Growing Support
8. Working and not working with men
The neglect of men in vulnerable families
In both research and practice, the role and influence of fathers and male partners has often been neglected or else loosely subsumed within consideration of parents. Even though the 1980s saw a surge of academic interest in fathers and child development (e.g. McKee and O'Brien 1982), this was not sustained. Likewise, practitioners have recognised the importance of fathers from time to time, but work is still predominantly with women (see e.g. Cleaver 2000) and few early years projects pay particular attention to men.
According to O'Hagan and Dillenberger (1995) there has been consistent marginalisation of fathers both as a potential asset and as a potential risk in family interventions. Hence some children miss out on the potential benefits from men's greater involvement, while in other cases risks posed by the man may be overlooked. There is also little policy or statutory guidance that gives a clear direction on how professionals should be engaging with fathers. This is largely due to the fact that fathers generally are viewed as a social problem rather than a social strength, in relation to many vulnerable families and especially situations of child abuse. In research fathers' effects on children have been considered mainly in terms of their absence, be it as a result of long working hours or their absence from the family home. At a policy level an economic perspective of fathering dominates the debate and as yet there has been little discussion about how professionals can support fathers so they can provide effective parenting (Lewis 2000).
The Children Act (1989) and The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 refer to 'parental' responsibilities as the key concept, without any distinction on the grounds of gender. Williams (1998) makes two salient comments regarding the Children Act 1989: first, that two parents are viewed as providing the optimum situation in caring for children and secondly, that parenting is always shared in an integral way. In practice, as indicated by Daniel and Taylor (2000) this is not always the case, so that male and female parents or parental figures need to be differentiated. It has been argued that the Child Support Act 1991 not only focuses on fathers as 'bad' or uncaring towards their children, but prioritises the economic responsibilities of fatherhood over the father-child relationship.
Consequently the mother inevitably becomes the focus of intervention (Taylor and Daniel 2000). This is apparent in the child protection literature, where it is seen as the mother's role to protect children from abuse, particularly sexual abuse. With regard to neglect mothers have also been blamed and most commonly cited as 'the perpetrators' with little mention of fathers (Swift 1995). Men (not necessarily fathers) commit the majority of sexual abuse and over half of physical abuse (Cleaver and Freeman 1995), yet it appears there is little active working with fathers or male partners. Daniel and Taylor (1999) cite a study carried out by Munro (1988), which showed that social workers often overlooked the male partner in the overall functioning of the family. The study reported that this was due to social workers not making the link between domestic abuse and child abuse and the fact that they were frightened of interviewing potentially violent men.
In contrast to the father/male partner who poses a risk to the family, there are also men who can be an asset. Some studies (Edwards 1998) appear to indicate that an inclusive view of men in the family is largely overlooked by practitioners as they are still strongly influenced by the stereotypical view that women carry out all the care of children and domestic tasks in the house. In effect men, even when not at risk are still 'invisible' (Stanley 1977). This phenomenon not only excludes men who may wish to be more engaged, but fails to draw on potential valuable resources, which are often in short supply for vulnerable families (O'Hagan 1997, O'Hagan and Dillenberger 1995). This last point is of particular importance when considering the recent work on resilience, which has indicated that there are advantages for children who can draw support from a father even if he is not the primary carer (Gilligan 1997).
According to Daniel and Taylor (2000:17), men who are assets can fall into one of four categories:
- a 'partner' with the mother, either taking on the traditional division of labour with the father carrying out the provider role and the mother carrying out the nurturing role, or the less traditional role whereby both share the roles;
- an 'alternative mother' whereby the father is the primary carer;
- a 'luxury' where the father is 'good' to his children and supports the mother; and
- A 'unique father' role, where the man offers something that a mother cannot, such as a good male role model.
In order to assess whether men are a risk or an asset it is important for practitioners to engage with them and not simply focus on the mother. In vulnerable families, men may well combine elements of risk and resource. They can also provide access to other actual or potential supports for children, notably their own close relatives (Daniel and Taylor 1999).
Engaging men
A few writers have suggested ways in which fathers and other male figures in the family could be involved more by service providers, e.g. Daniel and Taylor 2000. Hardly any evidence is available about effectiveness in this area, but a qualitative study has been carried out to examine how family centres are working with fathers (Ghate et al 2000).
This study highlights how social and cultural attitudes make it hard to engage men in mainstream services that have traditionally been targeted at women. This reflects not only habits of thinking and working by professionals, but also fears by staff and female users about risks to the women and children in place that is for some a 'safe haven' from violence at home. Also men themselves are inhibited by preconceptions and anxieties about entering what have traditionally been seen as areas for women only.
Therefore a concerted effort is needed if men are to become more involved. The study showed that in centres where there was an identified strategy for working with fathers, more men attended more often than is typically the case. Interestingly centres that were 'gender blind' and centres that were 'gender differentiated' appeared to be equally successful in engaging men. It was the presence of a clear commitment that was important, rather than the particular approach. Two mechanisms which contributed to engagement were staff visiting men at home and persuasion by female partners. On the other hand, men who did participate regretted that activities were geared only to children or women in ways they found hard to identify with. They were often faced with the choice of being 'ghettoised' in separate men's groups or becoming 'one of the girls' (p. 45). Thus it seems family centres need to work at developing activities which are truly family or parental in nature.