Following is the English translation of: ONODE Setsuko. "Shohyō: TATSUMI Mariko-cho Ikumen janai 'chichioya no kosodate": Gendai Nihon ni okeru chichioya no otoko-rashisa to <kea to shite no kosodate>," Kazoku kankeigaku 30 (2019): 79-80.
*For citations, please use the original publication.
ONODE Setsuko. “‘Men’s Child-rearing’ Performed by Non-ikumen Men: Fatherhood Masculinity and ‘Child-rearing as a Form of Care’ in Contemporary Japan (Kōyō Shobō, 2018) by TATSUMI Mariko.”
Translated by Benjamin Burton
Translator’s note:
Ikumen is an abbreviation of “ikuji o suru menzu” (men who participate in child-rearing), which was coined as a pun on the popular slang term ikemen (an abbreviation of “iketeru menzu,” which means “good-looking men”) in which men puns on the English word “men” and men (面; “mask” and “face”).
＊＊＊
Since the year 2000, there has been a growing body of research in many fields that has investigated fathers’ involvement in child-rearing. This includes research on the sharing of household chores, men’s studies, research on work-life balance, and more. Much of this research has suggested that long working hours is the major factor that limits a father’s involvement in child-rearing. However, the impact of gender norms on fatherhood has not been addressed in depth. In her work, Tatsumi takes up this issue by focusing on how masculine gender norms impact fathers’ involvement in child-rearing. This book is based on Tatsumi’s doctoral dissertation and it is comprised of four chapters with a conclusion.
The first chapter provides an overview of government policies and preexisting (published) research on fatherhood in postwar Japan. This chapter establishes the book’s research perspective and hypothesis. In the wake of the “1.57 shock,” the government proactively initiated policies to support fathers’ involvement in child-rearing. Beginning with the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare’s “Ikumen Project” in 2010, there were three stages of policy initiatives that lasted until 2017.
Tatsumi also problematizes the fact that “child-rearing” had yet to be defined. To define “child-rearing,” she applies care theory to ‘parent involvement in child-rearing’ from the perspective of a child’s needs. She then calls this “child-rearing as care” and defines it as the “reciprocal actions of the parent, who addresses the physical and emotional needs of the child, who is entirely dependent upon the parent, and the relationships constructed as a result.”
Next, the author establishes two gendered perspectives on the father. One is “breadwinner masculinity” based on the norms of corporate society. The other is “intrinsic masculinity” based on men’s physical characteristics. Combining these with a “child-rearing as care” paradigm, Tatsumi presents eight paradigms of paternal involvement in child-rearing.
Chapters 2 through 4 use data to investigate the theories proposed in chapter 1.
In chapter 2, Tatsumi analyzes depictions of fatherhood and gender norms in magazines for parents with young children. These magazines depict ikumen success stories in which fathers, while still performing the breadwinner role, transform from “reluctant male caregivers” to “willing male caregivers” of their children. However, while the magazines depict fathers participating in the “child-rearing as care,” their roles tend to be differentiated from that of the mother. Fathers are described as doing “manly child-rearing,” which fulfills their responsibilities as both fathers and men. The chapter thus shows a paradox in which gendered divisions of labor become more acute the more fathers become involved in child-rearing. Chapter 3 uses data from testimonials about paternity leave and child-rearing published by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare as part of the Ikumen Project. Tatsumi analyzes the discourse of these testimonials using a “reciprocal model of public/private spheres and gendered divisions of labor.” The chapter focuses on the fathers’ places of belonging (ibasho). The father crosses public (occupational or regional) and private (the home) boundaries. At home, the father negotiates with the mother to establish his own role in child-rearing. In the occupational sphere, the father takes paternity leave to establish his own space as an ikumen. However, Tatsumi argues that to practice “child-rearing as care,” the father as an individual must change, as well as be recognized and understood by those in his surroundings.
In chapter 4, Tatsumi analyzes interviews with nine fathers engaged in child-rearing to investigate their relationship with public/private gender norms. Although the fathers practiced “child-rearing as care,” their working style quantitatively impacted how much they could do. The masculine breadwinner ideology that pervades the occupational sphere has a strong impact not only on fathers, but also mothers, who act as gatekeepers in the domestic sphere. The chapter illustrates how fathers must adjust their working styles and adopt consistent and proactive roles in child-rearing in order to fully realize, both qualitatively and quantitatively, “child-rearing as care.”
In the final chapter, Tatsumi takes in the preceding analysis into account to argue that the occupational sphere, in particular, with its persistent emphasis on breadwinner masculinity, negatively impacts the ability of fathers to perform “child-rearing as care.” This is the dilemma facing modern Japanese fathers engaging in “child-rearing as care” and its connection to gender norms. To combat this issue, Tatsumi argues that the occupational sphere must transform labor in a way that supports those who are in charge of providing care.
One strength of this book is its consistent focus on analyzing the gender norms behind the “breadwinner” concept. It establishes the father as a “boundary crosser” by using a “reciprocal model of public/private spheres and gendered divisions of labor.” One of the book’s major contributions is using empirical data to effectively communicate how the breadwinner masculinity model constrains the father, their workplace, and the mother, even when fathers are proactively involved in child-rearing.
However, there are three issues I would like to address. The first has to do with the notion that father involvement in child-rearing is an inherent good for both the individual and society. I take issue with this. While I share the author’s problematization of the gendered distribution of labor, I question the idea that it is simply good for fathers to be involved in child-rearing when there is an increasing diversity of human relationships being constructed in our day.
The second point concerns the notion of child-rearing. The author posits that the definition of child- rearing thus far has been that of direct care of the child, which Tatsumi rejects for not being scholarly enough. Hence, she defines child- rearing from the perspective of the child’s needs (unless it pertains to the realm of financial support or socialization of the child). It seems to me that Tatsumi’s definition is not generalizable, however. Whereas this book defines the concept of child-rearing based on the theory of “care as social justice,” this particular theory is conceptualized in connection with the nation and its systems. Thus, it makes me wonder if it is appropriate for Tatsumi to exclude societal aspects of parenting from this theoretical framework (again, with the exceptions of financial support for and socialization of the child). Furthermore, a child’s needs can vary greatly. Perhaps this is only my overthinking but discussing child-rearing solely from the perspective the child’s needs evokes images of a mother who is utterly at the mercy of her child, an issue taken up in fields that explore the stress of child-rearing.
Thirdly, Tatsumi argues that finding a place of belonging outside of the workplace can prompt a father’s participation in “child-rearing as care.” Thus, there must be changes in working styles that better support the father’s role as a caregiver. There must be an intervention against the ideology of breadwinner masculinity in the occupational sector to make this a reality. My question here is: who is the subject of this radical change of gender norms in the occupational sphere? How should one understand the father’s own conscious attempt at changing his gender role? I myself have conducted research on the role of fathers in child-rearing. I analyzed interviews using Amartya Sen’s potential capacity approach, which emphasizes the “functions (lifestyles/ways of being)” that are a result of an individual’s wealth and particular characteristics. One finding was that fathers have negotiating power as proactive agents. I look forward to seeing how future analyses can elucidate what kinds of proactive choices fathers can make to overcome the dilemmas brought up in this book.
A strong, critical message is embedded within the book’s title: ikumen do not overcome gender norms. The author describes her own experiences of pent-up frustrations while raising her child, and how that brought her to conduct this research. These concrete experiences add a visceral quality to her investigation of ikumen. Thus, while it is a work of research, it is also imbued with the reality of child-rearing throughout. With this in mind, this book comes highly recommended to the wide variety of individuals who are interested in issues regarding child-rearing and development.
***
Benjamin Burton
Japanese language instructor at Seattle University and the Seattle Japanese Language School. Mr. Burton received a B.A. and M.A. in Japanese language and literature from Portland State University and an M.A. in Japanese Applied Linguistics from the University of Washington. His research interests include manga studies, language play, and second language acquisition.
ベンジャミン・バートン
シアトル大学・シアトル日本語学校日本語講師。ポートランド州立大学にて日本文学の学士号と修士号を取得。修士論文のテーマは小林多喜二の作品のマンガ翻案。その後、ワシントン大学にて日本語応用言語学の修士号を取得。修士論文のテーマは外国語習得におけるランゲージプレイの活用。