EL DIRECTOR GENERAL DE ORGANIZACIÓN Y ESTRUCTURA DEL GOBIERNO

Morgan (2005) discusses the emergence in social policy and public discourses of the idea of an ‘underclass’ and ‘social marginalisation’. He suggests that it is doubtful whether a single masculinity can be identified with the socially-

marginalised. However, he documents the common themes by which this group are often represented in the media: masculine violence, absent fatherhood and long-term unemployment. This group is often discussed in terms of ‘failed masculinity’: these men do not match up to mainstream society’s ideas of what a man should be.

The work of Willott and Griffin (1997) with long-term unemployed men in the West Midlands suggests that these men did not see themselves as having ‘failed’ in terms of masculinity but instead adopted a range of ‘survival strategies’ in order to feel successful. Willott and Griffin suggested there was little evidence that these men used their circumstances (for example, being at home all day) to radically reconceptualise their ideas of masculinity and good fatherhood, for example, constructing a paternal identity around gender equality. Instead these men engaged with dominant ideas of masculinity, such as the provider role, but adopted various strategies to maintain their position in relation to this, such as complementing their benefit payments with casual work.

In many ways Willott and Griffin’s men identified more strongly than their middle-class counterparts with dominant ideals of traditional masculinity. For

example, seeing the man as the financially responsible partner in couple relationships and seeing their own value primarily in terms of what they could provide financially for women. In the main, they saw childcare as ‘women’s work’ and expressed dissatisfaction with being expected to do ‘women’s work’ as well as with the amount of time they spent in the home. This also resonates with the findings of Ferri and Smith (1996) who reported that where fathers were unemployed and mothers working, the sharing of care was not significantly different to that of dual-employed families (in contrast to their findings with working-class fathers). They concluded that male unemployment did not result in a major role reversal of domestic and childcare responsibilities. However, as noted above, today’s unemployed men, living post-2008-recession and in

conditions of austerity may be facing different circumstances, and may construct fatherhood differently, to these unemployed men.

In the current economic climate, there has been a paucity of research on

fatherhood from the perspective of unemployed and marginalised men. Where it has been done, research in this area has focused on specific sub-groups of

marginalised fathers such as teenage fathers or those involved in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, it is possible to gain insights from these pieces of research and they will be surveyed here.

Teen fatherhood is often associated social marginalisation (Nixon et al, 2010). Young fathers are more likely to have fewer years of education, be in low- income jobs, or be unemployed, to live apart from their children and to lose contact with their children (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Cooksey & Craig, 1998; Nixon et al., 2010; Speak et al., 1997). Nixon et al. (2010) report that the young Irish fathers they interviewed conceptualised the three most important aspects of fatherhood as: spending time with children, supporting the child’s mother and going out to earn money. This suggests that amongst teenage fathers, whilst providing was acknowledged as important, emotional and practical support were also recognised as being part of being a good father. This resonates with Buston’s (2010) findings from her work with Scottish young offenders. These disadvantaged young fathers prioritized three aspects of fatherhood: being emotionally close to their children, protection and financial provision. However, Buston reports that the provider role was particularly

emphasized by the young men when they talked about fatherhood. Their lack of ability to fulfil this role was stated by many as the primary reason they did not feel ready for fatherhood. This finding is echoed in other work with young, socially-disadvantaged fathers; that poverty, low income and lack of regular or full-time work is viewed by men as a barrier to good fatherhood and erodes their sense of confidence in their ability to be a good father (Marsiglio & Pleck, 2005; Nixon et al., 2010; Paschal et al., 2011; Speak et al., 1997).

Unemployment is often discussed as causing a crisis of masculinity (e.g. Morgan, 1992; Shirani et al., 2012b; Willott & Griffin, 1997). Men who fear that they may be unable to provide financially for their families may be fearful of being

labelled ‘deadbeat dads’ or ‘feckless fathers’ (Roy, 2004a), engage in criminal behaviour in order to fulfil the provider role (Roy, 2004b; Whittaker, 2008; Willott & Griffin, 1999) or decide to leave the family rather than ‘fail’ in what they perceive as a crucial masculine role (Berger & Langton, 2011; Speak et al., 1997; Willott & Griffin, 1997).

Liebow’s (1967) ethnographic study of African-American inner-city men (cited in Townsend, 2002), describes how men who depended on casual labour or had minimum-wage jobs felt they had nothing to offer the mothers of their children and, because they felt they could not satisfy their own expectations, did not become involved fathers. This is mirrored in Willott and Griffin’s (1997) sample of unemployed men in the UK, some of whom articulated the feeling that it was better to leave, rather than ‘let down’ their partners and children by not being able to provide for them. In his study of low-income families in inner-city neighbourhoods in the US, Wilson (1996) also observed that conditions of high unemployment and low-earnings were linked to the absence of fathers in many families. Marsiglio and Pleck (2005) suggest that:

when men are unemployed or underemployed, they often find it difficult to feel good about themselves as fathers because the provider role continues to be an important feature of hegemonic images of masculinity and men’s fathering experience

(Marsiglio and Pleck, 2005, p.260) There is, however, evidence of change in more recent work. Ross et al.’s (2010) research with the partners of teenage mothers in Scotland, exploring these

men’s attitudes towards parenting and levels of involvement with their children, reported high levels of involvement of these young fathers with their children and a relative lack of consideration of gender in terms of the allocating of parental tasks, such as shopping, earning money and caring for the child. This work may suggest that for a younger generation of socially-disadvantaged men, other facets of being a good father (such as time spent with their child) takes precedence over providing in their paternal identities. However, these young people may reflect an unrepresentative view as they represent young men who had remained in a relationship with their partner and shown commitment to co- parenting. The authors acknowledge that their sample had higher levels of education, work, and family support than many other studies of teen parents.