In response to "What Fathers Do Best" by Steven E. Rhoads (Forum, June 19; first published in The Weekly Standard):

Steven Rhoads claims that hormones make women nurturers and men not. His language makes it sound as if science supported this idea, but the truth is that the science of sex differences is inconclusive. It is not science but ancient prejudice behind Rhoads' views.

	David R. Shumway is director of the Humanities Center and professor of English at Carnegie Mellon University (shumway@ andrew.cmu.edu).</<!--End sidebox text-->

Yet even if his hormonal theories were to be validated, one could not derive a moral imperative from them. An excess of testosterone has been associated with a predisposition to violence, yet we do not excuse violent behavior in men, much less urge men to live up to their supposedly violent natures.

Rhoads makes other claims sound scientific when they are at best merely anecdotal. It is not science but "men" who report "babies prefer to be comforted by their mothers." No research has shown a gene that causes men in two-career families to favor more paid childcare than their wives. These anecdotes may have some truth to them, but that truth lies in how they reflect the social status quo.

Men today are much less likely to choose to become full-time parents, but why should this surprise us? Society defines masculinity in part by the role of breadwinner. Men are promised the rewards of money, power, and prestige for going off to work. Hence, it is useful for men to think that babies prefer to be comforted by their mothers, since it helps them feel OK about avoiding the responsibility. Even a man who genuinely wants to spend more time with his children may have good reasons for not doing so.

In many jobs, cutting back on one's hours could mean an end to advancement and might get one fired. Is it surprising then that men would favor paying for childcare? In recent years it has become more acceptable for a man to be a full-time parent, but this has hardly become the norm. Indeed, men's roles have changed relatively little since the industrial revolution. (Before that, fathers did stay home with the children who helped them and their mothers do the work of farming and other domestic production.)

Women's roles have changed more recently, however. Where it was once uncommon for middle-class women to work outside the home, it has now become typical. This fact is ignored by Rhoads who assumes that normally -- or ideally -- only one parent has a career, and he strongly implies that women ought to stay at home with their children. While society continues to tell women in numerous ways that they should be happy to do this, many women find full-time childcare unfulfilling. Women like men want the stimulation, the challenges, and the rewards of work outside the home.

Commentaries like Rhoads' are part of the social apparatus that perpetuates the gender roles he claims are natural. The worst thing about his essay, however, is that it tells men its OK for them not to nurture their children and suggests that they are less than men if they do.

While Rhoads is correct to say that traditional fathering is better than no fathering at all, fathers in our culture are often physically and emotionally remote even when they remain good providers and faithful husbands. Real gender equity would allow men to spend more time with their kids, and women to get the personal fulfillment and social recognition that men now get from work outside the home.

That's why it is in men's interests to promote equity for women, and to demand changes that will make participation in childcare by both parents an expectation of employers.