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

1. The Contested Terrain of U.S. Fatherhood Politics

1 The Contested Terrain of U.S. Fatherhood Politics Mapping Out the Field of Fatherhood Politics Uniting around “the family” and child well-being fits into mainstream values that any U.S. citizen could support. Who could say that responsible fatherhood is a bad idea? Who is going to disagree if someone says that everybody should love his or her children? On the surface, the fatherhood responsibility movement appears to unite around and resonate with a national political consensus. However, the internal divisions in the fatherhood responsibility movement illustrate how the banner of children and family masks opposing claims, grievances, and stakes. Fatherhood politics and family policy can be compared to a minefield where political agents divided by race and socioeconomic class are setting off highly charged social, economic, and moral bombshells. The fatherhood responsibility movement constitutes a strategic alliance of competing constituencies of men that build on diverging social movement traditions. Nevertheless, the fatherhood responsibility movement fits into most criteria for what sociologists call a social movement: it is centrally coordinated , has official leaders, proselytizes for new members (although there is no official status for “membership” except for organizational affiliations), and is aimed at changing public policy (Schwalbe 1996, 5). However, it lacks two common criteria: the participants do not share a common identity (other than as biological and heterosexual men), and they do not share a common enemy, although Wade Horn, who was then the president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, named “family relativism” as a common enemy (1999, 13). For sim21 plicity’s sake, since this study is not primarily concerned with social movement theory, I label the fatherhood responsibility movement a movement (for discussion, see Mincy and Pouncy 2002). Whether the fatherhood politics I investigate fits neatly into a movement label is less interesting in this context. In this book, I am more interested in the ways the actors of the fatherhood responsibility movement represent themselves, what they seek to accomplish, and the ideas, practices, and strategies they employ to these ends. To conceive of the fatherhood responsibility movement is a very complex task. First, one is talking about different levels (local, state, federal) and organizations dealing with different aspects (coordination, training, policymaking , research, “hands on” work with fathers) and different societal sectors (employment, faith communities, health care, education, recreation, the juridical system). Second, even though the organizations in the fatherhood responsibility movement have several common interests, they often deal with separate issues. There are injustices and concerns that some organizations bring up and others do not, because the men or fathers they represent simply do not face the same problems in their lives. Despite these problems and complexities , this study approaches the fatherhood responsibility movement in terms of a movement within the field (which is another term that representatives frequently use to conceive of themselves) of strategic alliances mainly between pro-marriage and fragile-families groups. These fatherhood organizations have a mutual interest in the growth of the field of fatherhood politics through increased political and public attention, a competing interest in public and private funding, and a common interest in increasing local activity around fatherhood responsibility issues. Because of these common interests, fatherhood organizations come together and call themselves a movement in different political and public campaigns. Unlike earlier studies (Coltrane 2001; Daniels 1998; Silverstein and Auerbach 1999; Stacey 1996), which focus mostly on the vocal and politically visible marriage proponents in the fatherhood responsibility movement,1 this study examines both fragile-families and pro-marriage groups in the fatherhood responsibility movement. Within the fragile-families wing, I focus on the significant national groups, such as the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership, the National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, and the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy. I also talked with representatives from other well-known fragile -families organizations, such as the Fatherhood Project,2 and numerous local programs, such as the Baltimore City Healthy Start Men’s Services. Within the pro-marriage wing, I have talked with members of the highly influential National Fatherhood Initiative, the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood 22 / fa t h e r h o o d p o l i t i c s i n t h e u n i t e d s ta t e s and Family Revitalization, the National Center for Fathering, and the Institute for American Values...