‘Dads aren't Demons. Mums aren't Madonnas.’ Constructions of fatherhood and masculinities in the (real) Fathers 4 Justice campaign

Abstract

Constructions of fatherhood are key signifiers of masculinity/ies and, in the context of a new politics of fatherhood, these constructions have been articulated in opposition both to motherhood and femininity/ies and to ideas of the ‘deadbeat dad’ (Collier 2006, Gavanas 2004, Kaye and Tolmie 1998). The fathers' rights movement has contributed to this redefinition of fatherhood. In the case of the UK group, Fathers 4 Justice, the central message is that ‘Dads aren't Demons [and] Mums aren't Madonnas’ (fathers-4-justice.org). The paper draws on in-depth interviews conducted with members of the fathers' rights group, Real Fathers for Justice/Fathers 4 Justice, to explore and illustrate the conceptions of fatherhood underpinning the campaign. My analysis of the interviews suggests that there is indeed an anxiety to distinguish ‘good’ from ‘bad’ fathers and also to underline the need for fathers by highlighting the existence of ‘bad’ mothers. In addition, conceptions of the good father expressed in the interviews can be further subdivided into the ‘nurturing father’, the ‘father as superhero’ and the ‘good enough father’.

Keywords:

• Fathers 4 Justice
• Real Fathers for Justice
• masculinities
• fatherhood
• fathers' rights groups
• men's rights groups
• men's movements

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Economic and Social Research Council who provided the funding for this research. I would also like to thank Daniel Conway and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions.

Notes

1. Notable exceptions to this in terms of the US and Canadian fathers' rights movement are recent research conducted by Jocelyn Elise Crowley (2008, 2009) and Molly Dragiewicz (2008) based on in-depth interviews with members of fathers' rights groups and an ethnographic study of internet-based fathers' rights forums respectively.

2. The national context is significant as it is important to understand national movements in their particular legal and social context (Smart 2006).

3. Unless otherwise attributed, all quotations come from the interview transcripts.

4. Quotations are not attributed to individual interviewees, even via the use of pseudonyms, in order to provide an extra level of anonymity given the sensitivity of the research context. This is also consonant with the purpose of the article – to explore illustrations of masculinity and fatherhood and common themes across the interviews, rather than to understand individual narratives.

5. I discuss this in an unpublished conference paper: ‘Every Father is a Superhero to his Children’ (Matt O'Connor): Batman, the Dads Army and masculinities in the Fathers 4 Justice campaign. Presented at the First European Conference on Politics and Gender, Belfast, January 2009 and at the Political Studies Association Annual Conference, Swansea, April 2008.

6. The phrases ‘new man’ and ‘new father’ are presented in inverted commas as there is considerable debate over whether either of these constructions are really ‘new’ or can be pinned to a specific historical period which represents a marked disjuncture from ‘old’ masculinity or fatherhood (for a discussion of this see Collier and Sheldon 2008, Dermott 2008, Featherstone 2009).

7. Fathers (and mothers) currently only have the legal right to apply for contact (Collier 2006, p. 60, fn 37).

8. At the time of the research, family courts were closed, the rationale being that complete confidentiality is necessary to protect the children at the centre of contact and residency (Douglas and Lowe 2007). However, since April 2009, the family courts have been open to the press.

9. Hatch was not a member of the RFFJ splinter group.

10. The phrase is a slogan from one the F4J campaign posters – see fathers4justice.org.

11. For a discussion of the complicated issues of the impact of father absence (and father presence) on children see Flood (2003).