Fatherhood Politics in the United States: Masculinity, Sexuality, Race, and Marriage

5. Naughty by Nature

5 Naughty by Nature Domesticating Masculinity Using sport and religion as all-male sites for heterosexual masculinizationpartlyre flectsthefactthatmarriageproponentsandfragile-familiesrepresentatives ,despitedivergingconstituenciesandcompetingperspectives,converge in conceptions of gender-specific male sexuality. Overall, the fatherhood responsibility movement occupies itself primarily with the “problem” of perceived innately promiscuous male (hetero)sexuality. Fragile-families representatives generally support a fairly large degree of flexibility in the gendered divisionoflaborbetweenparentsinheterosexualfamilies .Nevertheless,theystill seem to believe in a fundamental, more or less essentialist, gender difference that manifests itself in sexuality and is more “basic” than socially and culturallyconstructedgenderrelations .Althoughmarriageproponentsaremorerigid on the question of gender difference, they converge with the fragile-families wingwhenitcomestosexualizednotionsofgenderdifference.Aswehaveseen, fragile-families representatives tend to frame the “male problem” in sociohistorical and economic terms, whereas marriage proponents tend to emphasize moral imperatives for controlling men’s (hetero)sexual urges. Regardless of differences in emphases, however, all branches of the fatherhood responsibility movement use notions of male heterosexuality as a foundation for male bonding . “Womanizing” defines and masculinizes men, differentiating them from women as well as homosexuals. Male heterosexuality is considered “natural” and good if practiced “responsibly,” that is, it leads to an economically or morally viable hetero family unit. By being defined in relation to femininity, mas126 culinity engenders coherence in opposition to women and gay men. The only factor that gives heterosexual men coherence as a group in contemporary fatherhood politics is the practice of defining themselves as “normal” by steering clear of practices they consider essentially feminine or gay. In the fatherhood responsibility movement, notions of male sexuality are partly based on what researchers have called a 1900s “hydraulic” model of gender /sexuality that depicts male sexuality as a flowing force (Weeks 1985, 8). Hydraulics refers to the flow of water (or other liquids) in rivers and channels and its confinement and conduction by dams (and other containers) as well as the use of water in driving machinery (New Encyclopedia Britannica 1987). The hydraulic model is based on the biblical, sexological, and sociobiological separation between nature and society that calls for “civilization’s” control over “nature” through the reinforcement of heteronormative family forms. In other words, representatives of the fatherhood responsibility movement envision the control of male sexuality according to hydraulic notions of a male natural “drive.” First, they construct notions of masculinity and call these “nature ” or “God-given order.” Then they call for cultural and social control of this nature/order, ignoring the cultural/social ideas and historical conditions that shaped these notions in the first place. The fatherhood responsibility movement’s notions of “uncivilized” masculinities draw partly on pop-Freudian notions that equate maturity with reproductive heterosexuality in the “antagonism ” between civilization and sexual “drives.”1 Heterosexuality is thus “natural” but still needs to be learned through “proper” socialization. Masculinity , constructed as constituted by heterosexual drives, needs to be “civilized ” into heteronormativity, in other words, monogamous marriage and responsible fatherhood. These contradictory essentialist and hydraulic notions of ideal masculinity ignore the ways gendered and sexual notions have been historically and socially constituted in gendered, racial, sexual, and socioeconomic relations. The hydraulic model and notions of “uncivilized” masculinity have informed the mythologies of “hypersexual” African American men. These mythologies have been used by white men to control and oppress African American and minority men at specific points in U.S. history, for instance, in the surge of rape accusations and lynchings that followed the abolition of slavery (Davis 1981, 172–201; hooks 1992, 87–114; D’Emilio and Freedman 1997, 85– 108). The fatherhood responsibility movement reflects the ways gendered, racial , and socioeconomic power relations condition heterosexual norms of masculinity . These dynamics mirror the continuing influence of racist gender stereotypes on U.S. policy and scholarly discourses on African American men and women. Mythologies of hypermasculinity paradoxically coexisted with Naughty by Nature / 127 myths in the 1960s family structure debates that African American men were socialized into “femininity” and gender/sexual confusion because of femaleheaded “ghetto” households. Post–civil rights discussions of socialization and African American female-headed households framed African American unmarried fatherhood and male unemployment in terms of a lack of male role models (see, for example, Rainwater and Yancey 1967). Again, the gendered and sexual politics of the fatherhood responsibility movement cannot be understood without reference to moral and religious discourse . The Promise Keepers’ emphasis on “sexual purity” and the centrality of controlling male sexuality derives partly from biblical notions...