The fathers in my study were more likely to reference family time instead of father-child time. I probed to determine if substantial amount father-child interaction involved playtime or leisure activities. Oftentimes, American fathers meet the expectation for parent-child
involvement through leisure activities (Coakley 2009). Moreover, this interaction is defined as masculine and distanced from feminized activities such as meal preparation or bathing. For the most part, fathers reported that leisure activities were more likely to be enjoyed as a family. About half the fathers did discuss specific activities. If the topic was discussed in the joint interview, the mothers would highlight or praise the interaction, but the reverse never occurred. Fathers in my study did not highlight activities that mothers shared with children. Sporting activities were not overly popular. That is not to say that the fathers did not engage in sporting activities in the backyard, but none of the fathers discussed any kind of backyard play, though two fathers coached their sons’ athletic teams. Jain and Belsky (1997) also found in their study on first-generation Indian American fathers, father-child interaction was not likely to be
characterized by leisure activities, though they admit this was not the focus of their study. The picture that emerged is that father-child activities were more likely to be expressed as family activities. For example, Kashi’s job involves very long workdays. I asked Kashi and Kiran if their family can have dinner together during the week.
Kiran: No.
Kashi: Not most of the time. Kiran: Yeah.
Kashi: But when I come [home], they are doing their homework. But they will come briefly, and we’ll exchange some things [conversation]. But I try to explain to them that if I can work more often because – this idea that I have to be working and making money – we can provide for them, and so that Mommy doesn’t have to work, and she can be more there. And it’s not like, I don’t want to see them. So they have this idea. And until I go tuck her in, I make [my daughter] say a little prayer and I [talk to them]. So it’s limited, but over weekends, we go places together.
Kashi’s considered his father role to be mostly instrumental, so he does not spend much time with his children during the week. However, weekends are family time. For most families, including dual-earner families, weekends were spent involved in family activities. Work and school schedules constrain family activities during the week. Consequently, weekends are parent-child time- or as most of my fathers described, family time. About half the fathers did report specific father-child interaction. Anish described spending time with his daughter.
Anish: I try to set time aside for taking my daughter to the movies. If she wants. He [son] doesn’t want to go to movies with me anymore because now he’s got his own friends, which is fine, but I’m saying earlier when he was younger. Same thing I’m doing with my daughter. Like she would rather see [kind of movie], you know, and it changes over the years- her type of movies. He would want to see those movies [when he was her age]. Interviewer: How old is she now?
Anish: She’s 12.
Interviewer: Does she still want to hang out with you? Anish: No.
Interviewer: No? What age do they stop doing that? Anish: Probably 11 or ten.
Interviewer: Yeah, it’s just not cool to hang out with mom and dad.
Anish: Yeah, but if it’s in their favor, it’s fine. Like, if I’m going to take them [daughter and her friends] to see Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean, she’s fine with that. I’m gonna buy her soda and this and that and not tell mommy, you know, then she’s fine with that.
Anish was the only father to explain such a detail account of interaction with his children. From his narrative, he works at creating one-one-one time with his children. He was also one father in particular who demonstrated the “father as pal” approach to fathering. By noting that he buys his daughter treats that they do not tell the mother about, Anish alluded to relationship he might have that is separate from the relationship his daughter has with her mother.
Many of the parents mentioned that they restrict the number of TV hours their children watch as well as the kinds of shows. Ramesh discussed their approach to monitoring how much TV his children watch.
So we don’t say, “Three hours this weekend, and that’s it, so use the three hours however you want to do it.” We just kind of go with the flow. Sometimes, we get kid friendly blockbuster movies, and we do that. We were watching Survivor together as a family. They enjoy that and
American Idol. So, there’s a couple of shows during the week where we either let them watch live one evening if it’s not too late or we DVR it and watch it Friday evenings.
In this excerpt, I asked him about television viewing, and he ended up describing family time together. This type of account was typical in terms of describing father-child interaction. Perhaps the reason family time is more common than specific parent-child interaction is due to the
differing behaviors and perceptions between Indian Americans and non-Indian American families. In contrast to the individualism ideology of the United States, India emphasizes the
family or a collectivist ideology. This ideology may continue in the second-generation family. From my own involvement in the Indian American community, parties typically involve the entire family. Third-generation children are not left at home with a babysitter, social activities are for the whole family.
CONCLUSION
I used the expression, “Active Fathering” to capture the dynamic of the fathering role among my participants. Unlike Lareau’s (2005) study where fathers were relying heavily on their wives for information, the fathers in my study did directly report details about their children, however, there were varying degrees of details reported based on their overall
contribution to parenting. Fathers in my study demonstrated more of “new” masculinity in that they did not seem to embrace rigid gendered expectations in the family (Cooper 2000). Unlike hegemonic masculinity, these “new” fathers do not negotiate masculinity by distancing
themselves from feminine activities (i.e., housework and childcare.) Although the fathers in my study exhibited varying contributions to domestic activities, none of them expressed that they believed household labor to be women’s work.
I am reluctant to use the word “new” in regards to fatherhood. In regards to semantics, caution should always be taken when conveying that a father is exhibiting “new” behavior in the family. For this reason, it is important to situate the culture and conduct of fatherhood within the appropriate historical context. Reviewing the history makes the notion that the father of today is engaging in parenting activities like never before, very problematic. The work of Douglas and Michaels (2004) was useful in exploring current trends in intensive mothering. However, they reinforce the notion that today’s father demonstrates a new kind of fatherhood. They aptly note
that society views the father who knows the names of his child’s pediatrician as a saint; the mother who does not as a sinner (P. 8). Interestingly, they reinforce this perspective when they note, “Of course there has been a revolution in fatherhood over the past thirty years, and millions of men today tend to the details of child rearing in ways their own fathers rarely did” (p. 7). LaRossa (1997) argues that ignoring the historical context of fatherhood perpetuates a power dynamic between men and women within the family. That is, mothers should not be upset if fathers are not contributing equal amounts of childcare, because at least they are doing more than their fathers did. Historical evidence indicates that fathers may have been changing diapers long before the 1970s.
Not all the fathers in my study described their parenting contributions in terms of difference from their fathers. A few fathers did note differences, but mostly these differences addressed the changing social and economic contexts. The fathers in my study did not have the same concerns as their first generation Indian American fathers had over financial well-being and cultural maintenance for their families. When differences, such as diaper changing or communication, were noted the difference was in reference to Indian fathers, not all fathers in the United States. The fathers in my study carried the perception that they were contributing more to parenting than their Indian fathers did. The implication was that my participants
believed that their childcare involvement was more on par with other American dads. They have incorporated the dominant mainstream American view of not only fatherhood but also parenting into their approach to fathering. They reported engagement in daily childcare activities as well as interest in maintaining emotional relationships with their children. The dynamic in fatherhood between India and the United States, almost suggests that the perceived mainstream American
fatherhood model is preferred. Through the Orientialist lens, Indian fathering is outdated and not relevant in the lives of my participants.
However, fathers were a blend of their American experiences and the ancestral culture of their parents. The fathers in my study did not completely reject the parenting style of their parents. Like their parents, fathers continued to stress the importance of academic excellence. And while they may not attend to the cultural objects, such as language or food, second-
generation fathers considered maintaining these cultural objects and experiences important to the overall family’s culture. Fathers maintained religion in the family and were as likely as mothers to take children to the temple. Consequently, the fathers in my study have developed a multi- dimensional habitus. Comprised of hegemonic views on American parenting, as well as Indian culture, fathers negotiated parenting with a “foot” in each “world.” Based on their perceptions, my participants negotiated different parenting styles that utilize the best from both “worlds.”
CHAPTER 8: