for women to leave their children with their own fathers. At the very least they must have been abused or neglected in SOME way to believe that the father's main purpose is to wreck the lives of their children.

My foster sister's mum was a crack addict who tried to kill her. Women are just as capable of child abuse and men.

Which isn't to say that abuse is the default state of mothers or fathers. Because it isn't.

[derrick99]

Athana, I'm not going to address the validity your comment. If ever there was a cry for help, I have just read it. I say this in the nicest possible way, you need to take a look at wht you are saying and address whatever terrible things happened to you. Good luck.

Nice article, Ms. Page.

[Paralogos]

I don't doubt that there have been cases of paternal child abuse that would not have happened if the mother had been kept out of the workforce. But I do doubt that they have been numerous. And who's to say how much maternal child abuse and outright infanticide has been avoided because the mother was no longer alone in bearing the responsibility for a young child?

To the extent that our society has evolved to allow greater involvement of *both* parents with their children, there's a psychological benefit to the overwhelming majority of children. Surely, there are better ways to prevent child abuse than to deny them that benefit!

[3Gs]

This is a valid concern. I think the obvious answer is for all mothers to ensure that open communication is established in the household, and the children are taught to speak of anything that concerns them. Parental abuses wil not be tolerated by a child if they are empowered with the right to communicate.

[Cautious]

I'm not so sure this is a valid concern. I would have to see statistics. It sounds kind of wierd to me.

According to what I've read, the real problem is stepfathers molesting children of either gender.

Father-on-daughter incest brought up in this context is just really wierd. It's saying that any father that stays home with a daughter is capable of incest, and they apparently no father at all should be left alone with a daughter. This is just wierd.

Statistically at least, the parent that murders children is most often the mother.

[Lolly]

Actually, I've seen reports that fathers who are actively involved in their daughters' care from the beginning--feeding, changing diapers, etc--are far less likely to abuse their daughters later.